by rose-colored-coolaid » Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:18 am
Robroy, interesting story on the Rather documents. The issue you really run into, at least from the viewpoint of "getting" Rather, is that it's impossible to prove or disprove that he was complicit to the forgery. Proving 100% that they were forgeries, only proves that the guy who made them did so intentionally. In such cases, one treads the fine line between character assassination if he's innocent or letting him get away with wrong doing if he's not.
It's just like when someone is caught plagiarizing. They always say "the quote was unintentional, but I must have related so strongly to that passage that I accidentally typed it in" or "I just forgot to cite that source, it'll be fixed in the next revision". At that point, what do you believe? I will agree the documents in question appear to be forged, but I was just pointing out that there still appears to be some disagreement over even that part of the case, let alone how much blame is attributable to whom. Exciting to actually be involved in something like that though.