Where your argument fails is that if you require proof that this ... is untrue, then any vomit, produced by anyone, must be proven to be untrue. Looking for proof of falsity is fundamental to the process of "discrediting". CBS, CNN, ABC, AP and NBC are like gods to a good portion of the American population.
The Internet is becoming an acceptable alternative for up-to-date information for more people every year. Perhaps I'm wrong, but one of the main reasons so many people are turning from the "Media Wing of the Democratic Party", to news sources like FR, is because the process of discussion ultimately leads to greater ACCURACY.
I am an engineer. I was raised by an engineer. The scientific process does require challenging the hypotheses put forth by others. If these memos were put out there by a local weekly paper it would not be worth the effort, but discrediting the big guys is the best way to get people thinking about and questioning what they hear, rather than blindly accepting everything they are told.
That being said, discrediting the memos with bogus "facts" rather than good information, questions the credibility of FR. Under normal circumstances, the process of discussion on FR is what makes it one of the most accurate sources of news. However, when the whole group gets caught up in the excitement of "bash CBS" or "snag the DNC", it becomes more like a witch hunt or an emotion fest and less like a discussion amongst intelligent people.
For instance, many have argued that the Guard could not have afforded the machine that could do this. It's a weak argument at best. I call it the "far-fetched" argument. The "far-fetched" argument looks at the
probability of an occurrence rather than the
logical possibility of an occurrence. Probabilites are useful for determining which theory to test, but they are useless for ruling out 'modus operandi'. The typist could have used the machine anywhere. It could have been in his brother's business or the office of the guy who prints the newsletter. (You may notice that most liberal "expert" witnesses rely heavily on the "farfetched" argument.)
The Scientific Approach would be to determine the authenticity of the original documents through chemical and paper analysis. Handwriting analysis, while moderately subjective, is also helpful. Finding the colonel's fingerprints would be very damning indeed.
Accurately, rather than emotionally proving forgery, in this case would benefit the entire country. It is critical that the American people know if CBS or the rats are lying through their teeth, even if it does put "the burden of proof" on FR.