The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - What Difference would it make?

September 15, 2004

| What Difference would it make?

About the fraudulent memos again. OK, allegedly fraudulent. From the New York Times comes a comment from Bill Burkett’s Lawyer.

CBS has refused to say how it obtained the documents. But one person at CBS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed a report in Newsweek that Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer who has charged that senior aides to then-Governor Bush had ordered Guard officials to remove damaging information from Mr. Bush’s military personnel files, had been a source of the report. This person did not know the exact role he played.
[…]
Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” - then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

UPDATE: Here’s the retraction:

An article on Wednesday about disputed memos obtained by CBS News that cast doubt on aspects of President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard truncated a quotation from David Van Os, a lawyer for Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer whom Newsweek called a source of the memos. Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os posed a hypothetical chain of events in which someone - not Mr. Burkett, he said - reconstructed documents that the preparer believed existed in 1972 or 1973. Mr. Van Os then asked “what difference would even that make” to the “factual reality of where was George W. Bush at the times in question and what was he doing?”

I apologise to our readers, and particularly to Mr. Van Os. Given the NYT’s past record, I should have known better than to trust them so completely. Not just truncating the quote, but Dowdifying it by redacting the “even”.
Mr van Os’s words would appear to have been as follows:

If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done, what difference would even that make [to the] factual reality of where was George W. Bush at the times in question and what was he doing?

Posted by Alan Brain at September 15, 2004 07:57 AM | TrackBack

Comments

It makes a great deal of difference, of course. Unless one is devoid of ethics.

You could make a statement such as “In 1972 I saw documents and memos that alleged X”, but to actually recreate them and then try to pass them off as legitimate is deceitful.

To put a dead man’s signature on them, who has no chance to give his own opinion, to correct them or object to them, is even more deceitful.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Posted by: DWC at September 15, 2004 08:24 AM

Meanwhile, the European press completely ignores this story. See just how bad it is here. Although there is one surprise in the list…

Posted by: Maarten Schenk at September 15, 2004 08:30 AM

As a history major it would make my life a hell of a lot easier if I could do that.

Damn lawyers.

Posted by: Spade at September 15, 2004 08:33 AM

I found the NYTimes article and the above quote at this LINK (in case you were having problems opening the above link).

David Van Os, while always a hard left partisan used to be a good lawyer — that an officer of the court would make such a statement is beyond bizarre.

Posted by: ter0 at September 15, 2004 09:48 AM

One can only hope that the nice men in white coats have come along and spoken to Mr Van Os, all the while telling how good he would look in this new waistcoat with the long sleeves and straps on the end.

In these matters we are considering who will be the leader of the western world. Now I have no vote to cast. (Mistakenly , or otherwhise )my old Regiment disenfranchised themselves in perpetuity when we burned down the White House (Seemed like a good idea at the time).

However the rest of the free world rather relies on you guys to get it right. We would be frightfully grateful if these fraudsters (and any others) could be invited to dangle at a rope’s end. The potential damage they cause is almost impossible to consider. Please deal with them swiftly, justly and violently, they deserve no better.

Posted by: max at September 15, 2004 09:49 AM

Max,

We have a worse punishment in mind — 7 more weeks of humiliation and late night TV comedian jokes followed by at least 2 decades of being ignored by their own party (ala Jimmy Carter).

Posted by: ter0 at September 15, 2004 10:27 AM

Prime example here: Senator Kerry, whether or not he took an oath, stood behind his testimony against ME and my brothers (including those 58,000+ whose names are on the Wall) and the over two million of us who actually served. He was given A FREE PASS by the MSM, and no questions were asked, except by the same fellow who is now asking the same questions he asked 34 years ago - and I refer to John O’Neil.

Dan Rather is saying TRUST ME. I HAVE TESTIMONY. UNIMPEACHABLE SOURCES.

Ethics? What about a MoralCompass?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 15, 2004 10:45 AM

ter0: Many thanks for the correction. The link is fixed now. As they say in the classics, DOH!

Cap’n DOC: My sympathies, Sir. MSM’s Moral Compass needs swinging - and many people think many in it deserve to swing too.

Posted by: aebrain at September 15, 2004 11:09 AM

FYI - Just posted this as a comment to the article above on CBS to make statement:

I vote for “independent investigation” as to voracity of documents. CBS will stand by story that President Bush received preferential treatment in the TANG because of secretary’s comment that thought in memo is correct.

I would counter with the recent Front Page story and Rush Limbaugh (OK grain of salt) show re President Bush fulfilled his commitment. Need to consider the times by 1972/1973 the Vietnam War was winding down and the Aif Force was actively assisting pilots to leave the military. Pilots were a “dime a dozen” and were being re-assigned to desk jobs:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15039

Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
www.hspig.org

Posted by: Ron Wrght at September 15, 2004 11:24 AM

I don’t see how anything CBS says about these memos can explain away their obvious intent to use them in tandem with the new DNC political ad, Fortunate Son. There are clips in that ad that come from the CBS report on 60 Minutes ll. The DNC was promoting this ad before the airing of that report and in order to have clips of the report in the ad, they had to have a copy of that tape. I find it very difficult to believe that the produce of Fortunate Son decided to edit that ad to include those clips after the CBS report. The turn around time between the DNC ad and the CBS report is too tight for it not to have been a coordinated attack.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 15, 2004 11:25 AM

Hah!

Ethics, moral compass…plus overwhelming support for the Weakling in the White House. You should have your brains checked.

Where were the ethics and moral compass when George was giving McCain the whipping? When Crook Cheney took words out of context to make fun of Kerry? (the same words he and Weakling use) Where is the moral compass when Weakling fought against the 9/11 Commission and then supported it? Where are the ethics of deceiving—beyond any doubt—the American people into getting rid of Sodom’s WMDs? Self-righteous-goody-two-shoes as long as the political winds are blowing the right way. Where is the outrage about the trumped-up parts of the SBLiars4Weakling? This is purely, simply partisan claptrap.

Doc or Grumpy or Sleepy or Dopey or Whiney…I’m not sure which of the dwarves is posting. Kerry made no testimony against you. He was calling to account the powers-that-be that scammed the VN War. I respect anyone’s different opinion on that. However, the travesty is pretty well documented in Tuchman’s “The March of Folly” and elsewhere. Get over it. Your hurt feelings seem to cloud your thinking. I think that, with an open mind, you would see that the American people appreciate the sacrifices that you and others made in VN. Somehow being a Viet Nam-era Veteran has conferred special victim status. With an open mind, you would see that Weakling did whatever he did then…and now won’t own up to it like a man.

Who is going to call BS on the travesty unraveling in the ME? According to others on C-P, things are going according to plan…what plan? And if this is the quality of military thinking on C-P, then there should be ads for GI Joe dress-up dolls. Democracy and Freedom, my eye. Weakling’s soulmate in the Kremlin is playing him like a fiddle.

Oh…and I’ll beat you to the punch. It’s already clear that anyone who doesn’t speak the party line here is a troll. Fine, whatever. I’d rather be a troll than a mindless minion of the buffooning Weakling. 1 time in 10, someone actually addresses these unpopular sentiments with a thoughtful rebuttal. To the rest of you, save your insults. They take thinking and you can’t spare any extra MIPS.

Hah!!

Posted by: dubyus at September 15, 2004 12:04 PM

“Doc or Grumpy or Sleepy or Dopey or Whiney…I’m not sure which of the dwarves is posting. Kerry made no testimony against you.”

Dismissive. I will give you my name instead of my NIC if you’d prefer. I consider your opening line NAME-CALLING.

He did. He lied. He gave testimony to acts that did not occur. He called me and my brothers monsters. He claimed that atrocities were committed on a regular basis, that such acts were condoned up and down the chain of command.

“He was calling to account the powers-that-be that scammed the VN War.”

You may have considered it a scam (although I seriously doubt you were even alive), but our nation’s response was to what was seen as a Communist takeover and wholesale slaughter of innocent people, which in the end it was.

“I respect anyone’s different opinion on that.”

You say you respect others’ opinions on the matter, but then you are dismissive of my personal testimony, aren’t you?

“However, the travesty is pretty well documented in Tuchman’s “The March of Folly” and elsewhere.”

I am not aware of the work of Tuchman, nor would it sway me in the least from my personal perspective which is embedded in my memory.

“Get over it.”

I will not ‘get over it’.

“Your hurt feelings seem to cloud your thinking.”

My hurt feelings have nothing to do with it. They are not hurt. I am angry that I have had to live for over thirty years with the shame that Senator Kerry placed upon me and others who served their Country with honor and pride.

“I think that, with an open mind, you would see that the American people appreciate the sacrifices that you and others made in VN.”

I am reminded many times that my service and those of my brothers is appreciated.

“Somehow being a Viet Nam-era Veteran has conferred special victim status.”

It has conferred no special status, although I feel that Senator Kerry was afforded the benefit of the doubt 34 years ago, and he did not deserve the free pass he was granted. I will not grant to him nor to anyone who supports him the same status that he asked for and was granted, and finally betrayed.

With an open mind, you would see that Weakling did whatever he did then…and now won’t own up to it like a man.”

Ad Hominem. Undeserving of even a response, sir.

“Who is going to call BS on the travesty unraveling in the ME? According to others on C-P, things are going according to plan…what plan? And if this is the quality of military thinking on C-P, then there should be ads for GI Joe dress-up dolls. Democracy and Freedom, my eye. Weakling’s soulmate in the Kremlin is playing him like a fiddle.”

More of the same, and you obfuscate.

“Oh…and I’ll beat you to the punch. It’s already clear that anyone who doesn’t speak the party line here is a troll. Fine, whatever. I’d rather be a troll than a mindless minion of the buffooning Weakling.”

You labelled yourself on that one, and if the shoe fits…

“1 time in 10, someone actually addresses these unpopular sentiments with a thoughtful rebuttal. To the rest of you, save your insults. They take thinking and you can’t spare any extra MIPS.”

Forget your smugness. It doesn’t wash with me.

Hah!!

The italicized portion Posted by: dubyus at September 15, 2004 12:04 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 15, 2004 12:26 PM

Cap’n Doc -

Many kudos to you sir for a solid response to the Kerry Supporter.

Kerry Supporter-

Please try the post again without the hyperbole. I’m sure you have some points to make but frankly, I lost interest after your first line. You should try some subtle name calling if you are going to go there anyway. What you have done here is rather base.

You are quite correct in your self description of being a troll. But…trolls aren’t all necessarilly Kerry supporters. I think the registration process here has chased off many of the Bush supporting trolls…and yes, there were many.

Posted by: Wayne Fielder at September 15, 2004 12:40 PM

dubyus:

Where were the ethics and moral compass when George was giving McCain the whipping? When Crook Cheney took words out of context to make fun of Kerry? (the same words he and Weakling use) Where is the moral compass when Weakling fought against the 9/11 Commission and then supported it?

I had no idea George was part of MSM. Which network employs him? Is this ‘Crook Cheney’ person an anchor for NBC? A researcher for the NYT?

This is not about politics, it’s about the fourth estate. Trust. You’ve missed the point, that we’d be just as pissed off (and as radically embarressed as many Kerry supporters are right now) if, say, Rush Limbaugh tried to pass off such obvious forgeries as part of Kerry’s record.

Doc or Grumpy or Sleepy or Dopey or Whiney…I’m not sure which of the dwarves is posting.

Here’s another quote:

…we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

Yes, the enforcement of this, especially when someone expresses a minority opinion and gets fisked unmercifully, has been spotty. OK, biased, unjust and unfair (though we respond to all complaints, and take action in every case which is brought to our attention - it’s just that most aren’t, and we let it slide. We shouldn’t, but we do.)
So “Dwarves” I’ll let pass for now, the last guy I banned called Vietnam Vets ‘Baby-Killers”, and you’re not in the same league. But please be more civil. That goes for people who are too vehement in disputing with you too.

Kerry made no testimony against you. He was calling to account the powers-that-be that scammed the VN War. I respect anyone’s different opinion on that.

I’m glad you realise that opinions may differ, and that it’s really difficult to see Kerry’s testimony, and the VVAW’s street theatre presentations (with leaflets) as anything other than a blanket smear against anyone who’d served on the ground in Vietnam.

However, the travesty is pretty well documented in Tuchman’s “The March of Folly” and elsewhere.

Yes, I have two copies of that one. Great for politics, a traversty when it comes to military history. A more accurate and factual book (easier to read too) is Deighton’s ‘Blood, Tears and Folly’, which concentrates on military blunders and brilliance in the 20th century, in particular WW2. I‘ll fish out the ISBN if you’re interested.

I know some facts that didn’t make it into Tuchmann that are far more damning - not in terms of evil or malice, but unbe-freaking-lievable incompetence in the way the Vietnam War was fought, especially at the higher levels, and especially in the USAF. Alas, a lot of what’s in Tuchmann has in terms of military blunders has been revealed to be at best exaggerated, but mostly fabricated out of whole cloth (though popularly believed). Often Reality is even more strange and supportive of his case. If you wish to quote me some examples of it, I’ll find you some URLs. Sometimes the book’s accurate in military matters. Rarely though.

Posted by: aebrain at September 15, 2004 12:45 PM

Well, you guys can bitch all you want….I’m going to Paris to see if I can negotiate for the U.S.A. as a citizen still in the armed services. Signed —————John Kerry….. ” oh, damn, that guy I coached to tell about the attrocities has turned on me….over here….help me you Clinton guys!!”

Posted by: dickmr at September 15, 2004 02:32 PM