JUST WATCHED DAN RATHER ON CBS: The thing that struck me most was his voice — as in the CNN interview linked below, he sounded as nervous and uncomfortable as any news anchor I’ve heard. Compared to the voluminous material about these documents on the Internet and in the Washington Post and on ABC, his story didn’t offer much. And nothing about the widow and the son, who dispute the authenticity of the story: They say that writing memos like this would have been out of character for Killian; Rather instead produced an author of anti-Bush books who said it was in character, but ignored the comments of people much closer to the facts. All told, it was consistent with Power Line’s prediction.

UPDATE: Somebody is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can replicate the CBS documents on a typewriter.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Nick Gillespie is calling it “cover your assgate” and observes: “Maybe this is Dandy Dan’s payback for the tongue-lashing Poppa Bush gave him way back when? Or maybe it’s just a precursor to a flood of ‘Kenneth, What Is the Point Size?’ t-shirts flooding the streets of America.”

MORE: Possible criminal liability for forging these documents is discussed by Eugene Volokh, though I think it’s fair to say that the likelihood of any prosecution is low.

And SayUncle watched the segment repeatedly thanks to TiVo, and has some observations. Plus The Comedian has produced the charming logo visible on the right.

Jeff Quinton liveblogged it. Wizbang looks at the credentials of CBS’s document expert, and observes: “Anyway the Forensics guy said (in a nut shell) that since the signatures match (which they don’t to my layman’s eye) the whole document is legit. Because obviously nobody would scan a signature and paste it into Word.. No, never.”

Here’s some speculation on where Rather might have gotten the documents. It’s just speculation — but, then, Rather won’t say. Here’s a transcript of an interview with a guy who served with Bush and doesn’t think the documents are legit.

And Byron Matthews thinks he knows what the real agenda is here:

I think Rather is not really trying to defend the documents as real; he only needs to build a case that they are good enough fakes so that he and CBS can be excused for being fooled.

At that point the documents will be dismissed as not all that crucial, anyway, old news, who cares, and attention will shift to the he-said/he-said aspects of the case against Bush and his NG service. He started that shift of emphasis tonight.

This may work well enough to save Rather’s job.

Here’s more on CBS’s expert Marcel Matley.

And a reader emails to ask “If the TANG documents are from Killian’s personal file, then why have they been photocopied so many times?”

Good question. And reader Patrick Graham observes: “None of the persons who appeared on camera was on the other side of the issue from CBS. All were defenders of CBS. Such fairness!” They’re noted for that.

Finally, Chris Kanis observes:

Isn’t that interesting?

CBS’s standard for accusing the President of lying, corruption, fraud, dereliction of duty, etc., is “a preponderance of the evidence.”

CBS’s standard for reporting on evidence that contradicts CBS’s initial take, on the other hand, is “definitive evidence.”

In other words, if CBS finds a story bashing the President is 51% likely to be true, they’ll run it. But if the story questions the Gospel according to Dan Rather, CBS won’t touch it unless it’s handed down on stone tablets.

I guess they deserve points for being honest about their agenda.

Or something. And reader Harry Helms — who works in publishing — emails:

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but it seems like CBS is implying they have originals or “near-originals” of the documents.

Do they? If so, they really need to produce them fast for independent examination before they lose what credibility they have left.

I remember the McGraw-Hill/”Howard Hughes autobiography” and Newsweek/”Hitler diaries” fiascoes, and so far CBS is following the McGraw-Hill and Newsweek playbooks exactly.

Seems like a poor choice.

ONE MORE UPDATE: Brian Carnell has more, including a revealing screen capture. “How stupid do they think we are?”

I think they’ve been making that clear for years. . . .

And reader Bob Conyne emails with an amusing analogy:

Dan Rather, 9/10/04:
“I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that MORE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAN HOW WE GOT THE STORY, which is where those who don’t like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE STORY, which I just gave you earlier.”

Dan Rather, interviewed using CBS’ own standard of journalistic ethics:

“Mr. Rather, when did you stop beating your wife?”

“I have never beaten my wife – where did you hear this?”

“It’s not important where I heard it, or even whether it’s true – only your answer to these lingering questions about your wife-beating.”

Heh. That sounds about right.

Meryl Yourish, who has a long background in typesetting and desktop publishing, is mocking Dan Rather’s defenders. “You cannot become an expert in typography by simply Googling information. That’s like saying you’re now a lawyer because you Googled some cases in online law libraries.”

Perhaps we need the IANAT disclaimer, to go with IANAL.