Posted on 09/11/2004 8:06:01 AM PDT by David Noles
All right, the big story that's out there, and you just have to keep this in perspective, my friends. The big story that's out there is "forged documents" utilized by CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday night in the fifth or sixth regurgitation of the George Bush National Guard story. CBS is standing by their story. Dan Rather was on CNN mere moments ago standing by the story solidly, but what's he going to do, say, "Yeah, I screwed up. Give me a mulligan"? Not likely. Probably the best summary of this story can be found at the American Spectator. (Anatomy of a Forgery) The only problem is their website is down. I guess they've been inundated with hits and their server system is either overloaded or they've got a tech problem. But that's okay, because I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers (rustling paper) a copy of the story because it cleared at 12:09 this morning when I was diligently working at this story while watching ABC's special Thursday night edition of Monday Night Football, the New England Patriots again lucking out over the (laughing.) Just kidding, it was a great game. I'll tell you, is there any better illustration of how meaningless the preseason is, than last night's game? (news)
Anyway, the story from the Spectator, and stick with me on this; we're going to tie this all together with some analysis and commentary after the facts are presented to you. This story from the Prowler at the American Spectator: "More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Colonel Jerry Killian. The opposition researcher claimed the source was a 'retired military officer.' According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the Democrat National Committee as well as at the Kerry campaign. 'More than a couple people have heard about these papers,' says the DNC staffer. 'I've heard that they ended up at the Kerry campaign for them to decide how to proceed and presumably the Kerry campaign handed the papers over to 60 Minutes which used them on Wednesday night, but I know this much: When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity.'" That's a quote from a DNC staffer.
So from the outset, somebody at the DNC is already in a CYA mode. Somebody there knows what went on; they passed them on to the Kerry campaign. The Kerry campaign is so excited they finally had something. See, I have a theory about this. I was just feverishly on the phone and on the Internet and the e-mail with people last night. We're running theories by each other, and you know, some people say, "Kerry couldn't be this stupid. This would be too stupid. What if it goes wrong? They wouldn't possibly do this!" That happened to be, by the way, the take of Nightline. Nightline did a whole thing last night, Ted Koppel and Chris Leheinous, and the whole purpose of which was to protect the Kerry campaign in this, and Chris Leheinous said last night, (doing impression) "Ba-da, ba-da, ba-da, Kerry wouldn't be stupid enough to do this. The risk is too great at getting caught. What if it backfired?" Whoa! It didn't stop them blaming Nixon for Watergate, did it? Nixon was stupid he was up in the polls, he took the risk, but Kerry is too smart. Kerry wouldn't possibly. No, it has to be Rove. "Rove is an excellent forger." Rove set them up! I hope they run with that.
I hope somebody at the Kerry campaign or the DNC actually starts whining and says (crying), "Karl Rove..." (crying) Yeah, if you knew they were forgeries before you gave them to the Kerry campaign, if you knew that at the DNC, and if you suspected that Rove was behind it? I mean, I love this. They're in a bind. There's no way out of this. They've got forged documents; they passed them to 60 minutes. Their best defense is to say that Karl Rove set them up? (Laughing.) That's it? Anyway, "The concerns at the DNC about the forged documents arose from the sourcing. 'It wasn't clear,'" this is DNC spokesman again, talking to the American Spectator. "'It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from.' The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush's personnel files from his time in the National Guard. That's why the military couldn't release them," and that's why the White House couldn't release them, because they were not part of the Bush's personnel files. They were personal files from Colonel Killian at his home, is the way the story goes.
This would explain why the White House nor the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them because they were never in their position according to the story. Now, "According to a Kerry campaign source there was little gossip about the supposedly hot documents inside the office of the campaign on MacPherson Square. The staffer, Kerry campaign staffer said, 'Those documents were not something anybody was talking about or trying to generate buzz on. It wasn't like there were small groups of people talking about this as a bombshell. I think people here weren't sure what to make of it because provenance of these documents was uncertain.'" Now, CBS producer who initially tipped off the American Spectator about the 60 Minutes story says that "despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legit, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story." This is a source from CBS saying that even CBS wasn't sure of this, but they still the hell ran with it. They weren't sure of it.
The source at CBS, the producer, said, "'The problem was that we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot, and someone who Killian said performed in an outstanding manner. Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different.' The CBS producer said that some alarm bells went off last week when the signatures and the initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available in a public record, but CBS producers chose to move ahead with the story anyway." They are not "victims" in this. This is a little editorial comment of mine. I don't know how all this is going to shake out and I don't know where it's going to end up, but CBS, obviously a lot of people are going to try to find out who did this, and blame it all on them. But the fact is, CBS had doubts and ran with the story anyway. They wanted this story to be true. CBS has been shilling for the Kerry campaign all spring, all winter and spring. It's been CBS that gave us four versions of Bush, anti-Bush stories on 60 Minutes.
It has been CBS publishing anti-Bush books with their Viacom publishing arm, whatever that is. Knopf. It has been 60 Minutes that has been in the tank of the TV networks. 60 Minutes most in the tank for John Kerry. They wanted this story to be true. This Ben Barnes guy -- and I'll get into this in greater detail; I've got to take a break here pretty soon. This Ben Barnes guy that Rather interviewed last night. There are two things here. There are actually three components to this story yesterday, which I will explain in due course. But this Ben Barnes guy that Rather interviewed happens to be a huge Democratic Party leader in the county where Rather's daughter is also a ranking Democrat. This happens to be the county that Rather's daughter asked him to go do a fund-raiser in and for. Remember this some years ago?
And Ben Barnes was the head honcho at the time when Rather goes down there to do this fund-raiser for his daughter, for the Democratic Party. This is nothing more than Jayson Blair at the New York Times. Talk about conflicts? They're all over the place! So Rather has to know when he's talking to Ben Barnes last night who Ben Barnes is and what Ben Barnes' perhaps motivations are. So for CBS to try to place themselves or pass themselves off as a victim in all this isn't going to wash. They may have been victimized, and I think they have been, and I think it's the Democrats and the Kerry campaign that have done it, but again more on that in due course, but they don't get any pass from me on this because they wanted this story to be true. They looked at both sides of the evidence. Some said "forgery," but they were overwhelmed with the possibility it might be true, and they were unable to restrain themselves.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
The producer, CBS producer quoted -- well, not quoted; well, yeah, referenced and sourced -- in the American Spectator today, says that, "There is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign." This is a quote from the CBS producer, "There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we'd do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we'd get more information. If that's the case, then we're bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries." There was a huge powwow at Black Rock at five o'clock yesterday afternoon, an emergency room meeting where they pledged an internal investigation. "ABC News' political unit held a conference call at 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening to discuss the memo and its potential ramifications should the documents turn out to be a forgery. That meeting took place around the time that the deceased Killian's son made public statements questioning the documents' authenticity. According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition." Here's Dan Rather on the street in New York. It was on CNN about a half hour ago, and he is defending his story.
CBS NEWSMAN / DEMOCRAT FUND-RAISER DAN RATHER: I know that this story is true. I believe the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air had they not been. There isn't going to be -- there's no, what did you say, an apology?
VOICE: Apology or any kind of retraction?
RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story would like the emphasis, more important question is, what are the answers to the questions raised in the story.
RUSH: So Rather is out there trying to -- what else is he going to do? What is he going to do? He's out there saying, "Why won't Bush answer the questions in the story?" Meanwhile, here's Rather on the street of New York about a half hour ago making the statement you just heard. Terry McAuliffe was on the ABC Radio news network at the top of the hour claiming that this is a Republican setup. So you've got McAuliffe already conceding, it appears, that the documents are fakes, that they're forgeries. Rather, at the same time, is defending his story and his documents. At about the same time, a little bit earlier than that on the Fox News Channel, good old Pat Caddell, Jimmy Carter's pollster is out trying to save his party. Here's a quote. "I don't understand how they got involved in this," meaning his party. "They're so involved in this, they've gotten themselves so involved in this issue the last 24 hours, that somebody's going to, if these documents are not authentic, they're going to be blamed for it, the Democrats are. It's incredible to me that they've gotten in this." And Jane Skinner says, "We don't know yet what's going on."
Caddell says, "I'm trying to save my party by telling the truth here. If these people in my party are involved in this, it's over. The race is over and we've got bigger problems than that." Now, they had just finished at Fox discussing how Kerry is so far down in the polls, and Caddell says he's been there. He's seen that. He knows what this means. He can't believe they got involved in this story. Now, folks, if it turns out -- and it appears this is going to be the case -- if it turns out that the Texas Air National Guard documents used by 60 Minutes are indeed forgeries, what we have here is a huge blow to the partisan media. It will be huge, because it will demonstrate just how in the tank they are and how out of touch they are, and how untrust -- where will be the investigation? How many more Jayson Blairs and Janet Cookes do we need? How many more CNN, Peter Arnett, phony stories about nerve gas in Vietnam do we need? Where is the investigation into how the press is doing its job?
You know what we need? If CBS is going to coordinate dirty tricks with the Democrat National Committee and the Kerry campaign, we need a single coordinator to make sure these mistakes don't happen and they get it done right, just like we're searching here to find a central intelligence czar for the United States to protect us against terrorism. It's time that the mainstream press get together with their dirty tricks operators at the Democrat National Committee and come up with one guy to make sure this kind of mistake does not happen again, because their credibility is at greater risk than ever. What we have here, in my estimation, is the shattering of a foundational building block. We know that there is an alliance between what we call the mainstream establishment, elitist partisan press, whatever, and the Democrat Party, and the liberal intelligentsia and establishment of this country. Now, what has happened here, if these documents are indeed forgeries, what has happened here is that CBS's own friends have set them up.
CBS's own friends have used them. The Democrats, the Kerry campaign, have used CBS, have used Dan Rather in an effort to smear George W. Bush with lies, with forgeries. The question is: Who did this? And if they want to try to make the case that Karl Rove set 'em up, do so. If they are stupid enough to be set up this way by Karl Rove, then they are telling us at the same time, we can't trust them to deal with even our friends that are allies around the world, much less our enemies. If Karl Rove can set them up this way, that means, folks, they know they have no foundation of positive issue, stories, whatever, to run their campaign on. They've got nothing but this kind of dirty trick: forged documents, trying to pass it off on Karl Rove? You know this is the kind of -- and Pat Caddell is right. But it's not just his party that is at risk here, but it is the ongoing reputation of the press. You know, they're not watching but they are losing. They're losing respect. They are losing credibility. They are losing audience. They are losing impact. They are losing influence, and it is precisely -- you know who caught these? The blogosphere! The Internet caught these guys. The Internet caught CBS. Their days are over, and if they don't start realizing this and understand that the customer does come first, they're soon to be nonexistent.
Everyday people and numerous true experts are concentrating on those documents...because they are forgeries, fake, and a slap in the face of a free and thinking people. Those forgeries lay the foundation for the more relevent parts of the story that Rather refers to in his CYA presntation and establish the whole thing as nothing but a sham and cheap political hack job.
If Rather thinks so little of the people of this country whom he tries to speak to...and it is clear that he believes we are idiots...then he had best be prepared for a continued fight until the truth of this obviious sham is made known from the rooftops and until his credentials and career are laid low in the mud from whence they have sprung.
The DNC and Kerry kamps, of course, have denied this,
leaving CBS to twist in the wind (an old Watergate phrase).
The DNC denial was a non-denial denial (another WG phrase).
McAwful merely said that the DNC didn't "leak" the memos
to CBS. This doesn't rule out that they just "gave" the
memos to CBS.
So CBS is gonna hafta take all the arrows on this. Their
alternative is to shift some blame back downstream, and
hurt the very Kerry campaign that CBS is so blatently
shilling for.
This Karl Rove theory is amazing in its paranoia...
The only way it even begins to make sense is if you are willing to believe that Rover would manufacture evidence against the President, turn it over to his enemies and hope that someone took the trouble to figure out it was fake before it destroyed the Bush campaign.
This Karl Rove theory is amazing in its paranoia...
I don't care about Kerry's military record. I care about his post-service record which is horrible and possibly treasonous. The Republicans have only praised Kerry's military service. But here the Dems are directly involved in trying to smear Bush. If this latest assault on decency by the Dems doesn't make a lot of Dem faithful lose their religion and stop drinking the koolaid, I don't know what will.
IMHO, the Kerry camp and the DNC are complicit in this, along with CBS, who took the bait, in their normal frantic, maniacal need to bash Bush, and Rather, the frothing leftist he is, ran with the bait. CBS may end up taking the heat, because they made the decision to run with a story and documents that are as fake as Kerry is.
I also think that a solid link back to parties in the DNC will appear, as part of the path that is already known in general. These people are DOING ANYTHING TO KEEP ATTENTION OFF OF THEIR LOSER CANDIDATE -- even generating phony documents and teaming with the Marx-stream media to wave the story in the face of the American public.
Rush did a real good job, earlier on, in predicting what the DNC, Kerry camp, the Clintoni family, etc. were going to do. The good in all this is that the public is not buying it and the radical libs are pay a big price, along with their well known accomplices in the media.
We need Registered to work on a pic of Rather wagging his finger at us..."I did not check the veracity of this document...from Col. Killian..I never accepted a fake document...not once...and I need to get back to the job of fooling the American people..."
Latest MSNBC poll...
Live Vote
If the presidential election were held this week, who would you vote for? * 248323 responses
George W. Bush
58%
John Kerry
41%
Ralph Nader
1%
The big question beyond this, (since they are obviously forgeries) is who benefits from this? I can think of only one person. Hillary Clinton. Would I be wrong?
The whole problem with this will be the Sandy Berger Effect. The SBE means that a damning story erupts and simply gets ignored. That's what will happen here. It will be denied and soon ignored. Independent voters won't have a clue what went on, and all Rather has to say is that the challenges to his credibility are "partisan internet and talk radio" people, and the independent voter will understand that this is nothing.
So we must figure a way at FR not just to uncover this kind of thing, but to also carry it through to completion.
But but but...how did Karl Rove get the docs to the DNC?
[lol]
The spin will be:
Rather--'I stick by my guns; the documents are not fake; they are real; but if they are fake, Karl Rove planted them.'
John Sasso fingerprints.
Thanks Rush... for all you do!
If I understood the report correctly, CBS has had someone working on the Bush/National Guard story for 4 years...in other words, ever since the 2000 election they have been hoping to find a way to use the issue against him in 2004.
Isn't that a bit dangerous? I've always believed that the candidate knows what is going on. If Kerry was this much in the dark over what his underlings were doing, then he is even more stupid than I thought.
Cadell said if this can be traced to the Kerry campaign they might as well turn off the lights. The election is effectively over. I couldn't agree more.
I believe it was Hillary Clinton for a variety of logical reasons.
bttt
It wasn't about the content (truth), the flak was about how they were acquired. Now, it's not about how the memos were acquired (or legitimacy), but about the content (UN-truth). Hmmm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.