RATHERGATE2
Now here’s an interesting question posed by yet another reader: “…have a question regarding the Rather controversy. If it was common knowledge that Mr.Burkett was something of a Bush-hating crank, why would someone of Ms. Mapes/Mr. Rather [ed: ilk? position?] accept information passed to him?
Both people know the Texas political scene intimately; know the legitimate mantel bearers and the pretenders. It is understandable that they could have been hoodwinked by an insider, but by Burkett? It makes no sense that these highly intelligent, seasoned journalists could have fallen for fraudulent documents from this fellow even with the obvious ?agendae? they have been accused of having. ”
Does anyone have a thoughtful answer? I’m still puzzled as to why no reporter has asked Mr. Rather or the independent investigating team if CBS knows who forged the documents.
Actually, this reader’s question could appeal to detective fiction fans. Perhaps there’s a novel lurking– not that a novel will answer the reader’s question, only investigative journalism or real-world detective sleuthing will do that. But what’s the fictional plot? Does the fictional reporter (producer) her very self identify the fictional “Bush hater” as a potential stooge, then arrange for a go-between to pass the “Bush-hater” the faked documents? I’ll leave someone like Roger L. Simon to decide if this would work on screen.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers.
Having met LTC Burkette in 1997 while I was assigned to a TXARNG unit in Austin, I can attest to the fact that he was an interesting individual with lots of inside experience. Later on, he was “non-renewed” for a temperory/fulltime assignment with the TXARNG. Loosing that bit of guarenteed income really pissed Burkette off and he became obsessed with payback. Any investigative reporter should have picked up on that and caused them to more fully examine any evidence provided by LTC Burkette. Whether or not he forged the documents or if it was a Texas Democratic Party operative that accomplished the forgery should be a major item of interest in the journalistic world. I won’t, however, hold my breath until the next “Woodstein” cracks the case.
Comment by MAJ Mike — 1/12/2005 @ 5:57 pm
I blogged on why here (1/11/05): http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/01/rather-big-wheel-in-travis-county.html Rather: A Big Wheel in the Travis County, Texas Smear Machine The release of the Rathergate Report reminds me of all the other smears that the Texas Democrats have attempted recently. Not ALL of them with the complicity of CBS! Here’s an excerpt from an article which described them all: Political HayTexas Smear Machine Targets DeLay By Peter Flaherty Published 9/23/2004 http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7151 “If nothing else, you have to give Travis County Democrats credit for thinking big, like real Texans. Apparently undaunted that the assault on President Bush’s National Guard service blew up in their faces, they are now trying to bring down House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. All roads in the CBS memo scandal traverse Travis County. Dan Rather was the special guest at a 2001 fundraiser for the Travis County Democratic Party, and his daughter is active in the organization. Former National Guardsman Bill Burkett, the unstable Bush-baiter, who now claims he was the source of the forged documents, is represented (and many believe directed) by David Van Os, the former Travis County Democratic Party chairman. Now Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat with a history of bringing politically motivated indictments, has indicted three DeLay aides who ran a political action committee called Texans for a Republican Majority PAC. Perhaps recognizing that indicting DeLay himself 41 days before an election would be just too transparent, Earle instead indicted the three underlings for allegedly directing corporate contributions to Texas legislative candidates in 2002.” RTWT.
Comment by reliapundit — 1/12/2005 @ 6:35 pm
Also there’s this angle (something I posted on (1/10/05): INSTAPUNDIT linked to and excerpted a bit from Jim Geraghty of NRO’s “TKS”: “Does the panel really think that CBS would have acted in the same manner in a seemingly-great story that would have hurt John Kerry? Are we really to believe that it was solely “competitive pressures” that led to this, and that no one in this process had their thinking influenced by a desire to see Bush defeated in this year’s election?” Well Glenn, Jim: I DO believe that there were more, MUCH more “competitive pressures” on CBS to “get” Bush than to “get Kerry;” after all: NOT A SINGLE CBS “OLD MEDIA” COMPETITOR WAS GOING AFTER KERRY, OR GOING TO GO AFTER KERRY! Heh. IOW: “getting Bush” was a goal of many in the radical chic LEFT-WING DOMINATED NYC media world. So there WERE competitive juices flowing.
Comment by reliapundit — 1/12/2005 @ 6:39 pm
I said on Roger’s blog that if this were a novel, it would not ring true for Mapes to spend 5 years trying to smear Bush’s TANG record, which is a pretty trivial fact about him. He never ran for office on it, and many sons of privilege (inc Democrats) got preferential treatment of this type. (We know Bush didn’t, but even if he did, so what?) I would think if you were going to work this hard on a story, why not try to pin something really scandalous on him?
Comment by Yehudit — 1/12/2005 @ 7:20 pm
The answer is that they didn’t get the memos from Burkette, but rather from someone in the DNC. That source carried sufficient credibility to allow Rather to go on the air and vouch for the memos. After the sh*t hit the fan, a cover story had to be concocted because if the DNC was complicit it would be far too big.
Comment by rainey — 1/12/2005 @ 7:23 pm
Proposition: If Rather and friends admit error on the matter they lose control. They put themselves in the hands of people who are, in their estimation, antithetical to the American experiment. Discuss.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 1/12/2005 @ 7:41 pm
I think Rainey is onto something. Moreover, I wouldn’t be surprised if they believed what they wrote. I have friends who are doctors, scientists, and brilliant lawyers, and they believe the most outlandish, crazy and simply implausible stories about Bush, such as the Carlisle group staging 9/11 to provide an excuse for a trans-SW Asia oil pipeline. How much more tempting must it be, for them to believe a lie that at least sounds sorta kinda feasible? Throw in the inherent ignorance of most on the left of military life (”You were in the Army? You’re the first person I’ve known who was in the Army…”) and it’s perfectly plausible that they really believed what they were pushing. It would also explain their defense, “phony documents but true story.”
Comment by Al Maviva — 1/12/2005 @ 7:54 pm
If those memos are “forged” it means there are originals somewhere. Show me one scintilla of evidence that any such originals exist. We have none? Then please, please stop saying they’re forgeries, okay? It simply parrots the liberal anti-bush understory—stated openly by Rather—that we all “know” on the story is true, with or without the evidence. An inconsequential matter of semantics, you say? I disagree. By getting all of us to say forgery instead of fake, Rather & his minions have magically moved a completely phony story into the realm of truth. If there are no originals, the docs are FAKES, not forgeries. Repeat after me: F-A-K-E-S Nor Hamlon Grand Junction CO USA
Comment by nor hamlon — 1/12/2005 @ 8:11 pm
There is also the possiblity that a prominent Democrat gave CBS the documents. This Washington Post story reported: Cleland confirmed that he had a two- or three-minute conversation by cell phone with a Texan named Burkett in mid-August while he was on a car ride. He remembers Burkett saying that he had “valuable” information about Bush, and asking what he should with it. “I told him to contact the [Kerry] campaign,” Cleland said. “You get this information tens of times a day, and you don’t know if it is legit or not.” Several blogs have speculated that Cleland may have been the one to give the documents to CBS and given how involved Cleland was with the Kerry campaign and that he talked to Burkett, he could have been Rather’s “unimpeachable sources.” Or else from Cleland’s own words it could have been someone else from the Kerry campaign.
Comment by Pete The Elder — 1/12/2005 @ 8:41 pm
rainey: i like the way you think!
Comment by reliapundit — 1/12/2005 @ 8:42 pm
I have never understood the entire Rathergate episode. From the fact that no one seems to be trying to find out who forged the documents all the way to Rather running with such dubious assertions and nothing to verify the accuracy. I don’t make the mistake of thinking Rather is stupid (or Mapes either for that matter), but the entire debacle seems like something from the Beverly Hillbillies with Dan Rather playing the part of Jethro. (there isn’t a correlation for Mapes because even Ellie May was smarter than that!) I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Rather thought he could get away with this story. So, if he didn’t think he could get away with it, what would be the motivation? There’s always a pay off involved - if we could find that, we’d be leaps and bounds ahead in finding out all the rest.
Comment by Teresa — 1/12/2005 @ 9:23 pm
Assuming Burkett did provide the documents, to Mapes and they never contacted the person who “gave” them to Burkett, why were they saying it was from an unimpeachable source? Had not Burkett already had his credibility challenged four years earlier? Did the “panel” ever ask those questions? Do Rather and Mapes, who still claim their story was “accurate,” still believe their source is unimpeachable?
Comment by Merv Benson — 1/12/2005 @ 9:25 pm
Over on the left, Kevin Drum lived and breathed the Bush AWOL story, and actuall interviewed both Burkett and Conn in Feb 2004. Based on his personal experience with some of the players, and familiarity with the AWOL story, he concludes that Mapes version of events defies belief.
Hmm, I wish I could preview my HTML. Here we go…
Comment by Tom Maguire — 1/12/2005 @ 10:37 pm
I agree with nor hamlon, except that I call them “Fabrications”. A forgery is a thing made to look like something that is real. There is no evidence that those documents look like anything that is/was real. They were fabricated, pure and simple. At cBS, if the news isn’t happening the way you want it, then just make it up. They’ve been doing it for years, why wouldn’t it work now? My disgust with myself is that I believed them, and the rest of the TSM, for years…..fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Never, ever again.
Comment by Vulgorilla — 1/13/2005 @ 6:32 am
Falsifying a federal document is a felony. Judge Sirica sentenced Gordon Liddy to 20 years for a first time burglary. We need an indictment and someone with a good reason to squeal. Mary Mapes has been fired and may be a logical subject for a grand jury. An indictment might be enough to open her mouth, ideologue though she may be. Rather is being kept on, possibly, because CBS is concerned about a libel suit by Staudt, who is accused of misbehavior in the “CYA” memo. They may not want him angry enough to turn on them, Mapes was expendable and she is probably thinking about that. A grand jury would be a big help.
Comment by Mike K — 1/13/2005 @ 7:36 am
Nor Hamlon Grand Junction CO USA Thank you, Nor. I have been saying the same thing. The MSM is the best at spin, they start training for it in journalism school. There is one think that bugs me even more and I can’t get anyone to listen. Will all of you stop using “gate” for scandals! Watergate was the worst scandal to hit the conservatives in the last 75 years. What do all of you do? Remind everyone of it every day. “Memogate, Rathergate,” I am waiting for a “picking-your-nose-gate.” Only conservatives and moderates like me would shoot themselves in the foot while sticking it in their mouths. How aboutfinding something to call scandals other than “gate.” Please!!!!
Comment by Don Black — 1/13/2005 @ 7:44 am
Intelligent people can easily be fooled, if they desperately want something to be true. I know several very smart people who got caught up in and burned by an obvious pyramid scheme. Now, I am being far too charitable by saying that. I actually believe that Rather et.al. had doubts about the authenticity of the memos (hell, their own consultants warned them), but they didn’t care and their arrogance made them believe that no one would call them on it.
Comment by Ray Gratrix — 1/13/2005 @ 3:47 pm
Rainey and Old Pete may be close. It is just too far out for the CBS’ers to have promoted themselves so thoroughly. Burkette was just a patsy for Rather/Mapes.
Comment by hb — 1/13/2005 @ 4:54 pm
I thought this website was nice. Hope you keep working on it!
Comment by התאמת בני זוג — 4/24/2005 @ 11:19 pm
It´s a very good website you have here,
Comment by תורת האותיות — 5/2/2005 @ 12:35 am