The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - More Questions About the Bush Memo (American Spectator Article)

September 10, 2004

| More Questions About the Bush Memo (American Spectator Article)

Very interesting story at American Spectator (site is down now due to Drudge link, so I am printing the entire text here. Text source: Daily Recycler)

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.
The oppo researcher claimed the source was “a retired military officer.” According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

“More than a couple people heard about the papers,” says the DNC staffer. “I’ve heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity.”

The concerns arose from the sourcing. “It wasn’t clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn’t confirm from what file, from what original source they came from.”

The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush’s personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.

According to a Kerry campaign source, there was little gossip about the supposedly hot documents inside the office of the campaign on McPherson Square. “Those documents were not something anyone was talking about or trying to generate buzz on,” says the staffer. “It wasn’t like there were small groups of people talking about this as a bombshell. I think people here weren’t sure what to make of it, because provenance of these documents was uncertain.”

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

“The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush’s file that had Killian calling Bush ‘an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.’ And someone who Killian said ‘performed in an outstanding manner.’ Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different.”

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. “This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn’t show it,” says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign. “There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we’d do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we’d get more information,” says the producer. “If that’s the case, then we’re bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries.”

ABC News’ political unit held a conference call at 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening to discuss the memo and its potential ramifications should the documents turn out to be a forgery. That meeting took place around the time that the deceased Killian’s son made public statements questioning the documents’ authenticity.

According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.

Again, there is a lot of hearsay and so far unproven accusations involved in this. We report, you decide. I’m definitely interested in your comments on the Spectator story.

Posted by Michele at September 10, 2004 09:05 AM | TrackBack

Comments

There is definately enough evidence by now to REQUIRE:

1. That CBS come forward with it’s source.

2. That the Old Media IMMEDIATELY and directly ask the DNC and the Kerry campaign if they had the documents - and, if so - where they got them.

3. That the Old Media, and maybe even law enforcement, make a concerted effort to trace this document back to the original that supposedly came out of the file, or the original forgery. I’m betting that no paper with a 1972 watermark will be found.

Posted by: samuelv at September 10, 2004 09:20 AM

This is a no-brainer. Karl Rove did it, just like he’s running the SBVT campaign.

LOL.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 10, 2004 09:26 AM

From the last excerpted paragraph of the American Spectator article:

both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.

Is that to be their excuse? “The ‘devil’ made me do it”?

The Kerry campaign is getting it’s booty whooped on the war-service front. Kerry’s supporters see fit to do something, anything, to help Kerry’s stature. This time, they relied on forged documents.

No matter who is behind the forgeries, CBS should be ashamed that they presented them as genuine.

Posted by: Tomorrowist at September 10, 2004 09:27 AM

Wow. I was being sarcastic when I proposed that Rove orchestrated this… but by now I have to say that if he really does all the things that are attributed to him then he’s impossibly superheroish.

With the secret power of clairvoyance and prescience he has obviously struck a powerful blow to the DNC and the Kerry campaign.

What a load of crap.

I’m sure he’s probably a great political strategist, but if the accusations are to be believed then the DNC might as well pull out of the election right now.

Posted by: Lackey at September 10, 2004 10:05 AM

BTW: Michele

GREAT job covering this. This kind of coverage is what attracted me to the CP over a year ago, and sadly this kind of “media roundup” style posting has been disappearing.

If your news team is looking for focus then this is it. This kind of balanced summarization which shows activities from all sides is riveting. RIVETING. Each post is worth hours of reading because of all of the fascinating links.

(I’m sorry to say that posts like the convention coverage were definitely not riveting, although I’m sure you guys had fun doing them)

Posted by: Lackey at September 10, 2004 10:11 AM

Rove for President!

Posted by: v at September 10, 2004 10:15 AM

Michele, I’m not ready to pay too much attention to the Prowler’s story yet. I think it was inevitable that somebody was going to put this dead bird on the Democrats’ front porch. This claim seems almost pro forma to me.

I’m not saying it’s not true, or that I have any reason to doubt it. I just don’t have any particular reason to believe it yet.

Of course, at the pace this story’s moving, we’ll probably have independent confirmation from thirty-four different sources by lunchtime, so … you know.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at September 10, 2004 10:24 AM

What does this say about the “old media”? I read Bernard Goldberg’s book and he really said some startling things about “The Dan”. If this scandal causes Mr Rather to lose credibility, well that’s a good good thing.

The journalists will respond by attacking capitalism. they will claim that these things happen because they are under pressure to produce ratings rather than facts.

This of course is so much guano. In this case the rush to wack GWB overrode any concerns Rather might have had about authenticity. But these guys simply won’t admit error. They’ll whine and cry and fade into the night.

Posted by: skip at September 10, 2004 11:00 AM

If the documents turn out to be bogus, could it be a crime to create false military documents? Would a federal investigation be proper?

Posted by: Beemer Boy at September 10, 2004 11:08 AM

Beemer Boy - Falsifying military documents, whether they were purported memos to the file or not, sure sounds like a federal offense. Who has jurisdiction here?

What strikes me about all this is that CBS is NOW saying that it had concerns about the documents. “Some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up,” according to a CBS producer, but they chose to go with them anyway because “this story was too hot not to push.”

Too hot not to push or Time was running out on the moribund Kerry campaign?

It’s like the death of a thousand cuts.

Posted by: Jim at September 10, 2004 11:26 AM

The DNC had conference calls the last TWO days with Terry McAwful and Tom (Fake War Hero) Harkin to talk to reporters about these documents. I bet they don’t do that today!

Posted by: samuelv at September 10, 2004 12:08 PM

Oh what a beautiful morning,
CBS sank to new lows,
Take a good look at Dan Rather,
He’s got Pinocchio’s nose!

Bernard Goldberg for President! Can I write him in?

Posted by: gus3 at September 10, 2004 12:14 PM