One oddity in Howard Kurtz’s story is his continuing agnosticism about the forged documents. He complacently accepts the absurd notion that the documents’ authenticity is beyond verification: “Mapes is right that the purported 30-year-old memos by Bush’s long-dead squadron commander have not been proved to be forgeries…” Why does he grant her this concession? Just to make his criticism of her seem a little more even-handed?Â
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.
