update: Commenter Bill Appel points out something I haven't seen much mention of - Max Cleland was down in Texans engaged in some shenanigans around this timeframe. Max was contacted by Bill Burkett about the availability of information to fight back against the SBVT. Coincidence? Great observation, Bill.

original post:
CBS is preparing to let us in on a poorly kept secret of theirs - turns out those memos Dan Rather used in his 60 Minutes II hit piece may have been forged! Who knew?!?

The question now is how many heads will roll? How many heads should roll? Which heads? They are going to try to pin this on Mary Mapes, and she needs to go, but is that really where the buck stops? Try to understand just how bogus this story is, and then ask yourself how anyone other than a complete partisan hack could have went forward with it.

Consider:

The source (at least to CBS, more on that to follow) of the documents is a bitterly partisan Texas Democrat activist with a grudge against the Bush family. No, not Dan Rather, "well regarded Texan", Bill Burkett. Someone who bragged to his online Democrat fever swamp buddies that he had "reassembled Bush's file" and provided it to the Democrats to use to fight back against the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ads. How could Rather and company so unquestioningly accept these documents?

Consider Rather's description of the group Swift Boat Vets for Truth in answering that:

Playing the Vietnam card. How an experienced and successful Republican operation
made up of veterans is attacking Vietnam war hero John Kerry.

So the SBVT are dismissed as partisan Republican operatives, even though no link to Republicans has been proven, Bush has denounced their ads, and their leader says he voted for Gore and Perot the last 3 elections, but Bill Burkett is an unimpeachable source?

OK, let's just take into account that CBS is biased, that they want Kerry to win, that Rather has a grudge against Bush and his family, that this would have been a huge story if it were true (it isn't) and could be proven. It is just how things are. That would explain rushing forward with this story despite it being backed up by questionalbe sources with questionable motives - they wanted so much to believe it was true. But wanting to believe something doesn't entirely explain the level of stupidity required to actaully believe it.

How could seemingly intelligent people have looked at this "evidence" and believed it to be credible? Burkett was even't in the Texas Air National Guard - he was in the Army National Guard. Which would explain why the sloppy forgeries more closely resemble, in both form and vocabulary, Army documents than Air Force documents. What would this Burkett know about the inner workings of the TANG? Why didn't CBS talk to actual members of the TANG including ones accused of being influenced by Barnes to accept Bush into the Guard? Why didn't they talk to Killian's relatives? Why didn't they listen to their own document experts who had misgivings about the authenticity of the memos?

Everyone knows that media is biased, but does bias explain the self destructive stupidity involved here? There could be even more yet to be revealed. Burkett has bragged about providing the ammunition to Democrats to fight back against the SBVT. Was the Kerry campaign involved in this? Seems odd that the release of their "Fortunate Son" ad coincided with this story, doesn't it? CBS, in admitting that these documents are bogus, will no longer be under any obligation to maintain the anonymity of their source. That source, possibly facing felony forgery charges, may be inclined to point some fingers of his own. If those pointed at the Kerry campaign, via Barnes, where does this go?