[drt1]

"Dan Rather, too, continues to believe in the authenticity of the documents on the ground, as he told the panel, that no one provided evidence the documents were not authentic."

Danny boy, even with your biased, opportunistic approach to journalism even you know that the standard is Proof of the authenticity of the documents BEFORE going to air. What a nuanced, newspeak crock! (As I've said too many times about this)

[Mr. K]

You make a good point- Ted Baxter- I mean Dan Rather says is has not been show proof they were fake? The proof should be that they were AUTHENTIC and BEFORE they went to air with them.

If Ted- I maen Dan still is not convince that rpoportional spaced font with superscript TH was not availanble in the 70's then he is too stupid to be a journalist.

[calex59]

We all know that the docs are fake. Several experts proved beyong a doubt that they were done on MS word with a times roman font. These guys are typical liberals. Bring out a fake report to prove that, while not exactly the right thing to do, they were really not such bad guys after all! They have not heard the end of this.

[Inwoodian]

I agree with you totally. This is a matter of burden of proof. It is akin to a civil trial. Only by meeting the burden of proving the authenticity of a document does the burden shift to the side opposed to it to debunk it. No proof of authenticity- no burden shift. The document is deemed of no probative value.