I have yet to see a comprehensive, balanced, and dispassionate review of the CBS/Dan Rather memos. Even at this late date, I think there is more smoke than fact.
But no less than the Columbia Journalism Review has published an article on the subject.
Unfortunately, all that I can get out of it is that Republicans had a strategy to deflect criticism by attacking everything and anything via blogs (well, duh). Some of said blogs being created, funded, and written by Republicans (double duh). The result of which produced postings that ignored inconsistencies in their stories but attacked Democrats and their fellow travelers "like witches in Salem, while Bush's defenders forged ahead, their affinities and possible motives largely unexamined."
These attacks effectively killed the real story: President Bush got preferential treatment while in the National Guard.
But I agree with the CJR's final conclusion that CBS should not have gone with the original story because the documents could not be substantiated (which is not the same thing as saying the documents were forged).
Aloha!
