Memo"gate"

Seriously, "memogate" is what what Fox News was calling it. Fair and Balanced my ass.

Anyway, I think this chapter is pretty much closed for the election cycle, at least I hope it is, because I think most people think that the documents are either forgeries, or are most likely forgeries. Certainly, no one on the Democratic side is claiming that they mean anything anymore, and I certainly won't.

What amazes me about this issue, and what makes me suspicious about the whole thing, really, is just how bad it's been for the Democrats. I don't want to accuse Karl Rove of forging them or anything, because obviously there's no evidence of that, but I think the situation couldn't have worked out better for him, really.

I say this because there are so many legitimate questions about Bush's national guard service. I'm going to crib from Kevin Drum's excellent and thorough list (you can look at his post for the links):

1. Former Texas Speaker of the House Ben Barnes pulled strings in 1968 to get George Bush into the National Guard so that he could avoid the draft. This isn't something Barnes just cooked up recently for Dan Rather, either. He testified under oath about it five years ago.

2. In early 1972, with two years still left on Bush's Guard commitment, something happened. Nobody knows what happened, but for some reason he started flying again in training jets that he had graduated from two years previously; he began putting in simulator time; he had trouble making landings; and in April 1972 he made his last flight. He then refused to take his required annual physical and was subsequently grounded.

3. In May 1972, Bush left for Alabama and disappeared from the Guard. He showed up for no drills for the next five months, and, contrary to White House statements, he never made up these missed drills.

4. Bush returned to Texas in late 1972, but in May 1973 his superior officers in Houston (one of whom was the now famous Jerry Killian) refused to rate Bush, saying he "has not been observed at this unit" for the past 12 months.

Oddly, though, official payroll records show that Bush was getting paid for attending drills during this period. The problem is that the payroll records documenting his attendance are completely screwy: Bush is credited for the wrong kind of attendance on some dates, he's given the wrong number of points for others, and weekday duty is frequently confused with weekend duty. What's more, even when you add it all up, Bush's attendance still didn't meet minimum National Guard standards.

The combination of these two things bears all the marks of someone backdating payroll records but doing a sloppy job. The likeliest explanation is that in mid-1973, after his superiors refused to rate him, someone pulled some strings and a bunch of payroll records were submitted for the previous year. However, the person who did it just checked off a few days for each month, instead of carefully making sure that the dates and duty types actually matched up the way they would if they were real.

5. In October 1973 Bush was discharged from the Texas ANG and moved to Boston to attend Harvard Business School. Although the Bush campaign said in 1999 that Bush transferred to a unit in Boston to finish up his service, they now admit that isn't true. Bush never signed up with a unit in Boston and never again attended drills.

There are plenty more reasons to be skeptical about Bush's National Guard service, but leave those aside for the moment. What we know for sure is that Bush began having problems flying in 1972; refused his physical; was grounded; disappeared for five months; probably disappeared for an entire year; failed to sign up with a unit in Boston for his final year of service; and got an honorable discharge anyway.

The Bush campaign has actually lied about Bush's national guard service; there are real unanswered questions; and Bush has not been straightforward about it. But is that the stuff in the news, in the liberal media? No, the stuff in the news is about the forged memos. Now, if you're someone that doesn't actually follow the news closely, and all you knew is that there were forged documents about Bush's national guard service, you might think that the fact that those documents were forged actually clears him of any allegations. Of course, it doesn't, because the same questions remain as before. But the story becomes that the forgery stuff, not actually making the president answer questions. And now the RNC can grandstand and make a bunch of unsubstantiated charges. I look forward to seeing Ed Gillespies' pretty face on "Hannity & Colmes" soon. Will there be an attack ad with false charges ("John Kerry's campaign forged documents and gave them to that liberal Dan Rather!")? I'd put money on it.

The reason I'm only vaguely suspicious of Republican involvement in this is that I'm not sure even the evil genius of Karl Rove could even have orchestrated such a perfect storm

But I'll say one thing: I sure hope the person that forged the docs isn't a Democrat. If they are, I fear for their safety when they're discovered.

I'm afraid that this might close the Bush national guard service as an issue for the rest of the campaign, even though the main questions remain unanswered. In the long run, though, maybe that's a good thing. Cheap attacks, if based in fact, are kind of dumb, and if based on lies, are despicable (I'm lookin' at you, John O'Neill) and there are just too many real issues. Maybe there will be real news on TV again, and the American electorate will wise up to the disaster that is the reconstruction of Iraq. If that happens (call me stupidly optimistic), I don't see how John Kerry can lose.

-- Michael

Comments

[d meyers]

"Documents Fake, Story True". That seems to be the journalistic standards now used by NY Times, LA Times and CBS. The Presidend of CBS News gives a statement were he twice said the documents were "Accurate". Accurate? What an interesting choice of words.. did he say Authentic? No, he said accurate. It seems that he is saying the content is accurate but is saying nothing about the authenticity of the documents. Which brings us back to

"Documents Fake, Story True" --->>>> The Ends Justify the Means... What a troubling development for the NY Times/CBS. Could you imagine a college student in a journalism class trying to pass that approach, "Documents Fake, Story True".

Sure, you can ask all the legitimate questions about the Guard service and Dan Rather can have a sit down with GW and ask all your questions, that is fine, but DO NOT EVER, EVER, EVER produce fraudulent documents in support of your story.

Step back and looked what happened.
1. CBS pursuing a story related to GW National Guard Service in 72/73 time frame. ---> Legitimate story
2. CBS has some people/sources that are telling them GW missed a physical, was suspended, etc, etc. Again, story is still legitimate.
3. Now, if all they have are sources they won't identify telling them things THEY HAVE NO BREAKING STORY. The story is, unnamed people claim this about GW. CBS can't run with this and no big 60 Minutes II piece
4. But now, they get 6 documents that seem to support their story, this is a BIG BREAK. Of those 6 documents they show 4 of them (why not the other 2?) and now they have a story.

So without the document they have no story except of what unidentified people claim. In their zeal for the story they go with what looks like fake documents... DOCUMENTS FAKE, STORY TRUE.

In Closing,

HWL,

1. I have no problem with you and the left questioning his national guard story. I personally think it is dumb strategically and politically and is a loser for the Dems but that is my opinion. But let's remember, GW was Honorably Discharged from the National Guard. I thought the standard in Kerry's medals case was that the Navy issued official documents supporting the medals so they are legit. Well the National Guard issued an official honorable discharge so by the Kerry standard it is legit

2. With regards to the person who forged the documents and concern for their safety. A felony was committed, I would be more concerned about joining Martha Stewart. The stupidity of this person was a gift

3. If the republicans were behind this then whoever dreamed this up and pulled it off needs to be transferred to the CIA and sent to Afghan. for he will trick OBL in a week and will bring him in

4. If these are forgeries, we have an attempt by someone or some group to influence a national election through fraud. CBS was caught up in this attempt and that is a very serious thing.

5. CBS's approach is very troubling. The "Documents Fake, Story True" standard is quite troubling. Here's what gets me about the Stonewall by CBS. Let's assume they were completely duped and are the innocent victim. Why would they protect their source when this source committed a felony and brought all this down on CBS??? Why do you protect a source who burned you??

[here's what's left]

"Documents Fake, Story True". That seems to be the journalistic standards now used by NY Times, LA Times and CBS.

should i even bother asking for any evidence that for this "standard"? because i know you won't produce any. you never do, because if you actually looked, you would realize the media is not actually liberal, like you think it is. at least i do my research, d. but there's not set of facts that you can't distort with a sweeping generalization, is there?

[d meyers]

I heard two different commentators/journalists say that was a headline of a NY Times Story yesterday. I don't have the hard copy of the times so I couldn't verify. Please explain what CBS News President means when he says the memos are accurate. I read that the content is accurate, not the memo itself, which gets me to Documents Fake, Story True.

Read the statement from the pres of cbs news and tell me how you interpret his wording. Keep in mind, CBS took all day to prepare the statement by the Pres and you and I both know that the legal team of CBS poured over every word of the statement so the use of "Accurate" and not "Authentic" is deliberate and crafted by the legal team

[d meyers]

This stuff is pretty funny:

from wa post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html

"Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network"

The path leads to a Kinkos in Abilene, TX, sounds like a John Grism political intrigue story

[d meyers]

I could care less about the liberal media on this story but CBS and Dan Rather are really pushing the lines of our critics are not disputing the content but only the validity of the docs. That is a very dangerous approach for a media company to take.

Has CBS every heard of the concept of "The Fruit from a Poisinous (sp?) Tree" with regards to evidence in court.

[d meyers]

from James Lileks, a blogger, columnist I enjoy

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html

"They’re not alone. Again, from the Times, a quote from the lawyer re: the fellow who, it seems likely, may have forged the docs, or passed them along.

Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” - then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

What difference does it make??? from a Lawyer of Burkett... Unbelievable

[d meyers]

Again, how low has journalism sunk?? (link is on www.hughhewitt.com)

They ought instead to be driven round the bend by a headline like this from this morning's front page of the Los Angeles Times:

"BATTLEGROUND STATES
Long a Republican Bulwark, a Growing Arizona Is in Play"

From within the article, this paragraph, number 18:

"A poll taken for the Arizona Republic and released last week showed Bush ahead of Kerry, 54% to 38%. In contrast, the newspaper's polls in August and June had Bush ahead of Kerry by just 3 percentage points, a lead within the survey's margin of error."

Nice Headline. Bush goes from 3 point lead to 16 point lead and AZ is in play???

Am I missing something here?

[MikeS]

I think it's great that Republicans are now screeming about this kind of stuff - where were they when the swifties were making their claims? I don't recall a general Reublican outcry when there was questionable evidence and contradicitng documents used to attack Kerry, except for McCain, of course, who said it was wrong and that "They (Bush supporters) did the same thing to me." The worst part about this is that anybody, on either side, can say something and it becomes "real news" once it is reported a few times. It's not a liberal media, or a conservative media, it's a corporate, sensationalized media. It's all about druming up controversy to inflate ratings, circulations, etc. There's an agenda, al right, it's to make money. News has been replaced by infotainment.

[d meyers]

nice try Mike... And what forged documents did the swifters use? Did I miss something??? I am not ever sure they used any documents. There claim was by a bunch of people who served with Kerry. Kerry had his people who disagreed with what the swifties said..

Your statement tells me you know the CBS documents are a fraud because you try to say the SBVT did the same thing....

and remember, CBS, 2/3 bs

[d meyers]

This is interesting and disturbing

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2799919

1. I find it disturbing that major media groups are saying Burkett "may" be the source. Respected media should not name people on "suspicions". This guy may be the source but until there is proof it is not right to implicate him

2. It is funny how his postings on a web site are coming back to haunt him, just like happened to Corsi, SBVT author.... HWL, you or I better not run for office or our posts here will be used againts us.. :)

3. there is one interesting paragraph in the story "One month ago, in an essay posted on a progressive Web site, Burkett theorized that Killian would have been a likely person to know more about Bush's service. But, he conceded, "I have found no documentation from LTC Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to ... cover for the failures of 1Lt. Bush ... " Burkett went on to say, "On the contrary, LTC Killian's remarks are rare."

4. I guess the world of the new media is here so we must adapt.

5. Burkett could be in a lot of trouble if he is the source but the witch hunt and reporting on speculation does not seem right. If he is not the source he has been screwed pretty good

[d meyers]

General Staudt speaks, see abc news site http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/staudt_bush_040917-1.html

So why the hell did CBS not contact General Staudt prior to running the Hit Piece???? One has to really question the effort put into authenticating the documents prior to their news piece...

C-BS really f'd up this one big time.... At least the J-Schools will have a new case study on what not to do prior to running with a story.

The big question is what type of accountability will CBS take and will anyone be canned. Viacom and the board of directors may be stepping in soon.... Imagine how C-BS would cover such a screw up of this proportion at a Corporation with supposed ties to GW.

The TV audience is going to punish C-BS big time over this, I cannot wait to see C-BS's ratings the next few weeks. When ratings tank Rather is going to be thrown overboard since ratings=$

[d meyers]

An example of GOOD journalism. Why couldn't CBS do this is the months they were working on the story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

[Pax]

I think that this discussion is diverting attention away from the bigger issue - who should I vote for in November. Whether CBS is now part of the axis of evil or not is not the ultimate issue. It is more important to know whether what these documents show is real.
I too am very suspicious of this "memogate". So big deal CBS was duped and are not backing down. Let us hold CBS and Rather to the same standards others hold FOX and O'Reilly. Come on now, let us put down the rope and buckets of tar and feathers. Rather is not the problem here. Let us instead look at who will benefit from these fake documents and the distraction that will occur when the docs are found as fake. It is claer that the dems and Kerry are not benefitting. Instead we are wasting our time discussing the memos rather than unemployment figures, Iraq, failed environmental policy, etc. So who benefits from this "memo-gate". WWWWWho?

[d meyers]

Pax, don't you know that the documents were dropped from a black helicopter to the back lot of the Kinko's in Abeline (sp?) TX where a person hired by Karl Rove (three people removed to cover his tracks) faxed them to C-BS.

If you are unable to see why a felony committed with the intent to influence a Presidential election is pretty serious stuff then all is lost.

I do not buy for one minute C-BS was duped or was just sloppy. Discounting document experts, not interviewing General Staudt, a major person mentioned in the memos, not airing the interviews with the family, only showing 4 documents not the 6 received, is not sloppy journalism from the Tiffany Network. I don't know why C-BS did what they did but it was not being duped.

Let me ask you this, who benefits from a John Kerry candadicy?? WWWWWWWWho?

[d meyers]

here is some reading for you pax, http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn19.html

[d meyers]

Rather tonight said a few things that were interesting

1. Bill Burkett gave them the forged documents
2. Bill Burkett did not approach CBS but CBS approached Burkett making inquiry about the docs

Well, well, well, there is a potential HUGE story for any enterprising journalist. Who interesting Mr. Rather. The question that screams to be asked of C-BS is:

C-BS, who told you to approach Burkett about the documents??? Inquirying minds want to know