Interesting comment at Cronaca about the documents re GWB's military record, forged or what? (Can't make copying and pasting from the original post work - deliberate on his part or just me being techno-dumb? - so here is the plain link.) His point is: the defenders of the documents sound to him just like people stuck with forged art, and trying to prove (if only to themselves) that they're genuine.

If there are seven reasons to think these things were probably typed in the nineteen nineties, even if they just about could have been typed in the seventies, then they almost certainly were typed in the nineties.

The forger's problem is suppressing the "impress of his own time".

ADDENDUM: RC Dean has an interesting Samizdata posting about how the blogosphere went to work on these forgeries-or-not-as-the-case-may-be-but-probably-they-are. One blogger does not a New York Times make, but the blogosphere does, more than.