[Paradox]

I posted in another thread that _IF_ the documents proved legit, we'd have to debunk what they really mean. I have seen others (before we went crazy here with the forgery story) say that the memo's don't really reflect as badly on Bush as the media says they do. So JUST IN CASE, we need to debunk them anyways if they are LEGIT. Otherwise, we have given them more "Gravitas" then they deserved in the first place.

I still say Dan Rather has a hand on the rug and is waiting to pull it out from under us...

[narby]

I will remain convinced they're fake. But I don't discount that they could SELL the idea that they're genuine.

We'll have to outsell them.

If they're fake, it's game, set, match for Kerry. I'd like to put this away rather than continue to fight it.

[alnick]

They cannot be legit. That's impossible. There was no typewriter in the 70s that could produce a document that would be absolutely identical to a document produced by MS Word today.

Then on top of that you have the fact that Killian's superior who was mentioned by name had already retired by the date of the memo.

Then there's the fact that both the widow and the son of Killian say that not only did these NOT come from the family (where else would they get ahold of PERSONAL files?) but the content of the memos is not consistent with what they knew about Killian.