He maintains that someone else wrote the articles in question. But he's accepted responsibility, a number of times, for what was written and has condemned the articles.
That's a little different than just saying it was someone else's fault.
It may have been his name, and the newsletters may have listed him as editor, but he really didn't write it, he really didn't edit it and he apparently never read it, either, over the course of a decade.
Maybe he didn't do any of those things. I trust him and accept his word at face value. Do you have any evidence about what his actual role was in the daily operations of those newsletters?
If you don't than you are just engaged in wild speculation and helping to smear a good man. And why? Because you don't agree with some of his politics. Nice.
Which word do you accept at face value? The story he told in 1996? Or the story he told in 2001? Or the story he's telling now?