I don't really care much about the possibly forged National Guard documents. There's plenty of evidence elsewhere (see US News and World Reports) that shows W didn't fulfill his duty.
But where do you think those documents came from? Hmmm. Let's look at Karl Rove's history: in an earlier race he managed for the Texas governor's seat, he called a press conference the day of a crucial debate, claiming a security company he hired to sweep his office found a listening device. Rove blamed the opposing campaign. Representatives from the security company refused to go under oath to explain how they found the bug. Wonder why?
Then during the 2000 election, an unsolicited videotape of Bush debate prepping showed up on the Gore campaign doorstep. They turned it over to the FBI, but Rove cried, "Foul"!
But why would he set this whole document shebang into motion? First, he knew that several media outlets were sniffing around Bush's service and that there were real problems with his record; second, he knew he could rely on a group of right-wing media waterboys to carry the ball for him in helping to claim the documents were false and the Democrats had forged them.
Think about it: within hours of the "60 Minutes" report, a bunch of righty website were claiming the documents were forged. Were they all really experts on typography? Please.
And what's the controversy about now? Not W's service; it's about the documents. And think about who wins that debate: Rove.