It’s looking, to me at least, that the forgery story is, as I suspected, too good to be true. But I really don’t get the canned or sincere outrage from some liberal readers about entertaining the suggestion. The theorizing was certainly in good faith and the whole point of the exercise was to enlist the expertise of blog-readers everywhere. Why is this so scandalous or objectionable? I have no idea. It’s not like I said “prove so-and-so isn’t a pedophile.” The theory is that “60 Minutes” had been duped. Such things have happened before you know. I still think it’s possible, just not probable.

As for me saying I don’t much care about the substance of the story — i.e. Bush’s behavior 30 years ago — that happens to be the truth. I don’t care that much. My conclusion has long been that Bush served enthusiastically for the first few years of his service, as Byron York has reported, and then he took a more laid back approach because the Guard had become more laid back about such things as the Vietnam war was winding-down. This doesn’t make him a deserter but it does suggest that he was too unserious when he was younger. I know there are arguments on both sides, but I really honestly don’t care very much. This allegation was made in 2000 and before and most people have drawn their own conclusions. Bush never touted his Vietnam era service as a reason for him to be president. John Kerry has in spades to the almost complete neglect of a 20 year Senate record. That’s why Kerry’s service and protesting is relevant. For all of these people who thought Clinton’s behavior during Vietnam was a non-story to suddenly be scandalized by Bush’s strikes me as remarkable chutzpah.

So that’s why I was much more intrigued by the forgery allegation than the substance of the documents themselvs. I make no apologies for it.