Replies

"Rather must have reasoned that if the White House even suspected the documents were fake, they would scream the word "FAKE" at the top of their lungs. But since the White House did not deny the validity in any way, Rather and CBS became certain that real documents like these must have at one time existed. If they had, then Bush could not know if all copies the documents had been destroyed. CBS reasoned that if Bush did not even have a surrogate deny their validity they must be true."

I cannot recall...how long did the White House have to comment on the documents before the story was to air? My gut reaction was that the White House was willing to ignore the story as it really wasn't that big of an issue to how Dubyuh would serve his second term...he'd already liberated two nations in his first term, so even if he'd been a little lax in completing his National Guard service, I don't believe a lot of voters wouldda abandoned him as Commander-in-Chief.

"Why did the White House put their copies of the fake documents on the Internet? If the White House believed the documents could be real, would they put them on the NET to ensure faster and greater distribution? Would the White House reason, CBS has something that can destroy us.. therefore we will help them disseminate it?"

You make a very good point here...I hadn't recalled that the White House had posted these documents on the net. However, if they did, your theory may be true...either that or they held true to that adage that if yer confronted with bad news, take it head on and get it behind you. Also, I still don't believe the story--even if true--was big enough to destroy an incumbent CIC.

"Is it possible that CBS And Rather got Bush Whacked?"

I'll be interested to find out if yer theory proves to be true, but who will tell us if it is? And when?

FReegards...MUD

Mudboy here is tonights column by AIM's Cliff Kincaid.

John Roberts of CBS News Pleads Ignorance in “Rathergate” Scandal; Insists “I Was Not Aware” of Dubious Source Behind Fake Documents

Trying to dig himself out of the “Rathergate” mess at CBS News, White House correspondent John Roberts is telling his critics that he didn’t know that the documents he provided to the White House about the president’s National Guard service were questionable and came from a dubious source, Bill Burkett. Accuracy in Media (AIM) says that Roberts, who is said to be in the running for Dan Rather's job, is deeply implicated in the "Rathergate" scandal that has just been examined by the two-person "independent panel" appointed by CBS.

AIM notes that Roberts was the personal representative of CBS News in a meeting with White House communications director Dan Bartlett, at a critical time when CBS News was developing its fake "story." In the meeting with Roberts, Bartlett was told that he was supposed to confirm or deny authenticity of the National Guard documents that turned out to be bogus. When Bartlett did not immediately denounce them as forgeries, Roberts provided that information to 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes, as if Bartlett had verified the documents as authentic. This was seen as the critical green light for Mapes (and Dan Rather) to go ahead with the bogus story.”

Bartlett later explained that CBS News provided documents that CBS News had said had "come from the personal file of a former commander" in the National Guard and that Roberts expected Bartlett "to authenticate them." The White House received the documents only three and one-half hours before Bartlett was interviewed by Roberts about them. Bartlett commented that "CBS had the obligation to authenticate them before they were used. They could have also given them to the White House much earlier so we had more time to verify them as well."

AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid commented that, "John Roberts was in a position to stop this fraudulent story before it aired. He did not."

The new panel report sheds some light on this controversy, noting that Roberts told CBS that the Bartlett interview had "gone well and that he had not disputed the authenticity of the documents…" The panel said "this reaction" by Roberts and CBS "seriously misplaced responsibility for making sure that the documents were authentic."

So John Roberts, the likely successor to Dan Rather, was guilty of helping to perpetrate this journalistic fraud.

Roberts disagrees, saying in an email that “I should point out that at the time I interviewed Dan Bartlett, I was NOT AWARE that the documents had come from Bill Burkett. In fact, I did not find out that particular gem of information until I read about it in Newsweek magazine some time later. I was never informed by Mary Mapes at any time of the source of the documents - a point I made clear to the Thornburgh/Boccardi investigating panel. Your claims that I ‘was in a position to stop this fraudulent story before it aired’ are misinformed at best.”

AIM editor Kincaid responded that, “Roberts should have known --or should have asked -- about the source of the documents. But it didn't really matter if Roberts knew where the documents came from or not. The main problem was that the White House received the documents only three and one-half hours before Bartlett was interviewed by Roberts about them. That was unfair and Roberts knew it. He should have refused to play a role in this ambush. Not only did he play a role in this attack, he then told Mapes & Company that the Bartlett interview, such as it was, went well! He should be held accountable for his role in the scandal. Pleading ignorance is hardly a defense.”

Kincaid said it is clear that Roberts wanted to be part of the CBS story that was intended to politically damage President Bush and prevent his re-election. Roberts should not be able to get out of this by claiming he was just a gopher for Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and didn’t know what he was doing.

---------------------------------------------------------

Mud I suspect that if Buckhead could figure out the documents were fake in less than 3 hours, the people in George Bush's white house could figure it out in 3.5 hours.

The documents had obvious errors. Not only did they contain characters that only a computer could generate, they contained statements that were obviously false to anyone who had served in the guard in the early 70s.

It would be a huge stretch to think the Bush White House with Karl Rove in charge of the campaign just igored this CBS ploy as a non story, and left Barlet to wing it. The point is Roberts asked Bartlet if the documents were real.. and Bartlet was no committal. Bartlet had to know what Roberts was going to ask. And Bartlets considered reponse was a shoulder shrug? Bartlet knew what CBS would do with that kind of response and gave it anyway. There has to be a reason

I think the Bush White House knew the documents were fake. The White house actually forwarded the documenets to sites like Find Law so they could check them out. The White House obviously wanted people to look at the Documents. Shortly after Roberts left, the White House posted those 4 documents on the web. If the White house thought they were true, then the White House would never have helped diseminate the Documents.

If the White House has good calibre people, and I think they do.. they had to know in 3.5 hours that the documents were fake. If they did and did not make CBS aware they knew they were fake, then there has to be a reason they did not.

It think the truth will come out but only after Dan Rather is gone from CBS. The Bush administration does not want an open war with the media. It will content itself with waiting until Rather is off the air.

You have to ask yourself why Barlett never challenged the validity of those documents? And you have to ask yourself why the White House put those documents on the WEB?