"the documents were forged" bandwagon:
That may be the same wagon I am on! ;)
The typography and signature arguments are beyond my level of expertise. I can buy that they are forgeries based upon those arguments; BUT WHAT IS THE POINT? If you are going to forge something, why would it be something so innocuous? I understand about muddying waters and misinformation and mudslinging, but if Carville or his ilk were behind this, they would have come up with something a little even slightly damning, wouldn't they?
The memos, in a CYA sense, do not raise a red flag by their mere existence. Some of the things that have been mentioned, e.g. military wording or abbreviations, adherence to the memo format, etc. -- also do not raise red flags.
This is the national guard, and most officers and enlisteds (e.g. clerks) were drilling only on weekends, so may not have the same perfection of using the military format as a full-timer would have. They spoke civilian talk the rest of the time, so may not have used the full lingo. These are memos dashed off for local file ONLY, so would not have been proofread for style, etc., as formal military correspondence would have.
WHAT IF:
1. there were memos in the commander's file:
2. they were even more innocuous then these; so some clever Dim staffer doctored them up by re-writing them to make them a little more inflamatory?
3. that way, if anyone had personal knowledge of those memos, they would be "close enough" not to raise suspicions?
4. that way, actual dates would have been used, in order to be straight with the dates things actually happened and could be checked out(i.e. a real drill date, instead of a made up date pulled out of the air)?
what think ye?
My problem has been that the content doesn't seem damaging. A couple other freepers have stated similar to you (via freepmail to me and on another thread) that maybe a wee bit of tweaking went on to give them "spinnability".
Heads up: Brit Hume is going to cover the "questions of the authenticity" of these documents in a minute.