September 20, 2004
Trail Of Connections
A trail of connections suggests that the Kerry campaign is involved with Dan Rather’s forged documents.
Republican National Committee Communications Director Jim Dyke issued a statement summarizing the trail of connections:
Bill Burkett, Democrat activist and Kerry campaign supporter, passes information to the DNC; Kerry campaign surrogate Max Cleland discusses "valuable" information with Bill Burkett; Bill Burkett talks to "senior" Kerry campaign officials; an apparently unsuspecting news organization uses faked forged memos and an interview with Ben Barnes at the same time the Democratic National Committee launched Operation Fortunate Son; and Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill was among the first to call Ben Barnes and congratulate him after his interview. The trail of connections is becoming increasingly clear.
Dyke's statement is supported by a number of press reports.
The Washington Post reported that Bill Burkett is the suspected source of Dan Rather's forged documents. After Burkett was named as a possible source of the papers, The Washington Post reported on Thursday, that the documents faxed to CBS bore markings indicating that they had been faxed from a Kinko's in Abilene, 21 miles east of here.
Saturday, the Washington Post reported on parallels between Rather's forged documents and Burkett's internet postings:
In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed "down and dirty" tactics against Bush. He said that he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed "afraid to do what I suggest."
In another message, dated Sept. 4, Burkett hinted he might have had advance knowledge of some details in an explosive segment that aired Sept. 8 on CBS's "60 Minutes." In addition to airing footage of an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes saying he helped Bush get into the Guard, the network broadcast documents purporting to show that Bush had disobeyed a direct order to take a physical required to continue flying in the spring of 1972.
[. . .]
For his part, Burkett said in an Aug. 25 posting to a different Web site, Online Journal, that he and other researchers had "reassembled" files showing that Bush did not fulfill his oath to obey his superior officers.
[. . .]
The CBS documents include several phrases that crop up in Web logs signed by Burkett, including "run interference," and references to a pilot's "billet." Former Air National Guard officers have pointed out that "billet" is an Army expression, not an Air Force one. Burkett has also used the expression "cover your six," a military variant of the vulgar abbreviation "CYA," which appears in one of the CBS documents.
In an Aug. 21 posting, Burkett referred to a conversation with former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) about the need to counteract Republican tactics: "I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with. But none of them have called me back."
Cleland confirmed that he had a two- or three-minute conversation by cell phone with a Texan named Burkett in mid-August while he was on a car ride. He remembers Burkett saying that he had "valuable" information about Bush, and asking what he should with it. "I told him to contact the [Kerry] campaign," Cleland said. "You get this information tens of times a day, and you don't know if it is legit or not."
The Houston Chronicle reports that Burkett has a long history of making charges against Bush and the Texas National Guard and notes that Burkett's allegations have changed over the years, and have been dismissed as baseless by former Guard colleagues, state legislators and others:
Even Burkett has admitted some of his allegations are false.
Burkett wrote a long indictment against Bush for a Web site in 2003 in which he said he personally was ordered to "alter personnel records of George W. Bush." In that article, Burkett said that when he refused he was sent to Panama as punishment, where he contracted a disabling disease.
But when asked about that charge by the Houston Chronicle in February, Burkett said, "That statement was not accurate, that is overstated."
According to the Houston Chronicle, if Burkett is the source of Rather's forged documents Burkett must have recently obtained them:
One month ago, in an essay posted on a progressive Web site, Burkett theorized that Killian would have been a likely person to know more about Bush's service. But, he conceded, "I have found no documentation from LTC Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to ... cover for the failures of 1Lt. Bush ... "
If Burkett is in fact the source, then CBS got them from a man with a well-established history of Bush loathing and didn't question it.
The Associated Press reports that Burkett passed along information to a former senator working with John Kerry's campaign:
A retired Texas National Guard official mentioned as a possible source for disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Guard said he passed along information to a former senator working with John Kerry's campaign.
Ben Barnes, interviewed by Rather in the "60 Minutes'" hatchet job, is a close friend and top fundraiser for John F. Kerry. The Cox News Service reports that Barnes, a well connected Democrat, is a Kerry partisan.
Ben Barnes was elected the Texas House of Representatives in 1959. Five years later he was House speaker. Four years after that Barnes served two-year terms as lieutenant governor. According to Cox:
By 34, his career as a candidate was over, a victim of being on the periphery of a legislative scandal – known as "Sharpstown" – involving banking legislation approved by lawmakers who benefitted from it. Barnes was never charged with wrongdoing, but the taint helped make him a third-place finisher in the 1972 Democratic gubernatorial primary.
He became a wealthy lobbyist and one of the nation's most dependable Democratic fundraisers, especially for U.S. senators.
According to Newsweek, Beth Cahill, Campaign Manager for the Kerry campaign was among the first to make a congratulatory call to Ben Barnes late last Wednesday night after his 60 Minutes interview.
The Democratic Party's "Fortunate Son" video contains part of the interview in which thoroughly discredited Ben Barnes is interviewed by the even more thoroughly Dan Rather.
In 2001, the Washington Post reported that Rather spoke at a Democratic fundraiser. Rather excused this partisan behavior by saying he "didn't ask the question, and I should have."
Finally, the focus on President Bush's service in the National Guard was started by Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. February 1, 2004, on ABC's "This Week," McAuliffe said that Democrats would make reports that the president went "AWOL" from the Alabama National Guard in the early 1970s a central focus of the presidential campaign. Unfortunately, McAuliffe was true to his word.
Regardless of all the media attention, this failed attempt Democrats and CBS to smear is not only irrelevant; it is unimportant and an indication of how desperate the Democrats have become in their failing effort to defeat President Bush.
During the 1992 campaign, Mr. Kerry defended then-candidate Bill Clinton, saying:
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways ... We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam, reduced to simple campaign rhetoric.
That was a wise position in 1992, it would have been an even more wise position a decade later. It's unfortunate that Kerry flip flopped on this issue as well.
During this time of war, the primary focus of the presidential campaign should be about which candidate can better conduct the war against terrorism. By focusing on a failed attempt to smear the president, the media and the Democrats have diverted the voters attention from the real issues.
Posted by Dan Spencer at September 20, 2004 04:10 AMBy focusing on a failed attempt to smear the president, the media and the Democrats have diverted the voters attention from the real issues.
I agree, but I think you have to give credit to the GOP for getting their retaliation in first with the swift-boat-vets and that, and in so doing leave the DNC with sloppy seconds when it comes to smearing. Right from the start, the voters have been diverted from the real issues. The Democrats have quite clearly not been alone in this, which I think makes your last sentence astonishingly disingenuous.
And if what you say is true about the DNC being involved in this “smear”, then that makes them astonishingly stupid because if they were to stick to the issues Bush would be toast.
The GOP must be delighted that the voters have been distracted from the real issues, because things are not looking good for the war on terrorism at the moment. Iraq is a mess.
Blair came out yesterday and said that the British (if not the US) were now fighting a new conflict in Iraq, and one in which the very future of the war on terrorism was at stake. And this is all because of the incompetent manner in which the war in Iraq has been handled by the Bush admin. How Iraq ever became central to the war on terror in the first place is beyond my limited comprehension, but it is now, and apparently it’s not looking good, with the very presence of US troops inflaming the situation they are trying to soothe. Which puts them in an unpalatable catch-22 situation. That’s quite a bind.
Dan,
Could this be the Democrats talking about Swift boat Vets?
“By focusing on a failed attempt to smear the president our candidate, the media and the Democrats Republicans have diverted the voters attention from the real issues.”
Playing tit for tat on BS while avioding the responsiblity of the truth. You get no points on this one.
Just for fun, where is Bush’s discharge medical examine on his web site? I couldn’t find it.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 20, 2004 06:23 AMAs an addendum to my previous post, I would like to explicitly state that this issue is being used by BOTH parties to divert voters away from the issues. The GOP and conservative commentators in order to muddy the waters and distract from Dubya’s mishandling of Iraq, and by the DNC (if involved) as revenge for the swift boat ads and because they’re inept at coping with the way the current election campaign.
Posted by: Bob Hope at September 20, 2004 06:38 AMBill Burkett, Democrat activist and Kerry campaign supporter, passes information to the DNC; Kerry campaign surrogate Max Cleland discusses “valuable” information with Bill Burkett; Bill Burkett talks to “senior” Kerry campaign officials; an apparently unsuspecting news organization uses faked forged memos and an interview with Ben Barnes at the same time the Democratic National Committee launched Operation Fortunate Son; and Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill was among the first to call Ben Barnes and congratulate him after his interview. The trail of connections is becoming increasingly clear.
This is not as clear a trail as it’s made out to be. It’s all circumstantial, unlike the two Bush campaign employees working directly for SBVT. There is no direct connection and both Burkett and Cleland admit that nothing came of the phone call regarding the issue.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 20, 2004 07:43 AMWho provided the forged documents to CBS is less important than what CBS did with them. It is sad that this is the end for Dan Rather, but even sadder that CBS, the home of Edward R Murrow, is showing such arrogance in handling this affair. Rather looks like one of those guys that 60 Minutes used to corner with questions about their wrongdoing and CBS is behaving the Nixon Whitehouse. Rather is not a crook. My question is what possessed CBS to go on air with such a weak story? I can’t believe it was simple dislike of GWB. What was CBS thinking?
Posted by: jack at September 20, 2004 08:57 AMBlogger Who Faulted CBS Is Conservative Activist
Sorry about the screw ups, these links work!
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 20, 2004 09:01 AMBush’s campaign lawyer was advising the Swift Boat Liars for Bush, and his veteran’s coordinator was actually in the ad!!!
Wake me when you find that kind of connection. Until then, Bush went AWOL and his friends in high places covered for him.
BTW, it seems to me that Kerry was at least honest about opposing the Vietnam War. Bush signaled his opposition by pulling some strings. Even Powell says Bush is a shmuck for that.
American Pundit,
Even Bush said that Kerry was more heroic than he. I am glad to see the democrats ‘putting on the noose’ this way. Democrats seem to denounce lying even as they lie and smear, and say Republican lies made me do it!
Better, they come off as very petty and mean.
The scandal of this story is that Democrats successfully enlisted Dan Rather and CBS to do their dirty work. They got caught because of their arrogance and extreme sloppiness. I believe the journalistic axiom is that the coverup is worse than the crime.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 20, 2004 12:28 PMDan Rather—- Dan Spencer are they linked?
Posted by: Greg at September 20, 2004 12:55 PMThis is what Democrats say before they step up their attacks on Bush’s service:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Saturday night urged President Bush to “stand up and stop” what he called personal attacks on him over his combat record in Vietnam.At a fund-raiser attended by about 750 people, Kerry said the attacks by a group of Vietnam veterans and former Swift Boat commanders have intensified “because in the last months they have seen me climbing in America’s understanding that I know how to fight a smarter and more effective war” against terrorists.
“That’s why they’re attacking my credibility. That’s why they’ve personally gone after me. The president needs to stand up and stop that. The president needs to have the courage to talk about it.”
abcnews.go.com
I wonder if the reason they put out ‘fortunate son’ is they know that Bush is fighting a better war on terror? That they can’t argue the issue and so have to attack Bush’s credibility?
Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 20, 2004 12:58 PMWe should be outraged by the hypocrites in the media. Honestly, does anyone remember the “diagram of connections” showing how the swift boat vets were linked to the Bush campaign?
Now we have a much more damning situation, with clear links to the Kerry campaign, and a distinct lack of journalistic impetus to connect the campaign to the crime.
There is no excuse for this. Say what you will about Bush, but if this is the kind of media behavior the left supports, then they are building their own tomb.
Posted by: Damon at September 20, 2004 01:16 PMBush’s campaign lawyer was advising the Swift Boat Liars for Bush,
Attorneys routinely handle a number of clients, including the Kerry campaign’s Robert Bower who continues to do work for Americans Coming Together, an anti-Bush organization. Bower made the decision to remain working for both Kerry and ACT, which is perfectly legal. Ginsberg, on the other hand, resigned because he felt that the attacks on him (that old lefty double-standard again) were creating a distraction from the issues in the campaign, not because he did anything inappropriate. Using your logic, most of the law firms in DC would lose a substantial part of their clients.
and his veteran’s coordinator was actually in the ad!!!
You got this one partially right, but ignored the fact that retired Colonel Cordier, was a volunteer worker who spent six years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. He stated that he failed to notify the Bush campaign when he agreed to appear in a Swiftie ad and he promptly resigned as a Bush volunteer.
Wake me when you find that kind of connection. Until then, Bush went AWOL and his friends in high places covered for him.
Well, when you awaken and find a solid source for your AWOL charge, please post it. Dan Rather said that he and his producer Mary Mapes have been investigating this allegation for nearly five years. The best they were able to come up with were a few documents that anyone with an Air Force background would know instantly were poor forgeries.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 20, 2004 01:25 PMBob Hope writes: “As an addendum to my previous post, I would like to explicitly state that this issue is being used by BOTH parties to divert voters away from the issues.”
How right you are, Bob! — And this post is a perfect example of how they’ve both succeeded. Supporters for both sides are shouting “Liar!” as though they actually believe their candidate is honest and straightforward and concerned with issues.
On another note, how many idiots were involved in this debacle of the documents? First you have the creator, who believed no one would question his use of Word to create the document, then you have CBS and Dan Rather, who apparently ran the story without even the most casual investigation of the document, then you have supporters of both candidates trying to use the whole thing to discredit the other side. Let’s be honest with each other: This should NOT be an issue in the campaign, regardless of whether the documents are fake or not. But now it is, and we don’t know what either candidate is actually going to do if he wins.
Posted by: Alejo at September 20, 2004 01:47 PMNototh:
You beat me to the punch in waking AP up. Hard to believe he was still asleep and oblivious to those obvious connections, but I’ll believe him since he admitted it.
To all:
I havent seen a direct connection yet between the Kerry campaign and the memos. It’s beginning to appear that its a partisan based effort to discredit Bush, but that doesnt mean it starts with Kerry’s campaign. This bears looking into, especially if its proven that Burkett is involved, since its known he talked with Cleland etc. But for the moment, its still unsubstantiated.
What IS substantiated is that CBS screwed up in a major league way. First, they put out a glitzy story, but one that is easily shown to be faulty. Their internal vetting process is shown to be horribly flawed. But they dont admit it—-they defend it and thus make the story worse. Now they have to publicly admit that they were duped, which damages their credibility. Its not beyond the pale to imagine CBS being complicit in the falsification, nor is it beyond the pale to imagine the Kerry campaign being involved. But these things, until proven, will remain in the imagination.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 20, 2004 01:53 PMNow they have to publicly admit that they were duped, which damages their credibility. Posted by joebagodonuts at September 20, 2004 01:53 PM
CBS News went way past its normal dislike for Republicans on this one. That suggests either incompetence or fraud, and I’ve never considered Dan Rather to be incompetent.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 20, 2004 02:05 PMNOTOTH wrote: “CBS News went way past its normal dislike for Republicans on this one. That suggests either incompetence or fraud, and I’ve never considered Dan Rather to be incompetent.”
I thought bloggers were above this sort of dark implication of conspiracy. Isn’t it most likely that CBS was duped because they got all frothy over the idea of scooping everybody, and now they just look like idiots?
Posted by: Alejo at September 20, 2004 02:17 PMI thought bloggers were above this sort of dark implication of conspiracy. Isn’t it most likely that CBS was duped because they got all frothy over the idea of scooping everybody, and now they just look like idiots? Posted by Alejo at September 20, 2004 02:17 PM
I’ll meet you halfway and agree that CBS News was probably very receptive to the probability that the allegations were true. I think they were more frothy about doing an expose on Bush than they were about scooping the competion.
Anyway, I didn’t accuse them of a conspiracy. I don’t believe that Rather sat down with Terry McAuliffe for help in assembling that report.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 20, 2004 03:00 PMNOTOTH —
I’m not arguing one way or the other, but why do you think CBS is anti-Bush? By that I mean, what would it gain them to be so?
No, you didn’t accuse CBS of conspiracy, you merely implied it, with this sentence: “That suggests either incompetence or fraud, and I’ve never considered Dan Rather to be incompetent.”
With two options — fraud or incompetence — and with one discarded by you, that leaves fraud. Since Dan Rather probably did not type the documents himself, that leaves us with conspiracy.
But I’m not trying to split hairs.
I believe that
1) CBS was in direct contact with the DNC on the story.
2) The blogger Buckhead was a GOP plant.
3) Texas politics are hardball.
Posted by: George at September 20, 2004 05:02 PMThere is a term I coined years ago for folks who see cause and effect where evidence only supports correlation, it is “Cloud Reading”. You know, you throw out a blanket on a park lawn with a friend or offspring, lie back, look up at the sky, and point out elephants, donkeys and ice castles in the clouds. Of course, there are no elephants, donkeys, or ice castles really in the sky, just the appearance which our minds impose on the cloud’s shapes.
A lot of that going around in poltiics today. Cloud Reading is becoming America’s favorite political pasttime.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2004 06:54 PMBurkett’s a loose cannon. Your own material said the DNC refused to use his methods. Now, the question is not the politics of the sources, but the factuality of the material. The Documents are now stipulated on all sides to be forgeries. But Ben Barnes? It’s obvious Ben Barnes is not politically neutral, further obvious that Ms. Knox isn’t either, but the real question is the reliability of their testimony.
So far, the Bush administration’s only response has been to say the charges are recycled, not that they are false, on both counts. You have a former Texas Speaker of the House, who pulled strings, and you haven’t disproved that at all. You have the secretary of an officer who putatively wrote the documents who says the documents are fake, but says their content is not. So far, Bush’s camp has given little countervailing evidence if any. Their way of debunking is to allege a conspiracy. Kind of convenient because denying conspiracies only makes the believers insist on them more firmly.
So tell me, Dan, where’s the evidence that contradicts them? Did the Men in Black take it away?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2004 07:03 PMStephen:
Its a strawman argument, first of all. And second of all, its been brought back up using falsified documents as the inherent truth behind it.
We all can assume that Bush most likely got special treatment to get into the TANG. We also can assume that Bill Clinton got special treatment to get draft deferrals. We can assume that Al Gore got a plum assignment far away from combat due to his family connections. Howard Dean, John Kerry, Dan Quayle…..all from influential families. It just isnt that big of a deal.
That Marian Knox ALLEGES that the information is accurate is not good enough. There is a standard of proof to be met. Her comments are enough for someone to want to know more, but if there is no further proof other than her statement, then there is no proof. Its that simple.
Stephen, in an earlier thread, you were discussing Kerry’s Viet Nam history and complaining that it was a diversion from real issues. I challenged you to leave the past in the past, and focus on the issues, and you agreed. Is the past suddenly relevant once again only because there is something that might look bad for the REPUBLICAN candidate? Could that be why you are once again backtracking on your stated committment to leave the past alone, and focus on the “real” issues?
You made the statement that what happened 30 years ago is just a diversion. Yet here you are transporting yourself back there again to rehash things. The real question is why? There are enough real issues to discuss, as you yourself have stated. Why not take your own advice, rather than ignoring it?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 20, 2004 07:41 PMStephen-
Stoudt’s statement clearly supports Bush’s account of his service. Killian’s widow and son’s statements (the son was also in the TANG) also support Bush. Bill Calhoun’s statements support Bush.
What it comes down to is that you don’t believe these people because they support Bush. That’s the same thinking that got Mr. Rather in a heap of trouble.
Posted by: George at September 20, 2004 08:48 PMNow they have to publicly admit that they were duped, which damages their credibility. Posted by joebagodonuts at September 20, 2004 01:53 PM
CBS News went way past its normal dislike for Republicans on this one. That suggests either incompetence or fraud, and I’ve never considered Dan Rather to be incompetent.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 20, 2004 02:05 PM
For the first time I have to disagree with JBOD!
cbs did not get duped. By saying they got duped they are choosing which charge is to be levyed against them. The lesser of two evils.I agree with NOTOTH on the charge of fraud. Like he said,they’ve been around too long to be incompetent.By jumping on shifting the blame to someone else,it gives Dan probation. Fraud is career death penalty! Since when does the accused get to choose the crime he is to be charged with?
Is Dan that powerful, or just that arrogant?
Maybe one of you have seen the pictures of the comparison between the forged documents & and an original document, with the signatures. I don’t know how to do the link thing you guys do.I pulled them up ready to inspect them myself expecting to need my magnifying glass. When it popped up I was stunned! You could tell at a mere glance. The signatures weren’t even close & it didn’t even look anything like an old typewriter
punched the letters on it! I called my wife in and asked her if she could find any differences & she just started laughing!
NOTOTH
I think they were more frothy about doing an expose on Bush than they were about scooping the competion.
That’s what I believe. Like I said on another thread, Dan would have believed in these documents and slobbered all over them if they were written in crayon!
Posted by: averagejoe at September 20, 2004 10:09 PM
This story is big. Bigger than even I thought it was. CBS is still stonewalling. They were ‘mislead’? And now they are going to find out what happened?
Dan Rather: “Why did you mislead us?”Bill Burkett: “Well, I didn’t totally mislead you. I did mislead you on the one individual. You know, your staff pressured me to a point to reveal that source.
Rather: “Well, we were trying to get the chain of possession.”
Burkett: “I understand that.”
Rather: “And you said that you had received them from someone.”
Burkett: “I understand that.”
Rather: “We did pressure you to say well, you received them from someone …”
Burkett: “Yes.”
Rather: “And it’s true. We pressured you. It was a very important point.”
Burkett: “Yes … ”
Rather: “For us.”
Burkett: “And I simply threw out a name … that was basically I guess to take a little
pressure off for a moment.”Rather: “Have you forged anything?”
Burkett: “No sir.”
Rather: “Have you faked anything?
Burkett: “No sir.”
Rather: “But you did mislead us.”
Burkett: “Yes, I misled.”
Rather: “You, you lie, you”
Burkett: “yes, I did.”
Rather:: “You lied to us. Why would I, or anyone, believe that you wouldn’t mislead us about something else?”
Burkett: “I could understand that question. I can’t. That’s gonna have to be your judgment and anybody else’s.”
Burkett still insists the documents are real, but says he was in no position to verify them. C-BS.com
The Kerry campaign is way too close to this, and it’s gonna burn them.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 20, 2004 11:08 PMEric,
Stop and think for a minute. If the republican party pushes for CBS to stand trail, than the democrats can push for Bush directly be charged with political tampering. Not a good outcome for neither party in a tight election.
Let it play itselve out and take it up in session over the next four years. Safety rules the big wigs.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 20, 2004 11:24 PMHenry,
These forgeries were a criminal act. CBS’s stonewalling on this could be seen as obstruction of justice.
I’m suggesting the above ‘interview’ of Burkett is part of a coverup to keep the connection to the Kerry campaign out of this. As well as keep CBS from being on the wrong side of the law.
Can any rational human being believe that Dan Rather and his producer were completely ‘mislead’ by a man who was not a credible witness in the first place and the producer had been researching this for 5 years and supposedly knew everything about this story ‘intimately’?
Joe Lockharts involvement with this coupled with the RNC post convention push to go after Bush on his guard service is not a coincidence.
Kerry starts it off with calling Bush and Cheney draft dodgers and the panoply of DNC operatives begin chiming in, culminating in ‘Fortunate son’ and CBS’s memogate. There is obvious colusion and coordination here.
More aptly, maybe the FCC should rule that CBS news broadcasts qualify as campaign contributions to the Kerry campaign.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 21, 2004 12:06 AMI’m hoping that this story’s lessons about “campaign finance reform” will become clearer to the public.
While some are barred from campaigning or even putting out their message because “it’s too close to an election” or because “they have ties to a candidate,” media entities like CBS are allowed to ride roughshod over the truth and broadcast blatant lies over the publicly-owned airwaves with no limitations whatsoever. In effect, this risks making the media, figures like Dan Rather, more powerful than either the government or private individuals—a special caste with special rights.
I’m all for a free press, but for not an unlelected aristrocracy which allowed to say whatever whenever while other people’s speech is criminilized under McCain-Feingold.
Even if we lose the 527 loophole, we’ll just have financially-ham-stringed candidates facing an unelected media aristrocracy. Rationing free speech has to go. McCain-Feingold is a bigger affront to our civil liberties than anything in the Patriot Act by far.
Posted by: Martin at September 21, 2004 12:25 AMDon’t forget the Boston Globe story that ran the same Wednesday morning. Or their follow-up to the Rather story the next day.
This was a coordinated effort using print, television, and the DNC’s campaign dollars. I think there was also a coordinated counter-attack by the GOP using the lawyer from Atlanta.
The Prowler might not be the most reliable or objective source, but his article the morning after is looking more and more accurate.
The game was on.
Posted by: George at September 21, 2004 09:09 AMAverageJoe:
As an intelligent person, I am unwilling to throw out a “guilty” sentence at CBS until there is sufficient proof to do so. At this point, CBS has admitted to being duped—-this much we know. Were they complicit? It is certainly possible, and perhaps even probable, but its not yet proven. We now know that CBS contacted the Kerry campaign—this shows a level of intimacy between the two that is not good. That CBS called one campaign and not the other shows a degree of favoritism. But is there a true connection…this will need to be proven.
My point was simply that are three ways to view CBS in this incident, and all are bad: 1) The were out to “get” Bush and ran the story without giving it due diligence. They were duped on the memos, but ran them anyway. 2) They were in cahoots with the Kerry campaign and working together to “get” Bush. 3) They were simply victims of shoddy reporting. There was no underlying intent to “get” Bush, but the effect was the result of bad bad journalism.
Any of these three is damning to CBS. Essentially, they were either involved to some degree in trying to get Bush, or they were simply too stupid to do a proper evaluation of the documents.
Until its properly investigated, we wont know the depth of CBS’s involvement. But its bad for them regardless.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 21, 2004 11:20 AMJBOD,
Fair nuff. Thus I agree again. I didn’t even go into any connection with the Kerry cam pain
tho it does have a kind of scent. This just in:(check the Drudge Report & Lockhart confermed talking with Burkett) but just getting advice on responding to the swift boat liers,I mean veterans,now they got me doing it!
I took the extra step in assuming that he suspected they were false. My point being though, is that it’s not his decision to decide that the story is that he was duped. But I think he’s going to find that out shortly anyway.
The failure of CBS News to do just that, to properly, fully scrutinize the documents and their source, led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so. It was a mistake. CBS News deeply regrets it. Dan Rather also said personally and directly on the evening broadcast, “I’m sorry.”CBS News President Andrew Heyward has ordered an independent investigation to examine the process by which the report was prepared. The results of that investigation will be made public.
This was an error made in good faith as we tried to carry on the CBS News tradition of asking tough questions and investigating reports, but it was a mistake.
Is this your idea of stonewalling? It’s a mistake, we’re sorry, it’s a mistake, we’re sorry- When did stonewalling become about incessant apology? I thought stonewalling was something like Bush’s stance on WMDs. I’ve yet to hear him apologize for leading us into a war on them, when he didn’t find them.
Right now, the media’s complying, but if any other news organization airs something negative and gets this kind of treatment, you can bet Bush will find the scrutiny come right back his way.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2004 12:57 AMHere’s a Google search for billet or billets at af.mil (official Air Force sites).
This gets “about 939” hits, for example:
So much for the claim that the Air Force never officially uses the term “billet”.
