I have no idea of the pedigree of the forgery - certainly no one competent would try to replicate a 1971 document on Microsoft Word, which would indicate to me that the forgery was, most likely created by some nobody. We all know there are plenty of nutjobs out there with an axe to grind.

With regard to the possibility that this document was a Carl Rove plant: I'm not advocating this theory, as I have no way of deciding. However, worth noting is that Karl Rove has a well-known history of these sorts of dirty tricks. The question is not whether Rove WOULD do something like leak an obviously forged document.

1) there is strong suspicion that Karl Rove planted a "red herring" bug in his own candidates' office in a previous election campaign

2) Mr Rove was FIRED from Bush I's 1992 campaign for using Bob Novak as a strategic leak.

Let's not kid ourselves. Karl Rove is a bad bad man, and capable of any dirty trick you can think of. Like I said, I don't know where the document came from - it was either an inept forgery by a fringe hack or a plant. Where do YOU think it came from?

Fe Wm.,

Good, thoughtful responses. Thanks much!

I have no idea of the pedigree of the forgery - certainly no one competent would try to replicate a 1971 document on Microsoft Word, which would indicate to me that the forgery was, most likely created by some nobody. We all know there are plenty of nutjobs out there with an axe to grind.

Indeed. I find it quite believable that it could have been some person acting independent of any party connections. But, sadly, the evidence doesn't currently seem to suggest that.

But the proverbial fat lady ain't sung yet on this one, so we'll all see...

However, worth noting is that Karl Rove has a well-known history of these sorts of dirty tricks...

And then, as "well-known history" or "dirty tricks" you give us:

there is strong suspicion that Karl Rove planted a "red herring" bug in his own candidates' office in a previous election campaign

Which simply means that Karl found a bug, claimed it was his opposition, and they claimed it was him playing a dirty trick.

Is there any strong evidence he did it? Or are we just supposed to believe he did it because -- well, you know -- he's a dirty trickster. (Circular reasoning, guilt by suspicion.)

By the same token, I could use the same incident to "strongly suspect" that Democrats were the one behind the bug. Then use that to show what "dirty trickers" Democrats are, having not only planted a bug in Karl's office, but then having had the audacity to claim it was him, bugging himself.

Indeed, that's the other logical possibility. If my "suspicion" is all it takes to prove something, then I guess I've proven that now, and provided even more evidence for Democratic dirty tricks.

Or is mere supicion suddenly not a way to "prove" things now that I suggest the idea?

Mr Rove was FIRED from Bush I's 1992 campaign for using Bob Novak as a strategic leak.

That I can believe in a minute. That would put Karl in the same scummy league with ... uh ... most politicians who have ever served in Congress.

Leaks are a dime a dozen. You get them from Kerry's group all the time. The only thing unusual here is the Bushes' well-known hatred of leaks, and willingness to fire people over them.

So in short, what you have on Rove is that some people suspect him.

Wow. Sure put me in my place.

Let's not kid ourselves. Karl Rove is a bad bad man, and capable of any dirty trick you can think of.

I can think of killing people to shut them up. Thus Rove is guilty of it. Stunning logic.

I hope you're never tried by a jury of your peers who rely on the same kind of specious reasoning you do. It appears to be wholly circular: (a) He's bad. (b) Therefore, all evidence in the past will be evaluated in light of the belief that he's bad; he will be given no benefit of any doubt ever. (c) Based on this evidence, evaluated with the assumption that he's bad, we know bad.

Like I said, I don't know where the document came from - it was either an inept forgery by a fringe hack or a plant. Where do YOU think it came from?

I think it came from someone who wanted to discredit Bush. I think Rather and his producer, and others, digging around for four years, looking for the smoking gun memo which would say exactly what they needed for their story, undoubtedly asked for something matching that description.

After enough time, someone, probably Burkett or an associate, decided it would be helpful to actually find the desired memo.

So they suddenly "found" this memo (they'd allegedly had for about 30 years), Burkett called Cleland, who referred him to Kerry's camp, who then put them onto CBS's investigation, which had been working closely with the Kerry people.

I can't prove that's right, but the motivations fit, the characters fit, and the phone records match, as do the Kinkos' ID on the fax'd memos.

It makes no sense anyway!

No one forges evidence to make themselves or their candidate in this case look bad.

It just doesn't happen.

I mean think about it. What if nobody had caught on that it was a forgery? What if nobody cared?

In fact the type of reasoning that the Democrats came up with was actually used in a criminal case once.

Seems this guy was convicted of treason based on what later turned out to be fake documents with
his signature forged. When the case was retried after the conspiracy was exposed the prosecution tried
to say that the defendent had forged the documents himself.

The defense then asked why the defendent would have forged such a document? To say that Colonel
Alfred Dreyfuss was cleared of all charges in the wake of this and had all ranks and privilages restored
should go without saying!