Reply With QuoteNo . 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.
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.
No . 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.
In the end the Swifties were proven as grudge-holding liars, and the Rathergate do ents were proven "fake but accurate".
Everyone always is to blame except Dubya or his cronies.
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.
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
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 do ents, 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 compe ion.
Members of the national press corps know something critical about the story – who was peddling the do ents. 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 do ents 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 do ents on Bush's TANG service? And why would they seek do ents 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 do ents 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 do entary 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 do ents 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 do ent 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 do ents 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 do ents 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.
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.
That's ing stupid.
Burkett gave Rather and Mapes the do ents. 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.
Rumor has it that the Swift Boat Vets have very strong ties to the republican party. So?
NBADan is an obvious attempt by long-time Republican message board posters to try and paint Democrats as nuts.
Spurm, at this point I think that would seem to be the most likely case.
The Swift Vets registered as a 527. CBS hasn't.Rumor has it that the Swift Boat Vets have very strong ties to the republican party. So?
Mission accomplished! :wacko :pNBADan is an obvious attempt by long-time Republican message board posters to try and paint Democrats as nuts.
Another rumor about "Mission Accomplished"?
You mean ala Dubya?
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.
Nice.
Who gave Burkett the do ents? You think he whipped them up on his home computer? Common..somebody sent Burkett these do ents 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.Burkett gave Rather and Mapes the do ents. Burkett has a long history of animus towards Bush. Case closed.
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.
Ha. Keep wishing.
Gee, might the Demos have started the rumors that Stone was involved? No, that wouldn't make sense.
So ing what if a longtime "Republican" questioned the authenticity of the memos? I mean that's a dumb ing argument even for you to make.
I remember some being called wackos for questioning the validity of the do ents while we were having that educational discussion about typewriters.
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.
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 ing loon and were burned Rather badly.
"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?
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!
Karl Rove is one bad mofo.
More Republican conspiracy theories (please see disclaimer)
www.nationalreview.com/ke...ryspot.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.
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).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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions