See, annaplurabelle, now that one was funny!
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
http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/09/23/cz_sp_0923cbs.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=
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.”
The whole thing was a setup. It was an attempt to innoculate the president against this story. 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.
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 -
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.
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 –
But clearly a conspiracy of some sort has occurred, or so claims the last four pages of this thread.
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!
With several notable exceptions. Take another look at my posts. Especially #153. The conspiracy theroies have been much less than in some other threads.
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?
Your cite suggests that he had a motive. Nothing more. Care to prove the rest?
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.
This doesn’t necessarilly validate the conspiracy theory about the Niger story, but it does help explain how CBS screwed up.
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 -
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.
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
Rove continues with his own series of questions -
Sorry – here’s that link –
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040923-105932-8506r.htm
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?
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 (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”?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.