From what I can gather Onaka certified that the information was on the copy of the birth certificate in the files, but couldn't certify that it was actually true. But why should he? That's not his job. If he accurately says that the copy is a copy of the document on file and the information given is that in the files, he's done his work. He's in charge of records, not in charge of what actually may have happened fifty years ago when the information was filed.
So now, this gets turned around into "he can't vouch the document," when it looks to me like that's exactly what he did. He may have been right or wrong, told the truth or lied, but if he was right and told the truth he did his job. Verifying what actually may have happened 5 decades ago isn't part of his job, and it's probably impossible to "prove" that Obama was born in Hawaii to the degree that bloggers expect and over the doubts that they have.
Verification of birth that “indicates” (line 1) Obama was born in Hawaii. Interesting because in light of the controversy and since it was issued specifically in order to quash such controversy, wouldn't “confirming” be a better choice of words over “indicating”? Just throwing that out there....
Well, no. Bureaucrats like to preserve their distance and their facade before the public. They use language they can hide behind, and eventually this becomes a habit and the habit becomes unbreakable.