Where Was W Waldo?

This reveals much about your mindset. To put it as mildly as I can, it bespeaks a high susceptiblility to confirmation bias of assertions that tend to reflect poorly on political candidates you don't like.This is hardly consistent with critical thinking and skepticism. Why should there be ? The burden of evidence is on CBS to demonstrate that the documents themselves are valid, and the assertions therein are valid. Are we to accept argumentum ad verecundiam of the form "Dan Rather says so, therefore it must be true" ?By your line of argument, the fact that Kerry was slow to deny the claims of the Swifties suggests there is some truth to those claims.Not that I agree with that. I am merely demonstrating that your reasoning is as poor as those who make such claims.

It is within the range of possibility that some pro-Bush group did the forgeries. However it's not the most likely option, for a number of reasons:1) There is no evidence of it AFAIK, present some if you know otherwise.2) The more straightforward tactic of attacking Kerry's record seems effective enough, so why a Byzantine scheme such as this ?3) The party most discredited if, as seems likely by the preponderance of the evidence, the documents are forgeries is CBS News, regardless of who did the forgeries.CBS News failed to detect that the documents were forged, evidence of sloppy journalism, and jumped on the documents like a hungry shark, (admittedly weaker) evidence of an eagerness to discredit Bush.