Posted on 09/20/2004 8:54:24 AM PDT by TheGeezer
Edited on 09/20/2004 9:07:32 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Update by moderator:
EXCLUSIVE
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
We need to get a copy of the White House statement, if indeed any such statement has issued. Lots of speculation floating out there.
You mean you would not consider a man with two nervous breakdowns and a history personal vendetta against George W. Bush an "unimpeachable source"? < /sarcasm>
(a) Whoever--
Seems to me someone made these documents in order to misrepresent one Lt. Col Killan a military officer. You may have the statutory elements for Federal forgery.
Even if it was Killian's "personal" file - it was an attempt to misrepresent Killian who at the time was acting as an official of the US Government.
Bush will probably let them sink themselves. What is that saying about not attacking your enemy while they are doing a good job of destroying themselves?
The Kerry campaign told Rather to contact Burkett who, the Kerryites said, could provide proof. The CBS statement today uses carefully chosen Clinton-like language that does not exclude the possibility that the Kerry campaign did steer Dan to Burkett.
Billy Jeff?
Horse puckey!!!!
---Only if all of the statutory elements that comprise the crime have been met, and the defendant has no defense. At this point, I think there has been no crime in the forgery of the Killian documents, nor is there a crime in CBS airing them as authentic.---
It is problematic, but going back to Watergate, the prosecutable crimes may come out of the subsequent investigation and coverup. These documents are petty and silly, but they are poison and will be the death of anyone connected with them.
Frankly, an apology from Rather would mean nothing to me. I want him gone and the story exposed completely, but they can save their "sorry" because they aren't.
Rather said he had an "unimpeachable source". This could not possibly be Burkett. It could have been Cleland. Burkett says he gave the documents to Cleland. The WH says that Burkett met with high level Kerry campaign people. CBS made a point out of showing the General documents with "Kinko's Abilene" in the header. This was no accidental disclosure. Burkett did fax them from Abilene, but only as a cover for what really happened.
Burkett gave the documents to Cleland. I surmise that this unimpeachable source then gave them to CBS.
It is significant that CBS does not reveal its source but Burkett contemporaneously confesses to actions that could draw an 18-year prison term. I surmise that Burkett was not the source but CBS wants us to think so by showing the Abilene header and getting Burkett to confess to an ax murder.
The next step may be to find out from Burkett WHEN and HOW he gave the documents to Cleland. Burkett can provide useful fragments of the truth without compromising his subornation payment from Soros/DNC.
An apology doesn't mean anything to me either, but their double standards are evident for everyone to see.
Barry Young (PHX) sadi this morning that the Internet has changed everything. If this were 1974 these would be taken as real and people would have believed the lie.
Obviously, we've been lied to lots over the years.
IF Killians family decides to file a defamation suit against CBS there will be lots of depositions taken and information will come out then. Also, if criminal charges are filed against Burkett, he will squeal like a pig.
---From 2PM ET ABC Radio News ... Rather has known Burkett for a long time and Rather had previously vouched for Burkett's veracity.
Obviously this is spin to decouple Rather from Burkett's source that CBS claims to know but cannot "confirm".---
But that wouldn't explain the interesting timeliness of the DNC's Operation Fornunate Son.
Clarification when I use the term "Reality TV" to apply to this tragic CBS docudrama. Just as "reality TV" is better described as "Contrived TV," so be it w/CBS News. Pretense is the most apt way to describe CBS News & Viacom:
“…pretense...pretentious, to stretch before the fact, stretching the truth, a striving to create a false appearance.”
If CBS wasn't striving in such a way, then how can its latest statement pat themselves on the back for the pursuit of investigative journalism.
CBS News should just admit that it has caved in to CBS Marketing Strategy: As of Sept. 1, it decided that since CBS News could no longer compete with the Internet, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and Bloggers United, including FR, that it would at least beat out the National Enquirer and its ilk so it could capture its own "Yellow" journalism niche ("yellow" not only in sensationally off-base, but "yellow" like an old newspaper that's no longer NEWS).
For convenience sake, the forgery statue you cited is "18 USC Sec. 506. - Seals of departments or agencies." The statute essentially forbids misuse of the seal or emblem of an official government agency or agent. Even affixing the emblem to a toy or matchbook is a violation!
My discussion of the misuse of government seals can be found at ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1217992/posts?page=113#113 <-- #113 & 116
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.