Is Max Cleland the Missing Link in the CBS Docudrama? [Nice take]

ChronWatch ^ | September 20, 2004 | Barbara Stock

[johnny7]

As most Americans were glued to the television sets on Saturday watching their favorite college team fight it out on the gridiron, a diligent Associated Press reporter filed his daily column and then probably found a television set himself to cheer his favorite team.  On college football Saturdays nearly everything stops. This report was picked up by Fox News but only in passing--at least for now.  Perhaps not wanting to fall into the same hole as CBS NEWS, Fox is being a little more careful.

What was in this AP report that seems to be slipping under just about everyone’s radar screens?  Bill Burkett, the former Guardsman from Texas and the man now being fingered as the source of the forged ''Memogate'' documents, has admitted that after plowing through several layers of ''bureaucratic kids'' he contacted John Kerry’s good friend, the former senator from Georgia, Max Cleland.  Burkett told Cleland that he had information that the Kerry campaign could use to ''counter the swift boat ads.'' Mr. Burkett stated he asked Cleland ''if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money.''  Burkett reported that Cleland told him that they wanted to counterattack.  Bill Burkett states he then sent what he had to Max Cleland, and that was the last Burkett heard from anyone involved with the Kerry campaign.  The implications of this report are enormous.  If these forged documents can be traced from Bill Burkett to John Kerry via Max Cleland, members of the Kerry campaign--if not Kerry himself--could be under criminal investigation for passing forged government documents.

From this point--at least for now--much is speculation, but there are certain facts that are known. The people at the CBS News department stated that they had been working on the Bush Texas Air National Guard story for over four years.  In all that time apparently no one had been able to come up any evidence solid enough to take on the air.  Then these ''documents'' were dropped into their laps.  As any news source would do, CBS has so far refused to reveal its source.  One would think that if that ''source'' intentionally passed CBS forged documents, the unwritten rule to protect them could be thrown away.  But, as of this writing, CBS officials continue to protect their source.  Would CBS go to such lengths to protect a retired and bitter ex-guardsman from Texas?

Many experts have come forward to say that they warned the CBS executives that there were abnormalities within these documents and at the very least required a more detailed study.  For some obscure reason, CBS decided to run with the story.  Those are the known facts to this date. Were the CBS bosses careless?  Were they anxious to get ratings?  Were they just anxious to ''get Bush?'' Is it possible that because of a trusted ''source,'' CBS felt that the documents had to be real?  More than likely, Bill Burkett was not the direct source.  If that had been the case, they would have been much more careful and investigated the source of these documents.  The Kerry campaign may well have been the source and because of this, CBS let its guard down and accepted the documents at their face value giving them only cursory checks.  The documents were manna from heaven.  Finally they had something concrete to nail George Bush from a source CBS felt could be trusted.

Anyone in the Kerry camp could have made a quick trip to Abilene, Texas, to fax the documents to CBS News.  If anything went amiss with the plan, the Kerry people could just plead ignorance.  If allegations started to fly, the Democratic National Committee would put out the idea that the ingenious and evil Karl Rove was the culprit, out to make the innocent John Kerry look bad.  It was just a Republican smear campaign!  No matter how serious the situation got, all fingers would point to Bill Burkett, not Kerry.  There was no direct contact between Kerry and Burkett so it probably seemed worth the risk to take a shot at President Bush in desperate times. Perhaps there was just one thing John Kerry, Max Cleland, and Terry McAuliffe didn’t count on or just didn’t know about--Bill Burkett has a small history of being a tad unstable.  Mr. Burkett has a long history of speaking his mind.  He also has a long history of disliking the Bush family.  Did he feel slighted when he received not so much as a ''thank you'' from the Kerry camp for all his hard work?  What would possess him to speak to a reporter and tell him of the contact with Max Cleland?  Max Cleland is a direct line to John Kerry.  Was granting an interview to a reporter his revenge for being slighted?

Did Burkett realize that he was going from hero to goat?  Did he sense he was going to be thrown to the wolves?  If this turns out to be the case, it will be a very costly slight for the Kerry campaign as this report is picked up by the other major networks who are circling CBS like vultures over a dead body.  The news business is very competitive and only the strong survive. It is the unwritten law among newsmen that you make sure your information is as accurate as possible before you go public, but CBS broke this rule.  The oldest network among them broke the cardinal rule and in doing so, embarrassed them all.  No mercy will be shown and no quarter given.  A story is a story and CBS is the story.  If it can be shown that CBS received these forged documents from the Kerry camp, it will be a story with repercussions that will be felt right through to the election.  How far will CBS fall before it decides it must try to salvage what’s left of its own integrity?  If the Kerry people are the source, to what lengths will CBS go to protect the candidate?  If the CBS plan was to affect the outcome of the November election, CBS can claim ''mission accomplished.''

It will be fascinating to hear the denials and excuses as the Kerry people turn on poor Mr. Burkett.  He wanted to help John Kerry; he wanted to get even with the Bush family, but now that one phone call to Max Cleland may bring down the entire Democrat Party.  For political junkies, does it get any better than this?

About the Writer: Barbara is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events.
She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/.
Barbara receives e-mail at dickens502003@yahoo.com.

[Always Right]

Burkett decides to take matters into his own hands, and provides CBS with copies of the memos. The rest, as they say, is history.

The big hole in your theory is that Burkett, even by CBS standards, would not have been an 'unimpeachable' source. It would take someone of Cleland's stature. Burkett is known to be unstable and a mega-Bush-hater. Besides, I would not buy CBS risking their reputation protecting Burkett. It had to be someone much bigger.

[N. Theknow]

It would certainly disarm any statements he would make about Bush.

[Always Right]

I know, we're all shotgunning this, but we're probably in the ballpark as a whole.

And if Cleland was involved, you can bet your bottom dollar that Kerry knew.

[N. Theknow]

Burkett is known to be unstable and a mega-Bush-hater.

To Dan Rather that is an unimpeachable source.

[Tacis]

Geez, after fragging himself in Nam during a drunken stupor, maybe Max has now done the same to CBS and the DNC. We can only hope!

BTW, the Dallas Morning News has a front page story (below the fold) today stating that CBS had now changed it's mind on the Rather forgeries and would say something official today. I've not seen any mention of that here. Did I just miss it?

I can't believe that Bush gave Max a gov't job> Hasn't Bush learned that the greatest danger to him and the nation is Clintonistas?

[Casloy]

A story is a story and CBS is the story

Except Bush is the target and on that basis the other networks will give CBS a pass.

[Casloy]

You mean, how many minutes?

[Casloy]

I think you hit on it!

[Wardawg]

Mad Max is concerned that this storry may have legs.

[Steve_Seattle]

"How many years did they work on the Juanita Broaddrick story?"

NBC broke that story in the MSM, and I'm not sure CBS even covered it secondhand. I recall that when asked about the story, Rather expressed complete indifference, muttering some inanity about it involving Clinton's "personal life."

[Steve_Seattle]

You give CBS too much credit; just because they say they have an "unimpeachable source" doesn't mean it's true.

[Lancey Howard]

Another very nice column from Barbara Stock.
The one imporant thing she should have mentioned is that Byrkett has a lawyer now. He is a DNC-appointed lawyer who, I guarantee you, is NOT working for Mr. Burkett. Burkett is toast.

[Patriot32]

Did I hear somewhere that Burkett says he provided the documents to Cleland and that is the last I saw of him?
Also, is there any links/meetings when Cleland went down to the President's ranch for that photo op about a month ago?

[knuthom]

After listening to all the stories and thinking about all the personalities involved, here's the way I think it went down: Bill Burkett first provided the memos to Max Cleland who passed them along to the DNC/Kerry Campaign. The Kerry gang discussed the memos, looked them over, argued among themselves whether to use them or not, and ended up sitting on them. In the mean time, CBS producer Mary Mapes is still trying to get some dirt on Bush's ANG career. She gets in touch with Burkett, who by that time is getting impatient that the DNC/Kerry campaign are using the memos and he feels they are running out of time. Burkett decides to take matters into his own hands, and provides CBS with copies of the memos.

I think you are close. But I don't think Mapes stumbled on this independently. I think she was pointed in the right direction by Kerry's people and/or DNC. They were afraid to use the memos themselves but either told her about them or showed her copies.

Both the L.A. Times and Wash. Post have her "on to something" in late August. Then she gets faxed the memos on the evening of Sept. 2nd, probably directly from Burkett. She calls her boss the next day to tell him she had the "documents". She is excited because they confirm what she has heard.

[Steve_Seattle]

"General STAUDT was IGNORED!!!!!"

This is arguably the most egregious aspect of the entire matter, since Staudt was the one alleged in the memos to have complained about getting pressure to "sugarcoat" Bush's record. I think it was ABC who finally interviewed Staudt, and he vigorously denied both the "sugarcoating" charge and the charge that the Bush family pressured him to give special favors to W. He said Bush was admitted to the program because he was well-qualified.

[from occupied ga]

Max, on principle, shouldn't you resign from your 6-figure-salary government job that W appointed you to?

Cleland is another example of a jerk hiding behind a (self-inflicted) disability. Bortz loves him. I think he's a pompous condescending liberal a$$hole.

[pointsal]

Very good post....concise and focused. Thank you.

[pt17]

I trust you haven't forgotten about the two dirty tricksters (i.e., burglers Cam Kerry and Tom Vallely) who are or were high up in the Kerry camp.

John Kerry wanted to hit back. It had been a miserable August as he took incoming fire about his military service from a gang of hostile Vietnam vets. But no, campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill and other staffers argued, the Swift Boat ads would blow over. Finally, Kerry had had enough. For three or four days, as he campaigned across the country, Kerry ripped into Cahill, furious that the mostly baseless attacks on his valor were driving his numbers down. "He was very angry," one old friend says. "The calculation had been made that this wasn't going to hurt him." Kerry's solution was to reach for an old ally. "Get Vallely," he screamed.

Thomas Vallely is the leader of the pack of vets that Kerry calls his dog-hunters, a group that has beaten back the attacks on his Vietnam record since his first Senate race 20 years ago. "He knows that I know the other players," Vallely says of Kerry's Mayday call. "He knows that I also like this stuff."

Source: MSNBC

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"A story is a story and CBS is the story. "

I am not so sure. A story is a story but liberals write the stories and the liberals at the elite media outlets will not go so deep as to expose the DNC. I have no faith whatsoever that the truth will come out. Maybe FOX or the WSJ will get to bottom of it but if the DNC was involved in any damaging way the liberal media will circle the wagons and make FOX's or the WSJ's conservative bias the story.

The bias liberal media will stoop to anything. I know this because I have seen them do it all my adult life and I am not a spring chicken.

[dano1]

CBS may still be hiding something, particularly about a money trail in this story.

As Okie01 noted on another thread, it seems unlikely that CBS would have based their reporting solely on Burkett, especially since Burkett's credibility problems were already well known to CBS and others.

Okie01 said, " I'm guessing that Somebody may be our "unimpeachable source" who vouched for Burkett and the documents to Rather.".

There may well be another key CBS informant somewhere. However CBS may have their own reasons to wish us to believe they relied solely on Burkett.

The disclosure of the second source might prove highly embarrassing to CBS and/or the Democrats. As Mark Steyn said last week, its obvious the CBS execs were willing to take a great deal of heat in order to keep this story under wraps. Is there something they don't want us to know about their CBS news reporting?

If CBS is hiding a second source, this very public conversation with Burkett could be an act of intentional misdirection. CBS may wish the public to assume that CBS based their reporting solely on Burkett, which as Okie01 says seems unlikely. But the public conversation between Rather and Burkett could be a misdirection.

So what could it be about the second source and the CBS reporting that CBS might not want us to know? It's very interesting to note that in his synopsis of his conversation with Cleland, Burkett mentions the topic of money. Burkett is quoted as asking Cleland "if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money.". Mentioning money in this context raises the possibility that this was a pecuniary matter. Is it possible that CBS not only accepted these memos, but actually paid good money for them? This could be the embarrassing detail CBS wishes to conceal about the story. Or was there Democratic money in the mix?

The chain of events which fooled CBS into accepting these bogus documents may have required a coordinated effort on the part of several individuals. For example, someone like Burkett could have reported to Mapes that Killian complained about pressure to help Bush, or that Bush had disobeyed an order to undergo a medical exam. A second collaborator might have sent the forged memos.

Or maybe Burkett faxed the memos while Burkett's information was simultaneously being spoon-fed to CBS through Democratic back channels. CBS, anxious to get out this negative story about Bush, might have treated the collaborating sources as corroborative. Then CBS on their own initiative might have garnered the other weak collaborating evidence such as the opinions of handwriting experts and so on. (For the most part this secondary weak evidence has all been discredited by now).

There is supposedly a Yahoo board posting by Burkett claiming he gave some information to Cleland by telephone. Cleland according to Burkett was someone overtly wishing to be very aggressive in campaigning against Bush. Suppose Max Cleland went on to pass Burkett's unsubstantiated accusations on to others and the information worked its way back to Mapes through the Democrat grapevine. Certainly based only on the information we now know, the connections between Burkett, Cleland, Van Os, and CBS could scarcely have been closer. Kerry is just one step removed from Cleland.