Et Tu Fox?

[Ruby Ridge]

link (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=191073)

Hypocrisy: How Fox News' Attacks on CBS Belie Fox's Own Record

September 22, 2004

As Fox News attempts to blame the Kerry campaign for the CBS News document controversy, it is also claiming CBS has a "liberal" bias/conflict of interest because a producer apparently told a Kerry aide about the documents. But a look at the record shows Fox has a far more pronounced bias and conflict of interest, as its news executives have given political advice to the White House, its top political reporter's wife worked on the Bush campaign, and its news director on election night 2000 was actually related to George W. Bush.

Roger Ailes Gives Political Advice to the Bush White House
According to Bob Woodward's book, Fox News executive Roger Ailes, who formerly served as a GOP political operative, gave White House political adviser Karl Rove a confidential memo after 9/11 that advised the president on how to consolidate his power. "[Ailes'] back-channel message: The American public would tolerate waiting and would be patient, but only as long as they were convinced that Bush was using the harshest measures possible" in response to the terror attacks, Woodward writes. The move was so brazen, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson told PBS, "Roger Ailes is the editorial chief of fox news, and this gives the appearance of partisanship. This is sucking up to power." [Source: New York Daily News, 11/19/02; PBS, 11/21/02]

Fox Correspondent Jokes on Camera About His Wife Working for George W. Bush
Fox News was so openly close with the Bush campaign in 2000 it allowed Carl Cameron to cover George W. Bush, even though Cameron's wife was working on the Bush campaign. As the New York Observer reports, the movie Outfoxed has camera "footage showing Mr. Cameron pandering to George W. Bush in a sit-down interview on July 19, 2000: Mr. Cameron tells Mr. Bush that his wife, Pauline Cameron, was campaigning with Mr. Bush's sister, Dorothy ('Doro') Bush Koch. This delights Mr. Bush." One source familiar with the situation, who declined to be named, told NYTV "that Mr. Cameron had attempted to get his wife a job with the Bush transition team." [Source: New York Observer, 7/26/04]

Fox Puts Bush Cousin in Charge of Election Night; Calls Bush Five Times to Consult
Fox News put John Ellis, President Bush's cousin, in charge of its election night projections in 2000. Fox became the first network to call Florida for George W. Bush – even though the data did not support the call. AP later reported that Ellis "spoke five times with his cousin, George W. Bush" on election night. [Source: AP, 12/12/00]

Fox Pushed Swift Boat Ads Without Confirmation of Truth; Never Gave Apology
Fox News has criticized CBS for supposedly wanting to influence the presidential election. Yet it was Fox News that continued to repeat all of the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Sen. John Kerry, even though there was no factual evidence to prove them. Fox News has yet to issue an apology.

Fox Airs 20 Percent More of GOP Convention than Democratic Convention; All Other Networks Kept Parity
A study immediately after both political conventions concluded found that Fox News devoted 20 percent more air time to covering speeches at the Republican National Convention than speeches at the Democratic National Convention. The other major networks aired equal time of both conventions. [Source: Media Matters, 9/3/04]

[Tommy Duncan]

No mention of Fox News airing an investigative report using forged documents.



Fox Airs 20 Percent More of GOP Convention than Democratic Convention; All Other Networks Kept Parity
A study immediately after both political conventions concluded found that Fox News devoted 20 percent more air time to covering speeches at the Republican National Convention than speeches at the Democratic National Convention. The other major networks aired equal time of both conventions. [Source: Media Matters, 9/3/04]


Um the "other networks" skipped the first night of the GOP convention (McCain, Giuliani) while they aired the first night of the Demo convention.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Anyone with half a brain knows that FoxNews is a conservative republican news organization and that fact is indisputable.

[Tommy Duncan]

Right. They are just missing the other half of the brain which would tell them that ABCCBSCNNNBC are liberal Democrat "news organizations"...

[CommanderMcBragg]

That is called conservative paranoia.

Matt Lauer is so far up Dubya's ass he has a permanent tan.

[Tommy Duncan]

Exhibit A.

[Yonivore]

Roger Ailes Gives Political Advice to the Bush White House

According to Bob Woodward's book, Fox News executive Roger Ailes, who formerly served as a GOP political operative, gave White House political adviser Karl Rove a confidential memo after 9/11 that advised the president on how to consolidate his power. "[Ailes'] back-channel message: The American public would tolerate waiting and would be patient, but only as long as they were convinced that Bush was using the harshest measures possible" in response to the terror attacks, Woodward writes. The move was so brazen, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson told PBS, "Roger Ailes is the editorial chief of fox news, and this gives the appearance of partisanship. This is sucking up to power." [Source: New York Daily News, 11/19/02; PBS, 11/21/02]
You'll find Dan Rather's name along with about 90% of the Network News management on the roster of Demoncratic donors. Dan Rather has attended Demoncratic fundraisers in Austin.

Roger Ailes was offering advice. CBS was feeding bogus information to the "Opposition Research" team. [Hell, even Al Gore had the sense not to take help from such sources.]

Roger Ailes, partisas as it may be, was attempting to aid his chosen candidate with his own personal opinion and advice. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were attempting to undermine their chosen candidate's opponent with lies and forgeries. If you don't know the difference...you're hopeless.

Fox Correspondent Jokes on Camera About His Wife Working for George W. Bush

Fox News was so openly close with the Bush campaign in 2000 it allowed Carl Cameron to cover George W. Bush, even though Cameron's wife was working on the Bush campaign. As the New York Observer reports, the movie Outfoxed has camera "footage showing Mr. Cameron pandering to George W. Bush in a sit-down interview on July 19, 2000: Mr. Cameron tells Mr. Bush that his wife, Pauline Cameron, was campaigning with Mr. Bush's sister, Dorothy ('Doro') Bush Koch. This delights Mr. Bush." One source familiar with the situation, who declined to be named, told NYTV "that Mr. Cameron had attempted to get his wife a job with the Bush transition team." [Source: New York Observer, 7/26/04]
And what nefarious scheme was hatched from that association?

Did Fox air an interview with a lying partisan, bolstered with forged documents, in an attempt to undermine President Bush's opponent?

Well, CBS did.

Fox Puts Bush Cousin in Charge of Election Night; Calls Bush Five Times to Consult

Fox News put John Ellis, President Bush's cousin, in charge of its election night projections in 2000. Fox became the first network to call Florida for George W. Bush – even though the data did not support the call. AP later reported that Ellis "spoke five times with his cousin, George W. Bush" on election night. [Source: AP, 12/12/00]
The call was right...by 537 votes.

ABC prematurely called the state for Gore. So, what's your point?

Fox Pushed Swift Boat Ads Without Confirmation of Truth; Never Gave Apology

Fox News has criticized CBS for supposedly wanting to influence the presidential election. Yet it was Fox News that continued to repeat all of the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Sen. John Kerry, even though there was no factual evidence to prove them. Fox News has yet to issue an apology.
I'm betting you'll find in every repetition of the Swiftboat ad content the proper attribution statement, "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have alleged..."

I'm betting you won't find one bit of footage or transcripted where Fox has repeated, without hard evidence, any allegation contained in the Swiftboat ads. Go ahead...

Dan Rather, on the other hand, STILL maintains the forgeries are accurate...

Fox Airs 20 Percent More of GOP Convention than Democratic Convention; All Other Networks Kept Parity

A study immediately after both political conventions concluded found that Fox News devoted 20 percent more air time to covering speeches at the Republican National Convention than speeches at the Democratic National Convention. The other major networks aired equal time of both conventions. [Source: Media Matters, 9/3/04]
Maybe it was 20% more entertaining than the Demoncratic National Convention.

Nothing compares to the blatant bias with which CBS approached the TANG story. Nothing.

[Joe Chalupa]

20% does.

And why do you keep bringing up TANG?

It's making me thirsty.

[Tommy Duncan]

In re Cameron, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe has a daughter who is working for the Kerry campaign. I saw him trashing the Swift Vets on a news program last month. But that's ok because Kerry is a Demo.

[Tommy Duncan]

The 3 "major" (not much longer) news networks skipped the first night of the GOP convention which had two of the most significant speeches outside of Bush's (Giuliani and McCain) whereas they didn't miss the first night of the Demos convention which had the Clintons. Go figure.

[Joe Chalupa]

But they all skipped day two of the DNC..or am I wrong?

[Spurminator]

Fox News has a conservative slant. This is not news to anyone. They were born out of a perceived mliberal bias in the mainstream media. Supply and Demand.

Nothing mentioned here even begins to compare to Rathergate.

[Nbadan]

Fox News Lies, but they are nuanced lies, not direct ones. Here is a good explanation of some of the distortive, deceptive and outright lieing techniques Fox News uses...

1. ½ a Story = Complete Lie: I have decided to bluntly call “deception” by these Networks and by the White House, LIES. When adults knowingly imply things that are not true, they are lies. Simple, end of story.

Here is an example of what is going on;

NEWS ALERT: A man survived a jump from a plane this afternoon. He was not wearing a parachute and he credits his new Nike Plane Jumpers with cushioning his fall.
Now let’s say that story is completely true. All the networks and printed media pick up the story. Front page, lead story. Well, what they forgot to tell you was that the plane was a 2 seater plane, and it was on the runway, stopped, and the jump was from 3 feet off the ground. Now the full story was available to all the media, but Fox News does not feel that those details are important.

In the past I would say that technically there are no lies being told, but when I factor in the responsibility of a journalist, I must indeed call this story a blatant lie. I hold journalists to a higher standard that I would hold a school child.

Now take that practice and apply it to almost every action the Bush Administration has taken since its grabbing control of the White House. The result is a public so misinformed that it will never to be able to comprehend or accept the level of deception that has taken place since the late 90s, which is when I feel that this problem started to get out of control. This is a fairly accurate description of the current state of the Union, so to speak.

2. Whoops, My Bad!: I refer to the technique, used with frequency of rain drops in a storm, of reporting, or blurting out unsubstantiated stories that turn out to be incorrect.

The Pentagon is currently using this technique almost every time they hold a press briefing. This is effective in that a person hearing a news story may tell others about that story. On the other hand a person who hears the correction is not going to contact everyone he or she originally told the incorrect story. Taking that into account every person who was told the original story has told others the original incorrect story. This is basically creating urban legends. It works. Just your friends about Mikey, the kid on the Life commercial, and I bet they tell you that he died from eating Pop Rocks!

3. Critics are Communists!: Why is it if anyone criticizes the Bush administration or their actions, we are labeled as communists or anti-American? I have heard the “C” word lately. Each time I have asked the person calling the name to explain the principles of Communism and why they are evil. I have yet to find anyone who can answer even part of that question. Labels and name calling; this is what right wingers are good at. Ask them to elaborate and they are stuck. Those who keep preaching democracy forget that the beauty of our system is that is has checks and balances built in. Bush, or should I say Cheney and Ashcroft have all but eliminated this. Congress took a powder all together. Not only is it is NOT anti-American to question the actions of the government, it is that very right that separated us from the very communists that we are now being called. It amazes me how unintelligent the right wing is. They repeat what is told to them without having any foundation for their opinions. They are human lemmings following their leader into a sea of doom; asking not one question, demanding not one iota of evidence. They are told that Saddam gasses his own people and they will repeat that ad infinitum; but if you ask them about the details or history of the events, or for any facts to substantiate their repeated mantra they just call you a name. Bravo Sean Hannity, you and your pied pipers of propaganda are succeeding in hypnotizing a nation of weak minded Americans. Amazing and sad!

Here are seveteen methods of Truth Deception that is regularly used by the Right-wing media. I'm sure all of our NeoCon posters will recognize some of these techniques...

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

Dismiss the charges as "old news."

Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

Source: The Bird.org (http://thebird.org/host/dcdave/article3/991228.html)

[Whottt]

Anyone with half a brain knows that FoxNews is a conservative republican news organization and that fact is indisputable.

LOL! What was your first clue? The Hannity & Bitch show? :)

Most of the panelists and debate shows are Republican slanted...but I don't see them hiding it either.

As for the general news coverage...it's much more balanced and doesn't have the overwhelmingly negative whining slant of the other New Channels.

Watching CNBC and CNN drains me of my will to live and makes me want to go jump off a building it so incredibly negative...and it has been that way for a long time. ..Well, other than the ultra hot Iranian chick..I will watch her..but she hates the Islamic movement herself.

[Whottt]

Dan it's just a slant...there are other news choices.

I don't think you understand why Fox and Conservatism is getting more popular...

Liberalism has fast become the incredibly beautiful woman that knows she's beautiful and is an unreachable impossibly high matinence pity addict because of it...no matter what you do she's never gonna be happy...It's really all about her and her issues..because she's beautiful.

Conservatism is the not as good looking but more fun to be around chick...

You can only invest so much time and energy trying to get laid off the high mantinence chick before you are drained empty and say **** it and decide to go have a beer with fun chick.

Too much confusion, hopelessness and negativity in the Democratic party these days, in my view. A far cry from the ultra positive Clinton era...It's time for the left to figure out just what it's really about(other than hating and ripping Bush, which isn't hard for anyone to do)...

Having Kerry as your frontman was just about the absolute worst thing you could have done...since he was a champion/harbinger/face of one of the most overwhelmingly negative eras/issues in US history.

[Tommy Duncan]

danny your post refers to Hannity and he's a commentator, not a news anchor. Also he appears on a show with a co-host who presents the left wing point of view.

Hannity is not built up to be an objective journalist like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings.

[Ruby Ridge]

Rather issued a correction and apology. He is a journalist, he tries to get the story right. Fox is a propaganda arm of the RNC, they don't correct their stories when they get it wrong.

The story (TANG) still has many unanwered questions and the reason it keeps coming back is the questions don't get answered. This plays into the Coward of Crawford's hands as it distracts from the story and allows you right wing idealogues to fret about Rather. Throw out the documents and Bush still got favored treatment, has not answered why he missed his physical, proved his showed up for drills in 'bama or reported for duty in Masschusetts.

You folks say what happened thirty years ago doesn't matter, fine, allow the press access to the microfiche in St. Louis at the archives.

[Tommy Duncan]

Fox is as much a "propaganda arm" of the RNC as ABCCNNNBCCBS are for the DNC.

Let me know when Fox does an investigative report of a Democrat presidential candidate based on forged documents, the recollection of a major campaign fundraiser for the candidate's opponent, a widely discredited source with a history of animus towards the candidate, contacts the opponents campaign to put them in touch with that source, and drags out the retraction of the story while claiming that the documents were "fake, but accurate" and while everyone in the free world knew they were fakes.

Give me a fucking break.

[Spurminator]

Rather issued a correction and apology. He is a journalist, he tries to get the story right.

A mountain of evidence shows he doesn't try hard enough.

I try hard at my job too, but mistakes like this get you fired regardless of effort.


Throw out the documents and Bush still got favored treatment, has not answered why he missed his physical, proved his showed up for drills in 'bama or reported for duty in Masschusetts.

I'm reminded of an amusing commentary on The Daily Show... something to the degree of...

"George W. Bush was given preferential treatment growing up?? This is a STUNNING development!"

[Tommy Duncan]

Are we to pretend that NBC's Today Show didn't run 3 days worth of interviews with Kitty Kelley in which she made various tabloid type claims about Bush and his family?

I find it amusing how one lone cable channel gets so much shit for allegedly doing for conservative Republicans what the news organizations of the major broadcast networks have been doing for the Left for decades.

[Ruby Ridge]

"George W. Bush was given preferential treatment growing up?? This is a STUNNING development!"

Except the Coward of Crawford denies that as does his father. Sounds like you agree they are lying about this.

[Ruby Ridge]

Are we to pretend that NBC's Today Show didn't run 3 days worth of interviews with Kitty Kelley in which she made various tabloid type claims about Bush and his family?

And they summarily dismissed her.

[Spurminator]

They are denying this particular example of preferential treatment. But what is the entire premise this whole "scandal" is built around?

Say you proved beyond a shred of doubt that all of these allegations are true. What have you proven? That he got by on subpar military service 30 fucking years ago. Do you want him impeached?

You guys are the ones distracting from Kerry's campaign with this bullshit. I mean, it's not like he lied under oath while he was President. Maybe if that was the scenario, you wouldn't care.

[Tommy Duncan]

Right, after 3 days of interviews.

Perhaps CBS should have "summarily dismissed" Burkett and his documents before rushing to air. What was the rush? Rather curious how the "Texans for Truth" and the DNC's fortunate son campaign appeared around the same time.

[Ruby Ridge]

Why are you boohooing about Rather? His mistake is a boon to the right wing. The real story will subside again while all the talking head pundits decry CBS.

Rather issued a mea culpa and has moved on. Unfortunately, this is a distraction that will take away focus from Bush's failures, namely his "war on terror" and the mess in Iraq. His supposed strengths are really his weakness.

If anyone should be upset with CBS it should be liberals.

[Spurminator]

Maybe if the Democrats had focused on those alledged failures earlier instead of Kerry's Vietnam service and then Bush's non-Service, it would be different. The Democrats produced no fewer than a dozen press releases (and one video) about Bush's TANG service.

[Tommy Duncan]

No shit. The Left spent the better part of 18 months lambasting the Bush administration and it all led up to Kerry's Vietnam service and Bush's National Guard service? WTF?

Who deserves the blame? The Kerry campaign and the DNC.

[Nbadan]

In the end the Swifties were proven as grudge-holding liars, and the Rathergate documents were proven "fake but accurate".

[ClintSquint]

Everyone always is to blame except Dubya or his cronies. :rolleyes

[Spurminator]

Dubya should be blamed for the Democrats' abysmal campaign?

Are you guys such homers that you've actually convinced yourselves that Kerry has run a good campaign? Seriously, any Democrat should be thoroughly pissed off right now. You're losing to one of the most controversial Presidents in the history of the country.

Republicans do spare Bush a lot of blame, but his opponents will blame him for anything.

[Tommy Duncan]

Kerry made Vietnam an issue in this campaign, both in regards to his service as well as that of his opponent. The Swift Vets wouldn't have had the impact they did without Kerry doing so.

And this did not begin with Kerry's convention speech. Kerry earlier this year flat out attacked Bush on his National Guard service.

The Killian memos were fakes and CBS needed them to be true (or at least perceived to be true) to make their story.

Anyways, since anything found on a left wing website is considered a reliable source of opinion or news then I think the following is worthwhile reading...


www.americanthinker.com/a...le_id=3866 (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3866)



Who knew?

The American Thinker
September 23rd, 2004

An examination of the timeline of publicly-reported events leading up to the Rathergate scandal raises some interesting questions about possible as-yet unrevealed collusion among Bill Burkett, members of the national press corps, and the Kerry campaign. Someone other than CBS and Burkett appears to have known about the phony documents, and spread the word quietly, in preparation for a massive coordinated campaign to discredit President Bush.

On April 27, Kerry campaign literature suddenly claimed that there were "verbal orders" from Killian to suspend Bush for failing to take his medical exam. Shortly afterward (in "May" according to Burkett's ex-lawyer, Van Os) Burkett began getting calls from "national newspapers and TV." How did these reporters suddenly and mysteriously find their way to Baird, Texas within days of the Kerry campaign piece?

Unless you believe that a number of journalists saw a lodestar leading them, like Magi, to the doorstep of Bill Burkett in search of memos (which seem to have been created shortly before), the more reasonable conclusion is that someone pointed them in that direction.

CBS indicates Mary Mapes, the segment producer, had been in communication with Burkett for 18 months prior to the Sixty Minutes show, which puts her in this pack of reporters. But who else was in on the scam? We are told that Mapes and the CBS team were obsessed with their “scoop,” so they certainly didn’t tip-off the competition.

Members of the national press corps know something critical about the story – who was peddling the documents. Yet none have yet revealed themselves. In the midst of biggest journalistic scandal in decades, they are holding their tongues. Who directed them to Burkett? And when?

The public wants to know. And, given the fact that this scandal bears directly on the forthcoming presidential election, we have a right to know. The press corps, the schools of journalism, and all those nonprofit organizations which never tire of giving awards to journalists for “outstanding public service,” are almost completely silent on the obligation of the “profession” of journalism to purge itself of what looks like corrupt collusion to spread forgeries.

From the press reports the timeline is fairly clear, though, unlike CBS, I am not vouching for anybody's credibility.

We don't know when all of these memos were created. But based on technical evidence, one appears to have been created on February 6, 2004.

On February 12, less than a week later, USA Today reported that there had been efforts to cleanse Bush's record. The source for this story was Burkett. The next day the Boston Globe contacted George O. Conn, former Chief Warrant Officer in TANG ,who flatly denied Burkett's claim, saying he never saw anyone combing through the Bush records or discarding any of them.

Shortly afterward according to Van Os (Burkett's ex-lawyer) Burkett received a call from a man (Burkett says a woman, Lucy Ramirez) telling him he had documents confirming Burkett's story that Bush was ordered to take his medical exam and refused to do so. Burkett says he was busy but agreed to pick them up at Houston on March 3, and says did so.

So how did these reporters, so close in time to the Kerry communication on this same point, suddenly get the idea, in late April/early May, that Burkett had documents on Bush's TANG service? And why would they seek documents which probably could not have existed, if they gave credence to Conn, who said the story was false?

Was someone spreading the word? How would the person who gave the cue to the press know there was something there, unless he were involved in creating the documents and passing them to Burkett? And, if that's so, reporters other than Mapes who contacted Burkett are in the best position to crack this mystery.

There must have been others also in the know. How else to explain that on August 11 the Chairman of the Tennessee State Vets for Kerry hinted on a radio interview that there was new evidence regarding Bush's failure to take his medical exam and loss of flight status? This is particularly curious because on August 13 Burkett posted an internet article indicating that he had not yet seen documentary evidence of the claim.

But it is approximately this time (mid-August is the best date CBS has given) when Burkett gave CBS the first 2 of the 6 memos. On August 21, Burkett posted on the web that he had spoken to Max Cleland, who said he did want to mount a "counterattack" to the Swift Boats campaign.

Four days later, Burkett posted on the web that "we have reassembled" the Bush files. No explanation is given for whom the “we” refers to. Nor is the meaning of “reassamebled” clear. And a time frame is notably absent. But according to Burkett and Van Os (if you choose the believe them), the phony memos had been in his hands since March 3. The only new development is that by August 21 he had turned 2 of them over to CBS.

By September, it is clear that someone either within CBS or Kerry's camp (or both) was leaking the details of the story. On September 1, liberal blogger Josh Marshall reported that Sixty Minutes was working on a story about Bush's service, and on September 2 , Salon reported that there were "unanswered questions" respecting the President's service in TANG.

Two days later, Lockhart called Burkett. Lockhart says he's 99.9% sure he didn't discuss the memos. This is not terribly believable, because by this time Texans for Truth was about to launch its ad campaign, Operation Fortunate Son, in which these documents would be certain to play a big supporting role. The scent of collusion is obvious to me. But then I was the first kid in my class to figure out there was no Santa Claus.

The next day, September 5, Burkett gave the remaining 4 memos to CBS. And the very next day, Terry McAuliffe issued a release raising questions about Bush's service. The DNC followed this up with yet another presser on the same topic on September 7.

On September 8 the CBS story runs.

The DNC must have worked very hard that evening because it gave three more pressers on the topic on September 9.

The next day the Boston Globe got a TANG document dump; Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times wrote a TANG piece; Texans for Truth began running its Operation Fortunate Son ads; and McAuliffe held a press conference alleging the President was AWOL.

+++++++++++++++++

To maximize a campaign story, one must plant seeds in the public mind about it beforehand and get the troops in line to capitalize on it after it breaks. It is hard for me to look at this timeline and (assuming the parties have told the truth) not see judicious leaks ahead of time, and a well-planned campaign to maximize its impact once the story broke.

And it is even harder to imagine all this without believing that whoever gave the documents to Burkett also told the press that Burkett had them. That person may also have been the one contacting the Tennesee State Vets for Kerry, Texans for Truth and the DNC.

Just who do you suppose would do all of that?

UPDATE: Reader William Henslee writes the following interesting comments:

1. The Nicolas Kristoff column in the NYT was datelined and online on Sept 8th, not Sept 9th. That was the same date of the CBS program and had to be done prior to the CBS broadcast. Its also interesting to note that the Times online edition of this column already had a place for readers to enroll for continuing “breaking news” bulletins on the Air National Guard story. Someone would have had to write the code for that on Sept 8th after the Times staff anticipated that there were going to be a lot of additional breaking news on the story.

2. The NYT article on the TANG documents also carried a Sept.8th dateline, although in was published on Sept. 9th. The story also credited a NYT staffer in Dallas, Texas with contributions to the story, so the Times would have to have had prior knowledge of the date to break the information in order to get an outlying staffer to work on it.

3. The Boston Globe also ran a story on the TANG matter on Sept 8th. Although the paper claimed its ‘Spotlight Team” had done the investigative work. ( Boston Globe Archives, 2004-09-10 ) THE GLOBE SPOTLIGHT TEAM HAS SCORED ANOTHER BULL'S-EYE WITH ITS REPORT ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S VIOLATION OF HIS CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR SERVICE IN THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD, AND HIS STAFF'S SUBSEQUENT EGREGIOUS DENIAL AND MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS (PAGE A1, SEPT. 8 ) .

4. Both the NYT column by Nicolas Kristoff of Sept. 8th and the Boston Globe article on Sept. 8th use an analysis of Bush service records from the same retired Lt. Col Lechliter, vouching for him as an expert who has conclusively proved that Bush failed to fulfill his Guard duties. It seems unusual that two media giants separated by hundreds of miles would seek out the same ‘expert’ on the same day to validate their stories. Who is Lechliter? Is he an aparatchnik of the Kerry Campaign?

I believe this is sufficient evidence of collusion between these media outlets on the timing of the stories to infer that they were being fed information by someone in the Kerry campaign.

[Nbadan]

As I have said before, the Rathergate memos were an obvious attempt by long-time Republican operatives to try and lure the Kerry Campaign into colluding with Burkett. This is the only reason the Right-wing is pushing the Lockhart-Burkett connections.

They know that if the people start talking real issues - George loses in November.

[Tommy Duncan]

That's fucking stupid.

Burkett gave Rather and Mapes the documents. Burkett has a long history of animus towards Bush. Case closed.

Where's the GOP connection? Come with something that isn't fake but real for a change.

[NameDropper]

Rumor has it that the Swift Boat Vets have very strong ties to the republican party. So?

[Spurminator]

NBADan is an obvious attempt by long-time Republican message board posters to try and paint Democrats as nuts.

[Tommy Duncan]

Spurm, at this point I think that would seem to be the most likely case.


Rumor has it that the Swift Boat Vets have very strong ties to the republican party. So?

The Swift Vets registered as a 527. CBS hasn't.

[Samurai Jane]

NBADan is an obvious attempt by long-time Republican message board posters to try and paint Democrats as nuts.

Mission accomplished! :wacko :p

[NameDropper]

Another rumor about "Mission Accomplished"?
You mean ala Dubya? :rollin

[Spurminator]

Arguing over the validity of the allegations involved with the SBVFT and the TANG during a Presidential Campaign is like devoting hours of analysis to the Ndudi Ebi/Linton Johnson matchup before a Spurs/TWolves game.

[Tommy Duncan]

:lol

Nice.

[Nbadan]

Burkett gave Rather and Mapes the documents. Burkett has a long history of animus towards Bush. Case closed.

Who gave Burkett the documents? You think he whipped them up on his home computer? Common..somebody sent Burkett these documents hoping that in his over-eagerness to prove that W. skipped out on the final months of his National guard duty, he could inadvertently get the Kerry campaign to collude with himself and CBS. Obviously, when Lockhart phoned Burkett he smelled out the Republican dirty trick, and kindly thanked Burkett and hung up.

Not only do we have rumors that Roger Stone, a long-time Republican dirty-tricks operative, created the memos and got them to Burkett, we also know that the person who first questioned the authenticity of the memos on a freeper website is another long-time republcan operative who before revealing his theory on the memos, knew nothing about fonts, typewriters, or even MS Word type fonts.

Of course, as I posted in the Fox News thread, whenever anyone is getting close to the truth they are summarily dismissed as leftist, conspiracy, wackos.

[Tommy Duncan]

Ha. Keep wishing.

Gee, might the Demos have started the rumors that Stone was involved? No, that wouldn't make sense.

So fucking what if a longtime "Republican" questioned the authenticity of the memos? I mean that's a dumb fucking argument even for you to make.

[Spurminator]

I remember some being called wackos for questioning the validity of the documents while we were having that educational discussion about typewriters.

[Joe Chalupa]

I don't give a rat's ass about the Swift Boat ads, or Dubya's missing records.
Let's get back to the issues.

[Tommy Duncan]

Yet again we are back to the 'Karl Rove the omnipotent evil genius' myth.

Face it danny, the Kerry campaign, DNC and their allies in the media bet on the credibility of a fucking loon and were burned Rather badly.

[Hook Dem]

"when Lockhart phoned Burkett he smelled out the Republican dirty trick, and kindly thanked Burkett and hung up." ............ How do you know that Dan?????? Were you there holding his huevos?:lol

[Yonivore]

You know, if we have an administration as clever, intelligent, and consistent as Nbadanallah seems to think they are -- I'm voting for them again.

I'm damned impressed at how Karl Rove was able to smack down both Burkett and Rather, not to mention implicate the Kerry Campaign, all by slipping some forgeries under a door in Baird, Texas.

That's masterful. That deserves your vote!

[Joe Chalupa]

Karl Rove is one bad mofo.

[Tommy Duncan]

More Republican conspiracy theories (please see disclaimer)

www.nationalreview.com/ke...ryspot.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp)



WHY WAS TERRY USING TERMS FROM THE CBS MEMO 9 HOURS BEFORE BROADCAST? [09/23 03:16 PM]

Man, those guys at the RNC are a regular Bloodhound Gang or Mod Squad. Take a look at this little observation:

9 HOURS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'" (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)
(I checked with the RNC how they knew it was nine hours ahead of CBS report - it turns out McAuliffe made this statement during a press event held at 11 am Sept. 8.)

The CBS memo, revealed on 60 Minutes that night: "Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush's OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it."

"Sugarcoated." What an interesting word. McAuliffe could have said that Bush's performance reviews were covered up, spun, masked, smoothed over, soft-pedaled, glossed over, prettified, veiled, whitewashed, hushed up, concealed, varnished, suppressed, or distorted. But he just happened to pick a word that appeared in the memos that were supposedly unveiled to the world hours later.

Even beyond McAuliffe's direct quote of the memos, he's specifically referring to the central allegation of the Burkett-to-Mapes memo, that Staudt wanted Bush’s records “sugarcoated.”

If this were a game of Clue, we would collectively be jumping up and down and shouting, "the attempted character assassination was committed by Burkett, Mapes, Rather, Lockhart, and McAuliffe, with the fake memo, in the observatory, er, in CBS offices and DNC headquarters!"

Or maybe this, along with the entire "Operation Fortunate Son," is all just a coincidence.




Disclaimer: This was posted by a former Republican. I have no connections to the Bush/Cheney campaign, the Republican National Committee, Freerepublic.com, Fox News or the Trilateral Commission.

[Nbadan]

You know, if we have an administration as clever, intelligent, and consistent as Nbadanallah seems to think they are -- I'm voting for them again.

I agree. The * administration has run a textbook campaign, but this is typical Karl Rove material, hardly anything new. In both the Swifties case and now in Rathergate the administration has managed to sling a ship load of mud without hardly getting their hands dirty. Unfortunately, the administration Neocons can't control the foreign press the way they can manipulate the U.S. press (although they are trying in Iraq).

[Tommy Duncan]

What proof do you have that the GOP/Rove/Bush/Easter Bunny created those memos other than your own wishful thinking?