# If the CBS documents are shown to be fraudulent, should CBS produce their source? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459 "2004-09-14T19:50:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/181 "2004-09-23T05:42:00Z")
See, **annaplurabelle** , now that one was funny! ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/182 "2004-09-23T14:14:07Z")
Viacom Chairman and self described liberal democrat, Sumner Redstone, appears ready to take the results of the pending investigation into CBS’ mishandling of the document and contacts with the Kerry campaign seriously. Sumner indicated that he was “very concerned” about the 60 Minutes report. I suspect the “appropriate action” he vows might very well speed up the date of Rather’s retirement party. This is from _Forbes_ > [@](#): > > \*\*HONG KONG - Here’s one breaking story that Dan Rather will be watching closely. > > Reacting to the document scandal at CBS News, Sumner M. Redstone, chairman and chief executive of Viacom (nyse: VIAb - news - people ), CBS’ parent, vowed that the results of a recently announced probe would be “appropriate–and the consequences will be appropriate.” > > Speaking before the Forbes Global CEO Conference here, Redstone told delegates he has been “very concerned” about a Sept. 8, 2004, 60 Minutes story reported by Rather that suggested lapses in President George W. Bush’s military record. CBS has since conceded that the documents on which the story was based could not be authenticated. Rather has apologized, and CBS News has said the story was a mistake….\*\* [http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/09/23/cz\_sp\_0923cbs.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=](http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/09/23/cz_sp_0923cbs.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/183 "2004-09-23T14:51:07Z")
I now put on my fortune telling hat: Dan Rather will not be employed by CBS by October 1st. His statement will read like the following… “I am resigning from my position as Executive Editor of CBS news. I have dedicated the past three decades of my professional life to CBS and I can no longer allow the good people associated with the network to continue to suffer from what has ultimately been my mistake. I hope my departure will remove the distraction caused by the forged memos and allow this fine network to continue its award winning tradition of solid, responsible journalism. I could not have had the successful career I did without the invaluabel assistance of many fine people behind the scenes. I wish them…and our loyal viewers…the best.” ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/184 "2004-09-23T15:09:19Z")
The whole thing was a setup. It was an attempt to innoculate the president against [this story](http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6073449/site/newsweek/). 60 Minutes was going to run a story on the forged Niger uranium documents that were falsely cited by Bush as a justification for the Iraq war. Who did the forging is a very interesting question that has not been answered, and the answers–hell, even asking the question–could be very problematic for Bush. CBS has this story and was going to run it but instead bumped it when they got the juicy new Guard memo. Now anything connecting the words “CBS” and “forged documents” is automatically assumed to be false. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/185 "2004-09-23T15:20:02Z")
> [@vibrotronica](#): > > The whole thing was a setup… Well you better get your all your evidence to Sumner Redstone or the investigators. I suspect Rather will be grateful for anything you have — a little gun shy, but grateful - ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/186 "2004-09-23T15:26:14Z")
Ok, there are conspiracy theries and then there are just excuses to get oneself committed. From you cite: “_But just hours before the piece was set to air on the evening of Sept. 8, the reporters and producers on the CBS team were stunned to learn the story was being scrapped to make room for a seemingly sensational story about new documents showing that Bush ignored a direct order to take a flight physical while serving in the National Guard more than 30 years ago._” The problem with this account is that it gives the impression that CBS ws given the documents just before they were going to air the story about Niger. Unfortunately this does not jibe with what we already know about the Guard memos. Burkett was given the memos back in Feburary. CBS found out about them some time in the summer, and began pestering Burkett to get them. They obtained them in August. They had time to vette them with document experts and talk with Gen. Hodges about them. I’m sure that _some_ CBS people learned the Niger story would be bumped just hours before it was. But I’m just as certain that this happens all the time. To say that some Republican operative created the memos and gave them to Burkett in Feburary in order to stop a story that was to air in September pushes credibility too far. I’ll believe that Marilyn Monroe was the shooter on the grassy knoll before I believe this one. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/187 "2004-09-23T15:54:10Z")
In addition, if CBS describes Bill Burkett as an “unimpeachable source” – I have grave concerns regarding their journalistic standards – and any stories created under those standards. It can be argued that it was only the combination of CBS’ lax standards with regard to vetting the memos and the source of those memos that we found out what methods CBS employed here. It took very little effort to do either or both. CBS, it appears, decided to ignore both. In addition they ignored experts. The errors CBS made were so obvious to outside observers, I wonder if the CBS attitude with regard to evidence, in this case, wasn’t part of the CBS culture when dealing with similar cases. The mere fact that they ignored contrary evidence and then, later, when a mountain of evidence was finally built indicating these documents were forged and their source _very impeachable_, did they made a half-hearted “apology.” If these employees were not immerced in at CBS culture that never called attention to such matters - than if is even more difficult to understand their actions. To be blunt ---- _I don’t blame Sumner Redstone for being highly pissed._ After the investigation’s results are in, Rather’s head may not roll, but someone’s at CBS will - There’s just _too much_ bad stuff for it to be otherwise and CBS remain credible — which is Sumner’s BIG concern – ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/188 "2004-09-23T16:22:39Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Ok, there are conspiracy theries and then there are just excuses to get oneself committed. But clearly a conspiracy of some sort has occurred, or so claims the last four pages of this thread. > [@](#): > > The problem with this account is that it gives the impression that CBS ws given the documents just before they were going to air the story about Niger. Unfortunately this does not jibe with what we already know about the Guard memos. Burkett was given the memos back in Feburary. CBS found out about them some time in the summer, and began pestering Burkett to get them. They obtained them in August. They had time to vette them with document experts and talk with Gen. Hodges about them. I’m sure that _some_ CBS people learned the Niger story would be bumped just hours before it was. But I’m just as certain that this happens all the time. > > To say that some Republican operative created the memos and gave them to Burkett in Feburary in order to stop a story that was to air in September pushes credibility too far. They knew in February they had a vulnerability on the forged documents, and Josh Marshall’s been posting on his blog for months that he was working on that story. They had plenty of time to set the plan in motion. Do you have any contradictory cite as to when the decision was made to pull the Niger forgery story? Rove had the means, motive, and opportunity. By your standards of evidence, it’s time to invade immediately! ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/189 "2004-09-23T16:28:26Z")
> [@vibrotronica](#): > > But clearly a conspiracy of some sort has occurred, or so claims the last four pages of this thread. With several notable exceptions. Take another look at my posts. Especially #153. The conspiracy theroies have been much less than in some other threads. > [@](#): > > They knew in February they had a vulnerability on the forged documents, and Josh Marshall’s been posting on his blog for months that he was working on that story. They had plenty of time to set the plan in motion. Do you have any contradictory cite as to when the decision was made to pull the Niger forgery story? No, I am going by your cite. It says the decision was made to pull it “just hours before the broadcast”. Or more correctly, it says cetain CBS employees learned of the decision then. The problem with your time table is that the conpiracy would have had to know that Burkett would not use the forged memos immediately. Can you give any reason why this would have been a reasonable expectation? > [@](#): > > Rove had the means, motive, and opportunity. By your standards of evidence, it’s time to invade immediately! Your cite suggests that he had a motive. Nothing more. Care to prove the rest? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/190 "2004-09-23T16:42:55Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > The problem with this account is that it gives the impression that CBS ws given the documents just before they were going to air the story about Niger. Unfortunately this does not jibe with what we already know about the Guard memos. Burkett was given the memos back in Feburary. CBS found out about them some time in the summer, and began pestering Burkett to get them. They obtained them in August. They had time to vette them with document experts and talk with Gen. Hodges about them. No, your dates are off. They didn’t get the memos until the Friday before labor day weekend - September 3rd. The show was set to air Wednesday, the 8th. The morning of air, they were still debating authenticity, but the WH response was the “turning point” according to CBS. See [here](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cbs18sep18,1,1428308.story?coll=la-home-headlines). This doesn’t necessarilly validate the conspiracy theory about the Niger story, but it does help explain how CBS screwed up. > [@Tigers2B1](#): > > In addition, if CBS describes Bill Burkett as an “unimpeachable source” - I have grave concerns regarding their journalistic standards - and any stories created under those standards. I believe the “unimpeachable source” they were referring to was George Conn, the former TANG officer Burkett originally named as his source for the memos. Why they didn’t confirm with Conn is another story. No argument that CBS screwed up. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/191 "2004-09-23T16:54:51Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > …I believe the “unimpeachable source” they were referring to was George Conn, the former TANG officer Burkett originally named as his source for the memos. Why they didn’t confirm with Conn is another story. No argument that CBS screwed up. You’re kidding! I was giving CBS the benefit of the doubt. Since CBS issued their “unimpeachable source” statement well into the discovery there were very serious issues with the legitmancy of the documents, I figured they had to mean _their_ source ---- not the source’s sources. So, beyond calling Conn the “unimpeachable source” – **CBS never seems to have even confirmed Conn as the source** , and when they came forward with their explaination for the reason they were standing by the documents was because they came from an “unimpeachable source” ----- AND STILL **they still hadn’t talked to that “source?”** Get out – Sumner’s going to be very angry after the investigation’s results show that one - ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/192 "2004-09-23T16:55:00Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > No, your dates are off. They didn’t get the memos until the Friday before labor day weekend - September 3rd. The show was set to air Wednesday, the 8th. > > The morning of air, they were still debating authenticity, but the WH response was the “turning point” according to CBS. See [here](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cbs18sep18,1,1428308.story?coll=la-home-headlines). I can’t get to that story. Can you post the relevant paragraph? Thanks for the correction. I was going by the USAToday stories we saw earlier. > [@](#): > > This doesn’t necessarilly validate the conspiracy theory about the Niger story, but it does help explain how CBS screwed up. Indeed, it makes the Niger conspiracy harder to believe. Unless we are to believe that Burkett is some sort of deep\* cover agent for Carl Rove why would he have held on to them for so long. Wether or not he got them in Feburary, CBS and USAToday were asking for them in August. Some days before he turned them over at least. \*Deep, very very deep. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/193 "2004-09-23T17:10:46Z")
> [@vibrotronica](#): > > …Rove had the means, motive, and opportunity… Well it doesn’t appear that Rove is afraid of an investigation into either the origin or the use of the CBS documents. Here’s Rove’s response to the allegation that he was so aware of CBS’ bias and internal negligence that he planted the documents knowing CBS would bite and then react as it did. From _The Washington Times_ > [@](#): > > \*\*White House political adviser Karl Rove yesterday scoffed at Democratic charges that he was somehow behind the release of faked documents to CBS that attacked President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard… > > …Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe has insinuated twice since CBS’ “60 Minutes” aired the charges on Sept. 8 that Mr. Rove or other Republicans might have been involved in some way. > > Mr. McAuliffe has offered no proof. > > Mr. Rove mocked the suggestion when asked about it at a luncheon with editors and reporters of The Washington Times. > > “Obviously, you know the answer is no. Do you feel good about asking that question?” he said before repeating, “The answer is no, obviously.”…\*\* Rove continues with his own series of questions - > [@](#): > > \*\*…Republicans think they have evidence of collusion. Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett of the Texas Air National Guard, who this week acknowledged leaking the memos to CBS, talked with Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart before CBS aired the documents. Mr. Lockhart says he did not discuss the memos…. > > …“What did Mary Mapes tell Lockhart? We haven’t heard from her on this. Who did Lockhart tell what to in the campaign? What other contacts were there between CBS and people in the campaign?” he said. > > He then said Mr. McAuliffe and the DNC must answer questions about their own series of attacks on Mr. Bush’s National Guard record, which he said “broke coincidentally with the CBS story.” > > “I mean, they’d have to be awful nimble to have prepared all those ads and materials without foreknowledge. And the question is: Did they have foreknowledge, and if so from who, and why?”… > > …Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie yesterday noted the close timing between a Democratic National Committee ad campaign, dubbed “Operation Fortunate Son,” and the CBS broadcast. > > “One might argue that these steps were taken without advance knowledge of the existence of the documents and this is all coincidence, but that strains credibility,” Mr. Gillespie said.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/194 "2004-09-23T17:14:58Z")
Sorry – here’s that link – [http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040923-105932-8506r.htm](http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040923-105932-8506r.htm) ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/195 "2004-09-23T17:20:13Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I can’t get to that story. Can you post the relevant paragraph? > Thanks for the correction. I was going by the USAToday stories we saw earlier. > > Indeed, it makes the Niger conspiracy harder to believe. Unless we are to believe that Burkett is some sort of deep\* cover agent for Carl Rove why would he have held on to them for so long. Wether or not he got them in Feburary, CBS and USAToday were asking for them in August. Some days before he turned them over at least. > > \*Deep, very very deep. From the LA Times: > [@](#): > > “There was nothing definitive” until he got the call from her on Sept. 3, Howard recalled. > > On that Friday, just before the Labor Day weekend, Mapes excitedly phoned her bosses from Texas to report a breakthrough in the document quest. “I’ve got them,” she told Howard. > > On Sept. 5, Rather hopped a charter flight to Texas from Florida, where he’d been covering Hurricane Frances, to meet Mapes and to interview Robert Strong, a witness who helped confirm the story. Strong had run the Texas Air National Guard administrative office in the Vietnam era and was a friend of Bush’s squadron commander, Killian. > > Vacationing executives were looped in by phone on their various Labor Day getaways. Mapes spent the long weekend lining up experts to authenticate the papers and setting up interviews. > > Barnes flew to New York to be interviewed by Rather on Sept. 7, the same day that senior CBS News executives got back from the holiday and got their first look at the documents. Throughout the day, Howard said, there were numerous meetings in CBS’ offices to discuss the documents’ significance. > > They had consulted outside experts to help them check the papers, and several confirmed their accuracy. But others said they had voiced strong warnings to the network. > > By the night of Sept. 7, CBS was promoting the next day’s interview with Barnes and reporters from other news organizations were calling to see if they could get an advance look at what CBS was rumored to have, previously undisclosed documents. > > But Howard said, “We weren’t comfortable with that. We were keeping this to ourselves until we were certain.” He explained that CBS still hadn’t decided whether it would use the documents because they hadn’t been authenticated to its satisfaction. > > Then the morning of Sept. 8 - as producers and executives including CBS News Senior Vice President Betsy West were meeting - the call came in from the network’s White House correspondent. > > “John Roberts said he had just finished the interview with Bartlett, and [Bartlett] had no quarrel with the authenticity of the documents,” Howard recalled. “And in fact, in several places in the interview he used the documents to support the White House position that Bush did what he needed to do with regards to his National Guard service.” Actually, Burkett _could_ have been “activated” at this particular time - it’s when reporters were suddenly tipped off that he had new documents. Who tipped them? * * * Obviously, there’s not enough evidence to formally charge anyone at this point. But it’s also obvious that this story isn’t going away. Suspicions are going to be hurled by partisans on both sides, and there’s no rationale for excluding Rove, based on his past. For some examples, see [here](http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002815.html) (yes, it’s a lefty blog, but the examples are documented). MM&O is there, but it’s not enough without hard evidence. Burkett is the key here. The only way to stop the CT speculation is to prove that Burkett forged them himself. How to prove he was the “lone forger”? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/196 "2004-09-23T17:37:26Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > From the LA Times:Actually, Burkett _could_ have been “activated” at this particular time - it’s when reporters were suddenly tipped off that he had new documents. Who tipped them? But how long had Mapes been after them? Wouldn’t that be the start of the conspiracy? Also, why would Barltett lie about it now? Certainly if he were a deep cover agent, but if he made them up himself, why lie about the time frame? > [@](#): > > Obviously, there’s not enough evidence to formally charge anyone at this point. But it’s also obvious that this story isn’t going away. Suspicions are going to be hurled by partisans on both sides, and there’s no rationale for excluding Rove, based on his past. Yes there is. There is the same reasons for excluding him that there are for excluding Lockhart and Kerry. It is simply inconceivable that a political operative at that level would resort to this sort of > [@](#): > > For some examples, see [here](http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002815.html) (yes, it’s a lefty blog, but the examples are documented). Sigh. Let’s not go down that road shall we? If you want to look up reputable sources for several of those incidents we can go over them. But I really don’t think it would be productive. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/197 "2004-09-23T17:44:55Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Sigh. Let’s not go down that road shall we? If you want to look up reputable sources for several of those incidents we can go over them. But I really don’t think it would be productive. Greg Palast seems reputable enough. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/198 "2004-09-23T18:02:19Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > But how long had Mapes been after them? Wouldn’t that be the start of the conspiracy? Also, why would Barltett lie about it now? Certainly if he were a deep cover agent, but if he made them up himself, why lie about the time frame? I think you’re confused. First, Mapes wasn’t the only one after info on the Guard story. This has been pursued for 5 years by many other reporters too. Regardless of when Burkett received the memos, reporters (not just Mapes) were tipped off about them in late August. What’s that got to do with the start of the “conspiracy”? And who is saying he’s deep cover? By “activated” I meant the reporters hounding him. Activating him to go public at that time. Also, I assume you mean _Burkett_. Bartlett is WH spokesman. > [@](#): > > Yes there is. There is the same reasons for excluding him that there are for excluding Lockhart and Kerry. It is simply inconceivable that a political operative at that level would resort to this sort of You can’t be serious. Do you really require cites documenting political dirty tricks reaching up to high levels? This isn’t something new either - goes way back. If you _are_ serious, I’ll dig up more cites. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/199 "2004-09-23T18:11:59Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > I think you’re confused. First, Mapes wasn’t the only one after info on the Guard story. This has been pursued for 5 years by many other reporters too. > > Regardless of when Burkett received the memos, reporters (not just Mapes) were tipped off about them in late August. > > What’s that got to do with the start of the “conspiracy”? And who is saying he’s deep cover? By “activated” I meant the reporters hounding him. Activating him to go public at that time. Right, the conspiracy would have had to start when the reporters were told that Burkett (yea, I screwed up on the name last post.) had specific documents. I don’t think they were simply fishing around for documents like they had been for the last several years. Somehow, they knew to ask Burkett about them. > [@](#): > > You can’t be serious. Do you really require cites documenting political dirty tricks reaching up to high levels? This isn’t something new either - goes way back. If you _are_ serious, I’ll dig up more cites. No, I would rather not get into a general discussion of political dirty tricks. If you have some good information about a specific one, then maybe we could discuss the similarity. I’m not saying they never occur. Nor that they could not. I’m simply saying that the simpler explanation is that some nut created these and it went farther than they expected. No conspiracy from either campaign is necessary to explain the events as we understand them so far. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/200 "2004-09-23T18:29:48Z")
The trouble with the idea that the memos are a Karl Rove dirty trick is that the dirty trickster would have to create memos that could be easily proven as forged, but would also be accepted by CBS as authentic. I don’t understand how that can be done. If the memos were easily provable as forgeries (which seems to be the case) why would the dirty trickster think that CBS would think the memos were authentic? If they were crappy forgeries, the trickster would have to assume that CBS would be able to spot the crappy forgeries and throw them in the trash. These memos weren’t cunningly constructed in such a way that everyone could see they were forgeries unless they were CBS employees. If the forgeries were well done enough to fool CBS, then they should be well done enough to fool a halfway competant document expert, since that is what the trickster would assume CBS would do. They were not done well enough to fool a halfway competant document expert. So why was CBS fooled? They were fooled because they didn’t bother to autheticate the documents! How could the trickster know that CBS would be so hot for the documents that they would rush them on the air without even doing a minimum of authentication? If the trickster KNEW that CBS would fall for the docs despite them being obvious fakes, THAT MAKES IT WORSE FOR CBS, not better. I’m sure CBS is contacted all day every day by liars and con artists. I would excuse them being taken in by a sophisticated con job, like one where the forger typed the memos on an old typwriter they had lying around. But how can you excuse them being taken in by a laughable con job, and then claim that the trickster KNEW they would be taken in by a laughable con job, and that the trickster timed it perfectly to take the heat off a story that had been brewing for months? That glove doesn’t fit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459.md?page=11)