In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries

Washington Post ^ | 09/20/2004 | Howard Kurtz, Michael Dobbs

[jhouston]

In the early-morning hours of Sept. 8, Dan Rather was preparing to fly to Washington for a crucial interview in the Old Executive Office Building, but torrential rain kept him in New York.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett had agreed to talk to "60 Minutes," but only on condition that the CBS program provide copies of what were being billed as newly unearthed memos indicating that President Bush had received preferential treatment in the National Guard. The papers were hand-delivered at 7:45 a.m. CBS correspondent John Roberts, filling in for Rather, sat down with Bartlett at 11:15.

[okie01]

please tell me that this man will NOT be on the Texas Supreme Court....

A Democrat has about as much chance of being elected to statewide office in Texas as, well, a yellow dog...

[okie01]

Have to wonder though, why did USA TOday get a package of 6 documents the day after CBS aired the story?

Based on their description of the source, they almost certainly got them from Burkett. And it appears they knew enough about him to be leery. Recall that their first story was very neutral -- it was about the challenges more than the documents themselves.

If USA TODAY knew enough about Burkett to keep him at arm's length, it's one more compelling reason why Rather's "unimpeachable source" had to be somebody else.

[GoLightly]

Ya ever see the boss try to type up something that is usually done by someone else? I swear, I had to talk a salesman through simple invoices every time they had to type one. They only did one every couple of months, so it was like they had to keep relearning how to do it. Here's where you get the customer PO#. Here's where you find out what invoice number to use. You forgot to put the job numbers on...

Unless the person who made up the docs was someone who has had the job of putting together paperwork, they are more likely to screw up details than they are to get them all correct.

Lack of redaction on USAT's copies of the one document says to me someone noticed that the doc had the wrong address, but they couldn't fix it, cuz it had already been sent to other people. They tried to cover it up by blacking it out, hoping no one would notice it.

I would like to see someone try to interview USAT about what they know, cuz they were sent the same forged documents too.

[GoLightly]

USAT says they got them from an "independent" source, rather than the WH. CBS runs with the "best" 4, rather than the entire package. The plot thickens.

[okie01]

Where did you find the fax information? I've been looking everywhere for that info.

It's in a Post or ABC story.

One of the 'authenticators' also remarked on it.

[NYCVirago]

CBS executives declined to address news accounts that pinpoint Burkett as the confidential source for the documents but say they weighed the fact that anyone turning over the material would not be a fan of the president.

Yeah, they weighed that any anti-Bush opininons were valid, and any pro-Bush opinions were partisan.

[rolling_stone]

Unless the person who made up the docs was someone who has had the job of putting together paperwork, they are more likely to screw up details than they are to get them all correct.

I agree, but does that injure or help my thesis?Neutral?

Lack of redaction on USAT's copies of the one document says to me someone noticed that the doc had the wrong address, but they couldn't fix it, cuz it had already been sent to other people. They tried to cover it up by blacking it out, hoping no one would notice it.

Sounds reasonable to me, whoever did it was not familiar with FOIA docs as the first blacked out copy has to be copied to be unreadable or the ink must be thoroughly dry and re-blacked out a second time.,.

I would like to see someone try to interview USAT about what they know, cuz they were sent the same forged documents too.

I agree ..they have been a little quiet as of late..

[NYCVirago]

As the days begin to blur for Josh Howard, he embraces the same logic: "So much of this debate has focused on the documents, and no one has really challenged the story. It's been frustrating to us to see all this reduced to a debate over little 'th's."

Plenty of people have challenged the story, not just the documents, but CBS chose not to listen to them.

[okie01]

Did Burkett "reassembled the file" or did someone else help him?

The precise quote from his posting was "We reassembled the files..."

Whether he's using the regal, editorial or accurate "we", we don't know.

[NYCVirago]

Because that means Barnes saw the documents BEFORE CBS did. The source had to have shared the documents with the Kerry campaign first meaning it was the Kerry camoaign itself who most likely was the middle man in the hand off. At the very least the Kerry campaign co-ordinated it.

And something else -- the Ben Barnes video speech broke the Friday after the convention, thanks to Jim Moore tipping off the media about a months-old speech Barnes gave, which was located at the Austin for Kerry website. CBS announced a few days after that speech that they were going to interview Barnes. But they already had Barnes calling him to set up an interview before that story broke!

And who did Dan Rather use to help verify the docs as being real, and as a source in his story? Jim Moore.

[GoLightly]

Means he was motivated to tell his story to 60 minutes & there would be no need for CBS to give him additional incentive.

Would CBS put him on if they didn't also come up with the docs? I mean they would, just as they did Wilson, but I mean, would they? Would they use the story with his direct provable connection to Kamp Kerry without the docs in hand as a back up?

[hobson]

I think Van Os is "we". It would be dangerous to have too many people involved. Burkett, Cleland and Van Os is all they needed.

Burkett - supposed opportunity to obtain the documents "from the trash"
Van Os - deeply connected Democrat and Burkett's lawyer
Cleland - Veteran liason for the Kerry Campaign who gave the go ahead to "counterattack".

Dan's "unimpeachable source" may just be someone he justified in his own mind--Mary Mapes, Van Os, Barnes. He did say on O'Reilly's show that a lie isn't always a lie.

---

I came across this post at yahoo:

Fellow Progressive Populist Caucus Members: Our brother, Bill Burkett is under siege by the Carl Rove smear machine. Bill is a charter member of the PPC and our friend. Co-founder of the PPC with me, David Van Os assures me that as Bill's legal Counsel on a longstanding basis, any assertions that Bill has engaged in "forgery" vis a vis the now infamous documentation of the Bush desertion of duty as a Texas National Guardsman is total smear with the footprints of the Karl Rove modus operandi all over it. Representing the PPC, I stand with both our brothers Burkett and Van Os and applaud their guts to stand up to the right wing slander machine; President Kerry and many of our DNC brethren can take a lesson from our two populist fellow-Texans who have the cajones to look contemptuously in the eye these ruthless cowards bringing down our formerly proud democracy and tell them to go to h*ll.

Stan Merriman Chair, Progressive Populist Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party.

[GoLightly]

Hit the report abuse thingy.

[GoLightly]

I don't think Burkett would be more likely to get it wrong or right than a dem operative, cuz either would likely look at some kind of "sample" to kinda copy the format. I think they copied from something more recent, cuz some of the format changes from the 70's compared to something more recent would account for some of the "errors". Burkett didn't retire until 1999 & he was in the branch of service that the style more closely resembled.

I think the only thing that is provable about who's fingers were on the keys, is they were done by an amateur forger.

[Mo1]

Whether he's using the regal, editorial or accurate "we", we don't know.

True .. but it sure sounds like a good question for the media/press to ask what was meant by "we"

[Mo1]

The DNC was also ready to roll out "Operation Fortunate Son" on September 9.

Don't forget the Boston Globe story ...

The timing of this all is amazing isn't it

[rolling_stone]

thanks..
an amateur forger fits the bill for either..imagine getting ready to do something like this and posting your moves all over the internet, there is enough to indict IMO. whether he did it or not...dirty tricks. all on the line.a will loose without help, etc heck Peterson has a better chance of getting off..

I think the man has some real problems and was looking for his fame, now that he has it he doesn't seem so smart...

We ought to put all his internet postings together and send them to CBS..better yet ABC..lol..

[NYCVirago]

David Van Os is a labor lawyer. His wife, Rachel, is the "office administrator" of his law firm and, by all accounts, a real virago who terrorized the staff so much they banded together in 1999 and 2000 to form a union for protection.

Heh.

[GoLightly]

Instead of bringing in a pro, they found themselves a useful idiot, a blabbing doofus who left his fingerprints all over the scene of the crime. In the past, the coppers always helped the bad guys get away, but this time motivated amateurs were allowed to get a full look at the body & started screaming foul.

As I said in another post, on another thread. Putting it all on Burkett would be like stopping at the Cubans in the Watergate story.

Passing all of his dribblings on to the MSM prolly wouldn't be very useful at this point, cuz he's just a minor player in the big scheme of things. AP getting a copy of the e-mail he sent shows they're actually following up on *the* story. I might even have to forgive them for their false story about my fellow Wisconsinites. :o)

[BigSkyFreeper]

Frankly I think these forged documents may have been "in the can" since Bush was inaugurated. The DUI charge didn't work, then the Bush went AWOL charge didn't either, and I think the forged documents were next in line but they couldn't use them since Bush didn't sign a Form 180 at that time, but since he has and he's running for re-election, that was their signal to bring it out for public consumption.