I'm trying to catch up on this thread, but has anyone thought about how nuts this freak is, heance making him the perfect patsy. Dems have the documents, CBS gets tipped off about the documents, they drop the documents in the hands of a man already accusing Bush of this stuff, then gives CBS his name and sits back.
Then Lockhart tells him on the phone that he wants the documents, begs him for them. So now he has his alibi. Why would I ask for the documents if we gave him the documents.
So the dems can deal with a nutcase screaming that the dems wanted the documents. Sure, the dems would naturally want documents that are bad for bush - that's no secret. But they had them all ready and had to get them out through a third party who they could easily set up as a patsy...AKA the nutcase named Burkett.
I definitely see Burkett as both a "cut-out" figure (meant to be the front for dissemination of the documents and a potential "fall-guy" if anything should go wrong (easy to discredit as mentally unbalanced and lacking in credibility). Given the article he wrote on Aug. 13, I think there's very good reason to believe he had nothing to do with these documents before that date. Whether he created them after writing that article, or someone else created them, is hard to settle at this time. My sense is that the forger is more likely to be someone associated with the 527 "Texans for Truth" which obviously timed its emergence on the public scene to the week in which the CBS story moved forward. The scurrilous website Democrats.com also could yield some interesting leads, since that is where Burkett published his article complaining that there seemed to be no documents from Killian certifying any problems with Bush. If someone could prove any connection with the "Texans for Truth" and/or Democracy.com that would be really interesting to know of any ties they have with the DNC and/or the Kerry campaign.