Scott Bateman just posted this to his blog:

I just posted as a reply to a comment, but I feel like I ought to post it here in the main part of my journal, too.

• There's some talk in the news today that the documents used in their 60 Minutes piece on Bush's Air National Guard years are forgeries.
• That contention is based on two faulty premises:
  
  • That "proportional type" didn't exist before the 1980s, which is patently untrue--IBM started marketing typewriters with proportional type in 1941; by the late 1960s, IBM typewriters with that featue were very common in the workplace (IBM being, after all, the world leader in business machines at the time).
    That the superscript "th" could only have been done in Microsoft Word. In fact, IBM made typewriters with superscripts like "th" and "st." Plus, if you look at the "th," it's not spaced the same way it is in Microsoft Word.
    
• Apparently, the "expert" the Washington Post interviewed is simply a general forensics expert who called the docs forgeries based only on the superscript "th"--it's pretty sad when a cartoonist knows more about typewriters than somebody who gets paid to be an "expert" on this crap.
• Also--even IF the documents are forgeries? The White House has NOT disputed ANY of the facts in the documents. And it still doesn't change the fact that Bush didn't show up anywhere to serve in the National Guard when he moved to Boston to go to Harvard Business School, or that he disobeyed a direct order--these facts appear elsewhere in non-disputed documents.
• This is simply the wingnuts trying to change the subject when they can't win the argument on the merits. AGAIN.

Update:  The Daily Kos has a great follow-up to this with detail on how these documents most likely WERE made with a typewriter rather than Word.