My thoughts exactly. Rather showed the memos to the WH and demanded a statement. Bush is said to be pretty hands-on with his campaign, and he would know if these were genuine National Guard memos. Rove et al have known about Burkett and Co for some time. So the WH said, "Sure, Dan, it's okay with us if you release those memos. Other than that, no comment."

It's called rope-a-dope.

Perfect audio. I hope GWB is hands-on enough to follow the link to hear it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The officer in charge of the unit where Bush took his basic training wrote to then-Rep. George H.W. Bush in 1968. The officer's letter was not released Friday, but the elder Bush's reply was: "That a major general in the Air Force would take interest in a brand new Air Force trainee made a big impression on me."

Democrats called the exchange proof of preferential treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(sigh) This doesn't even make sense to me. I really wish Democrats would stop pushing this debate. It's not convincing (except to people who've already made up their minds), and I doubt many swing voters care about it at all. At least Kerry has started talking about recent history; I hope he sticks to it.

--Rick Taylor

I think the White House didn't object to the docs because, one, it isn't their job to analyze them, and two, knowing CBS was going to air the story within hours, they knew any objections would be taken as stonewalling on their part, and maybe even used against them by CBS. Imagine if CBS goes to air with the story and gets additional publicity due to WH objections...plus, I don't think the WH would have in their wildest dreams imagined that these docs would be this egregious of a forgery...

The WH did what it should have...it released the docs themselves, as a point of public transparency, and then gave their standard answer regarding Bush's NG service.

As it turns out, what the WH did ended up working for their favor and to the huge detriment of CBS. But that is the fault of CBS, not the WH.

re: Another Thought

I agree entirely.

--Rick Taylor

If anyone except the President had been subject to such slander and liable a civil suit would already be underway. Minimally, it is obvious we have no reason to trust CBS News ever again. And if, as seems increasingly probable, there was some collusion between a major news organization and a presidential campaign to perpetuate this fraud then we are looking at something far, far more serious than the reputation of a mendacious, senescent news anchor.

They keep their mouth shut about anything off message (SOP), and it typically plays itself out to their benefit as their opponents overreach and hang themselves. This has happened over and over again (and Terry Mcauliffe is usually the one that overreaches)

The ABC article may be accurate, but it never hurts to hear it from the horse's mouth. The Union Leader interview the article refers to is here.

An announcement on the home page states that they will publish part two tomorrow. This scandal is getting very interesting indeed... :-)

Ghost of a flea wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if, as seems increasingly probable, there was some collusion between a major news organization and a presidential campaign to perpetuate this fraud then we are looking at something far, far more serious than the reputation of a mendacious, senescent news anchor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point I don't see evidence of collusion between the Kerry campaign and CBS. I'm encouraged by the fact that it looks as though Burkett faxed the documents to CBS from Texas. That at least contradicts some of the earlier speculation that the Kerry campaign gave CBS the documents.

--Rick Taylor

In reality, it does nothing to contradict it. Where do you think they'd fax it from, DNC headquarters?

Well, it looks like Burkett was shopping around for places that would take this. He started with Cleland, who bumped him up the chain.

I also saw, among the various posting of Burkett's blogging, that the Democrats weren't taking him up on some of his offers.

Even if the Democrats *knew* about the documents, that's not really a smoking gun.

I look at the DNC "Fortunate Son" ad. I look at forged documents publicized in a planted CBS story. I question the timing.™

One wonders if it wasn't the Kerry Kamp that tipped CBS off about the memos...in other words, the Kerry people may have led CBS to these memos of Burkett's...perhaps, even figuring CBS would bother to authenticate them with any degree of responsibility.

Also, what if the Kerry Kamp pressured CBS to run with the story? We know this story was timed to coincide with the latest DNC attack on Bush...the Texans for Truth ad, the statements of MacAuliffe and Harkin, etc...

There are many ways for the Kerry Kamp/DNC to be implicated in this. We already know the Dems are in fact supplying Burkett with his legal council in Van Os, a top Dem operative in Texas. I seriously doubt Burkett could afford the services of Van Os.

These things we do know:

It appears the Kerry Kamp/DNC at least knew of Burkett's docs...and that Burkett was at least encouraged by Cleland to contact the Kerry campaign as part of their desire to "counterattack"...

We know the Dems are furnishing Burkett with legal council...

Bill wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reality, it does nothing to contradict it. Where do you think they'd fax it from, DNC headquarters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:) I may have stuck my foot in my mouth when making that last remark, but I'll do my best to explain what I had in mind. A few days ago I read an article that I think you had linked to that interviewed staffers at CBS asking them where the documents had come from. Some of them speculated that they were given to them by the Kerry campaign. The Kerry campaign had gotten them from some other source, and the CBS staffers thought that either the Kerry campaign had knowingly given CBS the forged documents, or that the campaign didn't know what to do with them and trusted CBS to make a determination. This was before the speculation about Burkett came out. Perhaps contradict is too strong a word, but the account of Burkett transmitting the documents straight to CBS seemed inconsistent with the account given in this particular article of how Kerry might be involved, so I took some comfort from that. Of course that doesn't mean the Kerry campaign couldn't be involved in some other way.

I'll be honest and say that the possibility of the Kerry campaign's involvmement in this scandal makes me nervous. I'm planning to vote for Kerry, and I'd like to be able to do so with a clean conscience. Of course if Kerry tried to give documents he knew were forged to CBS, it would be impossible for any reasonable person to support him. However, this possibility seems utterly absurd to me. Even ignoring the fact that it assumes a level of perfidity I wouldn't attribute to either Bush or Kerry, it involves the assumption of a level of incompetence that I think is completely implausible (just as assuming that Karl Rove planted the documents assumes a level of competence I find completely implausible).

Of course there are lots of other possibilities that would bother me to varying degrees. If it turned out some low level staffer told Burkett, look we're not interested in these documents, if you want to publicize them you'll have to take try talking to a journalist, I'd shrug my shoulders. On the other hand if there were high powered meetings in the Kerry campaign where they decided to ask Burkett to go to Dan Rather, and if a campaign staffer talked to Rather on Burkett's behalf, that would be very bad from my point of view. And of course there are all sorts of possibilities in between these two (including the possibility that the Kerry campaign had nothing to do with the documents making their way to CBS).

So at this point given the lack of evidence either way, I'm giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt. In general, I think one should give people the benefit of the doubt when there's a lack of evidence (and since I like Kerry, I'm inclined to do that anyway). And I'm hoping the truth comes out, whatever it is. But I'll admit that not knowing for sure what the truth is makes me a bit nervous.

--Rick Taylor

Unless someone associated with some sort of political figure actually forged them or knew they were forged then all it would be is standard dirty tricks.

I mean no one seriously expects the DNC or whoever to get the doc then commission expert to check them. They wouldn't even want to know really. Plausible deniablity and all.

On LGF they mention a trip to some senator and burkett going through a bunch of bueaucratic kids. Charles remarks he always thought this was done by some kid who wouldn't know about typewriters.

Something like this could kinda tie it to a Dem. But even this could just be some dumbass and not he senator.

So even if this is in some way connected to a Dem or DNC you would still need to show knowledge of forgery.

If I was a DNC guy and I had the memos I would give them to the press and rely on them to prove anything. If it comes out that the DNC had these memo. All they have to say is "Hell yeah I gave them to CBS wouldn't you? They looked real to us."

Only proof of collusion will do more than just make it look shady.

"if Kerry tried to give documents he knew were forged to CBS, it would be impossible for any reasonable person to support him. However, this possibility seems utterly absurd to me. "

You will never know, because even if the docs are traced back to the Kerry campaign, top-level managers and the candidate himself will deny all knowledge.

I don't like Kerry but I don't see him condoning something like this, and I don't think Belaga et al are that stupid or venal either. If it goes back to the Kerry campaign it will be some low or mid-level staffer at the moveon.org end of the political spectrum, who thought it was a really bright idea.

The Kerry campaign probably got wind of these memos on Aug. 20th. Per NYT article on 9/18/2004 by D. D. Kirkpatrick and J. Rutenberg writing about Bill Burkett:

"'I spent some time on the phone with the Kerry campaign seniors yesterday,' Mr. Burkett wrote on Aug. 21 in an e-mail letter circulated to a list of about 600 Texas Democrats."

"He complained that he had to 'get through seven layers of bureaucratic kids trying to get a job after the election.'"

"'I talked with Max Cleland,' Mr. Burkett continued, referring to the former senator from Georgia who has been supporting Senator John Kerry's Democratic presidential bid."

Cleland claims he referred Burkett to someone (unnamed) in the Kerry campaign. If Burkett is the memo culprit I doubt he just called to say hello.

Then, interestingly, on Aug. 25th Cleland went to Crawford to the president's ranch to "personally" deliver a letter signed by senators and congressmen protesting the SwiftBoat ads. Was the letter the only reason Cleland had to "personally" see the president? Maybe he had some memos to show and tell. Tell could be "Stop the ads or else these memos show up on the news."

Cleland would only deliver the letter to the president personally or give it to a secret service person. Why? I believe the letter's contents were almost immediately made public anyway.

Finding a direct link between the Kerry campaign and CBS is not likely. That's not to say that the campaign didn't say through several intermediaries to CBS, "Say, why don't you talk to this guy named Bill Burkett down in Abilene, Texas."

Let's suppose that Rather is VERY pissed about being had. He's said he'd like to be the one to 'break' the story, if they are forgeries. Might he not do just that, outing the Kerry campaign and, thereby, restoring some face and reputation?

Thomas -

Not a chance in Hell.

Update: I speculated earlier this week that CBS’s unraveling would be the result of a curious Texas felony statute and a phrase in the original CBS report, that the Killian memos were “documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file." (My original speculation is below.)

I read today’s September 19 New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/politics/campaign/19guard.html as MSM backup of the speculation, to wit: “Asked about a report in The Los Angeles Times yesterday that network officials were questioning the documents' authenticity at a meeting several hours before the start of the "60 Minutes" broadcast, Mr. Howard said: "We were sitting there with the lawyers, asking ourselves a million questions….’”

To me, Dan Rather, in diva-like fashion, informed CBS he was running the story, hell or high water, and CBS Legal would just have to deal with it.

Dismayed, CBS Legal did so by inserting the “personal file” claim in the story, to sidestep the Texas law making it a felony to publish forged government documents.

Too cute, and perhaps a smoking gun. Especially if the too-eager Burkett was used to as a patsy to launder the documents already in hand, as a new sanitized “personal file” source.

*******

CBS’s Felony Problems under Texas law

The Texas Penal Code (Sec. 32.31) provides that routine forgery is a misdemeanor, but it’s a felony if a government record is involved. Forgery is defined to include a transfer or a publication of a forged writing. A television broadcast is a publication.

Texas law requires criminal intent for a forgery claim. It defines criminal intent as “an intent to defraud or harm another.” But the code also provides that a person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more writings of the same type and if each writing is a government record.

There are 4 forged Killian Air Guard memos. Ergo, “intent” is presumed under the Texas Penal Code, as there are 2 or more government records involved.

Now, CBS can and has claimed that it believed the documents were real. It inserted the claim in the original 60 Minutes broadcast that the memos were "documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file."

True? Or an attempted side-step of the Texas forgery law, cooked up by a CBS lawyer during the six week interval?

Wanna get real Black Helicopter about it? Perhaps Burkett was the patsy that CBS enlisted to re-fax the memos to CBS, with a cover sheet saying, “I got these from Killian’s personal files.”

CBS then thinks it side-steps the presumed “intent” and felony uptick provisions of the Texas Code.

Too cute. The initial “personal file” tag has CBS Legal Dept’s fingerprints all over it.

More on CBS Legal involvement:

“Rather was already at the studio, recording the audio track. At 11 a.m., Howard, West, Murphy and Kartiganer gathered to watch another piece in the screening room, where they were joined by two CBS lawyers as they began discussing the Guard story.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18_3.html