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