the DEFINITIVE word on the CBS/DNC forged ANG documents

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

huh? I was making that analogy to show you, conspiracy theories abound depnding on who is in office.

My bad. I misread that one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Whether or not the documents prove to be true, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that their "content" is true. Of course, the Repugs want you to stay as far away from that realization as they possibly can.

Bingo.

The Rove attack machine and its surrogates have been successful on that account.

Instead of addressing the truth about Smirk's ANG service, Rove and Co. have the lapdog media chattering 24/7 about typewriter fonts.

[watermock]

Now it's Carl Rove that persuaded Burkett to Fax 6 forged documents from Texas to an assistant to Dan Rather. Fact is, 2 of the docs were so ludicrous they were not even presented.

[Exile_In_SJ]

heres an interesting peice on the Rather forgery scam...




Who knew?
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?



Clarice Feldman

[Exile_In_SJ]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN]Bingo.

The Rove attack machine and its surrogates have been successful on that account.

Instead of addressing the truth about Smirk's ANG service, Rove and Co. have the lapdog media chattering 24/7 about typewriter fonts.



Because there was no truth there to be addressed. It was all made up by the left. Why address blatant forgeries?

Lessee...We (The rabid left) made up these documents...but you should stll answer the questions they raise, even though these documents are fake.


riiiighhhhttt.....

[Blueflame]

[QUOTE=Exile_In_SJ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Bingo.

The Rove attack machine and its surrogates have been successful on that account.

Instead of addressing the truth about Smirk's ANG service, Rove and Co. have the lapdog media chattering 24/7 about typewriter fonts.



Because there was no truth there to be addressed. It was all made up by the left. Why address blatant forgeries?

Lessee...We (The rabid left) made up these documents...but you should stll answer the questions they raise, even though these documents are fake.


riiiighhhhttt.....

Please enlighten us to how that is different from the swiftliars seeking to emend historical records and accounts and then demanding that Kerry address their already-debunked claims?

[Exile_In_SJ]

It's different because these are actual eyewitnesses to Kerry's behaviour in Viet Nam. Now you can disagree with what they say, but they are witnesses.

With the forgeries, they are forgeries, whatever they purport to say is tainted. Why? it's simple. because they are forgeries. Pretty simple concept. Anyhting they say cannot be believed. Why? Because they are forgeries. Is anyone here getting the concept of 'forgeries' or 'fake'?

Worse yet, they are forgeries attributed to a dead man.

With the swift boat vets, they were there serving with Kerry. You may disagree with what they say, but they have credibility because they were there. ultimately in the swift boat vets case, it'll be who you choose to believe.

With Bush and the ANG, the questions are based on forged/false/fake documents. You can believe the documents if you want, but all that proves is that you chose to believe false/fake/forged papers.

[Exile_In_SJ]

pretty interesting bit about Terry McAwful and the cBS forgeries...

from the kerryspot

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

[Exile_In_SJ]

makes you wonder where McAwful got the information 9 hours before they were publicized? Was he in the loop? Did his office supply the forgeries to cBS?

Why would he use the word 'sugarcoat' if he didn't know about the memo?

hmmmmmm very interesting

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by Exile_In_SJ

It's different because these are actual eyewitnesses to Kerry's behaviour in Viet Nam. Now you can disagree with what they say, but they are witnesses.

With the forgeries, they are forgeries, whatever they purport to say is tainted. Why? it's simple. because they are forgeries. Pretty simple concept. Anyhting they say cannot be believed. Why? Because they are forgeries. Is anyone here getting the concept of 'forgeries' or 'fake'?

Worse yet, they are forgeries attributed to a dead man.

With the swift boat vets, they were there serving with Kerry. You may disagree with what they say, but they have credibility because they were there. ultimately in the swift boat vets case, it'll be who you choose to believe.

With Bush and the ANG, the questions are based on forged/false/fake documents. You can believe the documents if you want, but all that proves is that you chose to believe false/fake/forged papers.

Don't you mean some of the swiftliars served with Kerry? Most of them have no more personal knowledge of Kerry than you or I, however.

Yet, why should Kerry have been asked to address Thurlow's claim that the swiftboats were not under fire when Thurlow's own medal citation affirmed that they were under fire? And why should he have to address any of Al French's third-hand claims? Al French now acknowledges that he, personally, witnessed nothing.

As to the memos, "unable to authenticate" does not necessarily automatically translate into "forged"; nonetheless, the origin and motivation for the release of the papers may never be clear. Politics is a dirty business and with the stakes so high, risky machinations are a part of the territory. CBS should have known better than to run with the story, imo and it's a shame they didn't exercise better judgment.

[alkemical]

so lets get this straight -

you guys only support forgeries on your side(s)?

forgeries for making war or to fill in someone's preferential treatment for missing time.... wow no wonder our country turned to **** - we condone their actions

[Exile_In_SJ]

I sit corrected, some of the swit boats veterans. Still, that's a heck of alot more witnesses than the lefties against Bush on the ANG. So far no witnesss have come forward to say Bush didn't complete his guard duty honorably.

[Exile_In_SJ]

from little green footballs.

RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke:

“The original Kerry campaign categorical denials of knowledge of the documents prior to the CBS report gave way to admission of numerous conversations with the source.

“Now a Kerry campaign advisor conversation where ‘the documents never came up’ gives way to a conversation where ‘he tried to convince me as to why I should give them the documents.’

“Someone engaged in illegal activity, which became part of an effort to influence the outcome of a Presidential election and Senator Kerry’s campaign should take their involvement seriously. They should immediately disclose what other ‘seniors’ in the Kerry campaign and whom at the Democrat National Committee Bill Burkett spoke to in August and make clear what Senator Kerry knew and when he knew it.”


it gets curiouser and curiouser

[watermock]

Thre is still some contention about that issue since Kerry wrote the report himself. It would be rather odd for a veteran to say that he didn't deserve their medal.

That is, of course except for Kerry, who threw his medals away before he didn't, just like he voted for the supplemantal bill before he voted against it.

[patteeu]

JFKerry has to get up each morning and wonder why he got into this race in the first place. I almost feel sorry for him.

[azbronco]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

Don't you mean some of the swiftliars served with Kerry? Most of them have no more personal knowledge of Kerry than you or I, however.

They do know that kerry accused all of them of war crimes, I guess all of us do know that.

[alkemical]

you guys only support forgeries on your side(s)?

forgeries for making war or to fill in someone's preferential treatment for missing time.... wow no wonder our country turned to **** - we condone their actions

[Exile_In_SJ]

just read over at another site that Bush served 5 yrs 4 months of his required time of 6 years in the ANG before getting the honorable discharge, and Kerry sered over 3 years of his 6 year obligation to te navy. What happened to the remaining almost 3 years of his required service? We don't hear of it

[alkemical]

the silence has spoken

[Exile_In_SJ]

Originally Posted by amesj523

the silence has spoken

uhm, show us the forgeries.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by amesj523

you guys only support forgeries on your side(s)?

forgeries for making war or to fill in someone's preferential treatment for missing time.... wow no wonder our country turned to **** - we condone their actions

Who forged a document for making war?

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Who forged a document for making war?

what he said

[watermock]

Fact of the matter is Kerry didn't even know he could go home after 3 Purples.

The CO had him sent home. He was totally sick of his arrogance and bad decisions and they shipped him stateside. Hey Johhny, here are your papers, your a ****ing hero, now get out of here.

Look it up. It's pretty funny how universally he was hated for self promotion.

[watermock]

John Kerry is a liar and a fraud, unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. That's not just the opinion of American conservatives: As this astonishing new book shows, most of the men who served with Kerry in Vietnam think this way. Now, in Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, John O'Neill and Jerry Corsi explain why.

O'Neill (who succeeded Kerry as commander of Swift boat PCF 94 in Vietnam and soundly defeated him in a 1971 debate about the war on the Dick Cavett Show) and Corsi lay bare in this book the hypocrisy and paradoxes of Kerry. They explain how someone who until recently claimed he was a war criminal, who threw away his medals and supported the North Vietnamese with his words, and who even met with enemy delegations in Paris while our soldiers were fighting and dying in the field, can now switch sides to run as a hero of those he condemned as criminal in that war.

This book gives you the whole story: the truth (from trustworthy eyewitnesses) about the service in Vietnam that Kerry has consistently distorted for his own political gain; Kerry's notorious, un-American activities as head of the peacenik group Vietnam Veterans Against the War; his cynical practice of trying to appeal to both sides of the American voting public by playing up both his Vietnam service and his antiwar activities; and much, much more that establishes beyond all doubt that Kerry is truly unfit to be President, or to hold any public office.


Meet the real John Kerry -- as self-obsessed and ruthlessly calculating as Slick Willie:

"If there is anything I can do to unmask this charlatan please let me know. He brings disgrace to all who served" -- and similar assessments of Kerry from his fellow soldiers

John Kerry: the only Swift Boat commander who received a Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound -- plus the facts about all his Purple Hearts, none of which was awarded for serious injuries

How accompanying crewmen told the examining doctor that Kerry was running for President and had wounded himself when Kerry presented his "first wartime injury" for treatment

A close examination of Kerry's genuine war record: how it reveals, contrary to his own exaggerated version, Kerry's duplicity and complete lack of fitness to be Commander-in-Chief

The gunner's mate who sat behind and above Kerry for most of his Vietnam stay: why he came to regard Kerry as incompetent and dishonest

Why fed-up Swift Boat personnel asked Kerry to go home after he had served just four months in Vietnam

How Kerry spent much of his time in Vietnam filming himself in scenarios carefully designed to look dangerous

The deafening silence that greeted Kerry's introduction as the man "who may be the next President of the United States" before a gathering of his Vietnam comrades-in-arms

Kerry's accusations of war crimes by Americans in Vietnam: how they relied on fake impersonator veterans who concocted incidents that were established decades ago as exaggerations or pure fabrications

"I will tell you in all candor that the only baby killer I knew in Vietnam was John F. Kerry": the startling assessment of one of Kerry's fellow Swift Boat commanders

The Swift Boat Kerry commanded: how it drew the ire of officers by opening fire without prior clearance and without apparent reason, sometimes even though it had not been fired at by the enemy

How Kerry has actually admitted causing unnecessary civilian casualties in Vietnam

Kerry's stories of how he confronted superiors with anti-war sentiments and objections to military policies that he felt were inappropriate: proof that these conversations never took place

War hero? Yes, to the Communists: How Kerry's photo was found in the "Heroes of the Vietnamese Resistance" section of a war museum in Communist Vietnam!

The impossibility of finding any Kerry position on the Vietnam War that isn't also held by Vietnam's Communist masters

The full truth about the medals that Kerry doesn't want you to think he threw away -- and has lied about repeatedly

Kerry's strange reticence about revealing what he discussed at his meeting with Vietnamese Communists in Paris in 1970

Proof that, despite his denials, Kerry really did attend the 1971 Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting in which they discussed a plan to assassinate Senators

How Kerry helped disseminate KGB-generated anti-American propaganda during his antiwar activities

William F. Buckley's 1971 critique of Kerry's antiwar testimony: "the indictment of an ignorant young man" who was willing to level baseless charges

Revealed: FBI records that show that Kerry referred to the Communist thug Ho Chi Minh as "the George Washington of Vietnam" in a speech in Philadelphia in 1971

The carefully orchestrated piece of political theater that was Kerry's shameful appearance before the Fulbright Committee (plus evidence that the Committee refused to allow pro-war soldiers to testify)

How Kerry's testimony painted all those who served honorably in Vietnam as criminals - and caused more deaths and prolonged the war by undermining support at home and contributing directly to a Communist victory

Photographs from the War Remnants Museum in Saigon, proving that the Vietnamese Reds consider Kerry a hero of their struggle against democracy and freedom

How Kerry staged a self-promotion video while ignoring a memorial service for dead Vietnam comrades

How Kerry lied about his Vietnam experiences -- in a $50 million ad campaign

Unfit for Command presents crucial information that the American people should consider carefully as they decide Kerry's fitness to be Commander-in-Chief. If patriotic Americans heed the facts that O'Neill and Corsi present here, they will return this untrustworthy, self-serving political animal to private life this November. Nothing less than our survival as a nation could hang in the balance.

[Rohirrim]

Jon Stewart: ...These are powerful indictments or rather they would be had any of those guys served on Kerry's boat. ... By saying 'with him,' they mean they were in Vietnam at the same time. Kind of the same way Snoopy served with the Red Baron.