::1) Whether or not the contents fit is the wrong question.  As noted, a forger would know what to put in the forgeries, so whether or not they match proves nothing.  If they don't match, that might be significant. 
 ::2) The question of provence/chain of custody:  Disagree.  Reliable news sources tracked the documents back to Bill Burkett, and found only shifting assertions from him about the source of the documents.  Other investigations into circumstantial aspects of provenance (like Killian's view of Bush, the secretary's recollections of what type of memos were typed, the ability of a military organization of Killian's type and time even to produce such a document, all showed it is unlikely the docs are from Killian). 
 ::3) About the forgery issue: the best that can be said is news organizations have an ethical obligation to authenticate material prior to disseminating it, and that no experts have been able to authenticate the documents, for many reasons. 
 ::4) I would have to review the panel's findings again on this subject.  Let me get back to you.  However, either way, I don't think it's relevant.  Even if there was pressure, that should be covered in the GWB military service controversy.  It doesn't shed light on this story.  Correlation doesn't imply causation. 
 ::5) The documents controversy distracted...:It depends.  It didn't distract me; can't see how to find empirical evidence for this article to support that generally, and even if it could be supported, so what? 
 ::6) The contents of the original CBS newsast is ludicrously mis-described in the article.  Agree/Disagree?  Disagree.  Could be improved, though. 
 ::7) Disagree.