Newsweek Suggests That The CBS Source Is Bill Burkett

Newsweek says CBS may have relied on Bill Burkett.

We turn to the Ace of Spades for background on Mr. Burkett, whose name is familiar to folks who follow the BUSH AWOL story closely. Clipping the Ace:

Bill Burkett, after all, is a like a viral rash on all the left-wing internet "political partisan" blogs.

MORE: A history lesson from Glenn - CBS is familiar with airing forgeries, then apologizing.

And a poem from commenter "Tom Paine":

What do we see
On CBS?
That's what we see
We see B.S.!

On the larger theme of media incompetence/duplicity while flacking for the Bush attackers, I still want Kristof, and his phony non-correction correction. And we should hassle the LA Times, who mention the "Texans for Truth" without noting their credibility problem, as reported by CBS. (Hm, "we" seems to mean "someone else"... that's not good).

UPDATE: Back to the Ace of Spades - Bill Burkett himself is appearing in blog comments sections. Well, maybe.

Comments

[Will Vehrs]

We now need Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe, he of the "fails to meet journalistic standards" measure for the charges made by the Swift Boat vets, to weigh in on this one.

Somehow, I suspect he will find that this is "different" and get his bowtie all twisted up.

[seeken]

I had this yesterday. Go Me.

http://seeken.redstate.org/story/2004/9/11/93650/3460

[Crank]

That would be terrible news for Kevin Drum, who still thinks Burkett was a credible source.

[Brian Dupri]

I don't understand this. Ben Barnes was implicated in fraud. CBS gives him time on national TV to spew his rubbish. Burkett has been discredited and now he's making a comeback on MSM. Are these MSM journalists just dumb or malicious?

Stop Kerry. Read 4 chapters of Unfit For Command online for free

[Parker]

Does anybody have access to copies of correspondence that Burkett has written?

Anyone lamebrained enough to forge documents without even changing the default font (say, to Courier), may just be lamebrained enough to type his own personal correspondence the same way.

In other words, this guy may just barely be able to use a computer, but might not even be aware of how to change settings.

[bethl]

I think everyone may be being a little generous to CBS.
My theory is: 1. they had things they wanted to accuse President Bush of. 2. their case was weak at best. 3. They decided they needed documentary proof. 4. They created the documents. 4. They sent the documents to the White House which didn't dispute them. 5. They went ahead with their story.
CBS is their own unimpeachable source.

[Don]

Keep up the pressure...this issue is a litmus test for the future of the blogosphere as a true check and balance on MSM.

[Appalled Moderate]

The Newsweek account sounds right. Burkett's account, though it never really hit the MSM big-time, was featured on Calpundit (and I assume other lefty blogs). The problem with the story was that it was a he said/she said sort of thing that the media tends not to feature, since they are essentially unprovable. But, I would guess that if Kevin Drum believed the guy (and he said he did), a lot of MSM people did too.

So, Dan Rather has a copy of a document produced by a guy who had access to a lot Bush docs. And the document says a lot of things he has heard from his sources on the National Guard story. I doubt he had the slightest suspicion the thing was a forgery, because he "knew" Burkett had access to the Bush Guard records. I think this explains a lot of the attitude coming out of CBS -- they figure their source is somebody trustworthy.

I will note -- amongst the bloggorhea about how the blogs have driven the story etc... -- the blogs, as they have on a number of occasions, have started the story, but it is the paid reporters who are doing the leg work to bring it to completion. Given that, I am not sure it is time to be writing those MSM obituaries. After all, who is more "old media" than Newsweek?

[Chris Moore]

It is time for ABC and NBC to exhibit responsible journalism by prominently debunking the 60 Minutes forgeries. I discuss this here.

[Paul Zrimsek]

If Burkett is really CBS' source for the documents (and not just one of their sources for the story) then we can dismiss him without even reaching the question of his credibility or lack of it; the only possible conclusion would be that he forged the papers sometime between last February (the last time he tried to flog this story without them) and now.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I should add that the foregoing is to some extent evidence against the idea that CBS got the forgeries from Burkett (or directly from Burkett, anyway). We'd need to assume that Rather and his boys never stopped to wonder why, if Burkett's had these papers since 1997 and has been peddling this story since 2000, he hasn't shown them to anyone else before. That would be pretty sloppy work even for reporters who are trying to function without pajamas.

[Buddy Larsen]

Dan Rather's thesis, sound-bite statement-to-camera, broadcast Friday and widely circulated: "This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources...."

Fun thing: Do parallel constructions, with different actions: "I did not get wet solely because I fell in the pond, but rather due to a preponderance of gravity, including the water."

Another fun thing, finish Dan's statement using Occam's Razor (simplest is truest):"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, *provided that forging documents is not impeachable."

In other words, Dan says "Don't worry if the documents are fiction, because they proves unimpeachably that forgers exist!"

In other words, Dan says "I'm telling you the unimpeachable truth when I say I want you to believe me!"

[Roger Williams]

One of the phrases that struck me in the memos released by CBS was the phrase "running interference" . Burkett uses this same phrase in the Kevin Drum interview:

"At the same time, Chief Harvey Gough, who had helped Colonel Goodwin get his job as Chief of Staff, and had helped Bartlett and all of these other people, was trying to run interference and trying to get me access to medical care."

It might be profitable to run a sylometric analysis between the memos and known writing of Burkett to see if there's a match.

[Brian]

I still want Bush, who clearly didn't show up for all of his duty and didn't do all that he was supposed to do, to admit this. Then we can move on with this race. ]

Of course, being such a coward, much like Dick Cheney, he won't do that.

[Rick]

Ah, but Brian, Lt Bush fully met his reserve obligations. Which, I remind (or tell, if you've never learned it) you, are calculated on an *annual* basis.

A satisfactory year is reached with 50 points. Find the Bush year(s) with fewer.

Cordially...

[Buddy Larsen]

Brian, go google Bush F-102, read up on the built-to-climb-fast, not to-be-pilot-friendly high-altitude all-weather interceptors flying over-water (Gulf/Mexico) night patrols. Check fatality stats on GWB's whend/where/what against JFK2's. Cheney? Would YOU want to have terrorist bullseye #2 painted on your back for these eight years? You ought to watch that 'coward' word. Adults don't throw it around lightly.

[Brian]

Nonsense. Take a look: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14627-2004Sep11?language=printer

[Critical Thinker]

Check out "Rather Biased?" Investors Business Daily, September 13, 2004

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=9/13

The rest of the MSM has decided its time to "cut their losses" before they too are sucked into the CBS whirlpool -- or is it cesspool?

[Brian]

CT,

This story isn't closed.

[TomCom]

Guys

The people who still believe the Bush forgeries still believe that Gore won FL, that Ex Sen Max C. lost 'cause his patriotism was attacked, that....

TomCom

[Brian]

TomCom,

Have you looked at the news lately? This stuff isn't over.

[seeken]

beldar blog's post on the USA today versions of the memos seems to me to be devastating to CBS.

http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/09/rasupthsupergat_1.html

[Robin Roberts]

Brian, that story doesn't mean that George Bush didn't meet his obligations to the National Guard. Your repetition of that discredited claim only reinforces your existing lack of credibility.

[seeken]

CBS asks it's handwriting expert not to talk to the press!?!?!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214096/posts

[Steve F]

OFF TOPIC...
BUCKHEAD and "BUCK"

As reported here and by the LA Times, "Buckhead" was one of the first freepers to notice the forged memos. See http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-blog12sep12,1,3703412.story?coll=la-home-politics

In a Wash Times article, it notes that Col. Walter Staudt's nickname is "Buck." See http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040912-125608-4609r.htm

COINCIDENCE???

[Roger Williams]

I've found on another instance of Bill Burkett using the phrase "running interference" on the web:

James further shielded official public files from the press and otherwise ran interference for Bush, Hughes, Bartlett and Rove during the campaign --"obstructing" the judicial and public review of this record.

"Run[ning] interference for.. " seems to be one of Burkett's verbal tics and while it's not proof that Burkett forged the CBS memos, it's certainly eyebrow raising.

[Brian]

Robin,

It's all part of a trend of irresponsibility and lies on his part. But if that doesn't do it for you, this might: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

[Walter Wallis]

The democrats have nothing else. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOTHING ELSE!!! Terry Mc Awful bet the farm on the AWOL charge, and Kerry was TOO STUPID to object.

[Harry]

Brian,

Try this from "The Hill":

http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

You can believe anything you want - it's a free country, but George Bush met his TANG responsibilities whether you like it or not. Byron York's article proves this point with facts, not opinions. I know facts are inconvenient things for those of you who have a thing about Bush ...

After 25 years in the military, including a tour in Viet Nam flying helicopters (no atrocities BTW), I can't help but wonder why we're even talking about EITHER candidate's military service from over 30 years ago.

I know I'd really rather hear about what they both plan to do for the next four years to help keep my family safe and to avoid interfering with the economic expansion now taking place.

Walter, you're right! Too bad.

[Brian]

Harry,

Try reading my link. Or maybe you'd like to rely on an article that has "facts" for about 25% of its content and has snide comments for the rest. (Hey, look, I can be a condescending ass, too!)

Well anyway, it's not so much that he avoided service. It's not honorable, but it's understandable. It's the fact that he did that all those years ago, while his administration and its supporters are now throwing around despicable terms like "Blame America First," the "Hate America" crowd, and doing other things to politicize patriotism and national security while criticizing others for allegedly doing just that.

[Harry]

Brian,

"Condescending Ass?" Surely you can do better than that. Of course, since I served in Viet Nam, doesn't any critique of my statements constitute questioning my patriotism?

BTW I did read your link, among many others, and I'm still wondering why the MSM is on this subject - again, still ... I know, they're too LAZY to actually compare and contrast the candidates' policies and plans. That would actually require research and analysis - journalism, I think they used to call it when I was a young CA.

BTW2, George Bush emphatically DID NOT "avoid service" as you stated! Granted, he did find a non-combat position in the TANG flying one of the most dangerous fighters ever designed, and he DID NOT do a tour in Viet Nam, but to describe service in the Air National Guard as "avoiding service" or as "not honorable" is so mind-bogglingly ridiculous as to make me wonder whether you have the slightest clue about military service.

Is it your contention that anyone who served in the Guard but did not serve in Viet Nam in the 60s/70s is unfit to be CIC? Or for that matter, that one who has never served in any capacity in the military is unfit to be CIC?

If so, I seem to recall that John Kerry himself explicitly excluded Bill Clinton from this criterion in 1992 when he was running against Bush's dad - you know, the WWII veteran naval aviator who was shot down. Oh, there was also the 1996 election when he ran against Bob Dole, the wounded WWII veteran. So when exactly was it that Bill Clinton served in Viet Nam? Sorry, silly me, maybe he just couldn't do the the dishonorable thing and find a job flying fighters in the Air Guard. He should have tried it - women love those flight suits.

I guess Hillary won't be able to run in 2008, since, of course she never served in Viet Nam or the military.

Enjoy the cool aid.

Harry (CA-third award, war criminal, baby killer & proud member of the VRWC)

[Brian]

"'Condescending Ass?' Surely you can do better than that. Of course, since I served in Viet Nam, doesn't any critique of my statements constitute questioning my patriotism?"

You know what my comment was in reference to - and don't pretend that you don't.

"I know, they're too LAZY to actually compare and contrast the candidates' policies and plans"

Possibly. But if they were to actually do that, Bush would have been dead in the water in 2000. In fact, all they need to do this time is ask him how he's going to pay for all of his new spending without any major spending cuts or any tax increases. He has no answer, and after that question, it would be very obvious.

"but to describe service in the Air National Guard as "avoiding service" or as "not honorable" is so mind-bogglingly ridiculous as to make me wonder whether you have the slightest clue about military service."

Getting your friends in high places to get you into the Guard, which back then was not what it is today, isn't really honorable. You know that.

I definitely respect people who serve their country.Yet placing someone like Bush on the same level as someone like Wesley Clark, who didn't "luck out" with Guard service, or Chuck Hagel, who also served, is ridiculous. You know that.

"Is it your contention that anyone who served in the Guard but did not serve in Viet Nam in the 60s/70s is unfit to be CIC? Or for that matter, that one who has never served in any capacity in the military is unfit to be CIC?"

I have never said that, nor did I imply it. Don'r try to put words in my mouth.

Your next paragraph brings up Clinton, of course. Above, I said that it's "not honorable, but understandable." I don't think it was honorable of Bill Clinton to dodge the draft, but I understand why he did it. The difference between someone like him and someone involved with or supporting the Bush administration - take Rush Limbaugh, for instance, or Dick Cheney - is that Clinton didn't question the patriotism of his opponents like those guys did.

"Oh, there was also the 1996 election when he ran against Bob Dole, the wounded WWII veteran."

That's a fair enough point, but the difference is that pretty much everyone of their generation had some huge involvement in World War II.

"Sorry, silly me, maybe he just couldn't do the the dishonorable thing and find a job flying fighters in the Air Guard."

He was a poor boy from Arkansas. Bush was a rich guy from Texas.

"I guess Hillary won't be able to run in 2008, since, of course she never served in Viet Nam or the military."

What a great straw man, Harry.

Seriously though, it's different for people like Sen. Clinton of opportunity or committment that people like President Bush had. You know that, just like you know the other stuff.

Regards,
Brian

[Harry]

Here's what I know. The American people and I know George Bush, warts and all. The majority of us like him. If the DNC wants to run a campaign about George Bush's TANG service 30 years ago, including fake documents for use by their lap dog, Dan Rather - good! It's a losing strategy that I personally will not spend one more minute of my precious time discussing.

Have a nice day.

[Brian]

Harry,

Two things. First, stop blaming the DNC for the apparent forgeries. You can't be sure, so don't act like it.

Second, if this campaign were about the issues, Bush wouldn't be in contention. He doesn't have anything to run on, except 9/11 and his alleged tough persona. Did you even see the convention?