Who told CBS Burkett had documents of interest?

Great Debates
1

How did CBS producer Mary Mapes come to know that Burkett had the now-infamous documents? She initially contacted him. Who told her that someone in Texas had some material that would support the story she was working on?

Gosh, the answer to this question could be very interesting.

2

Gosh, this could mean that CBS didn’t screw up royally. That the REAL Bush memos could be found. That it would all lead back to Karl Rove’s office. That, please God, somehow, this nightmare exposure would end and the country could focus on how terrible Bush is instead of CBS’s seeming conspiracy with the Kerry campaign.

Is that what you meant? Just checking.

3

Burkett was already known as someone who was anti-Bush:

http://calpundit.com/archives/003249.html

Bricker, do you want to actually say that there’s a conspiracy between CBS and the Kerry campaign, or do you just hope to make a seeming connection without any evidence?

4

Heh.

5

Oh, well, then, that proves it.

6

I wish somebody on the right-hand side of the aisle could explain exactly what this means, in their mind. According to the Boston Globe story cited by Brutus, CBS producer Mary Mapes suggested to Kerry advisor John Lockhart that he call Bill Burkett. According to Lockhart in this CNN story, the conversation took place on September 4. The CBS report aired on September 8.

So what is the outrage with regard to the Kerry campaign, exactly? Sure, CBS and its producer effed up, royally. But when RNC head honcho Ed Gillespie says that it “‘seems clear that others maybe in the other camp were aware of the documents well in advance of their appearing or being produced’-- and also knew about them before they were shown to the White House for reaction prior to the “60 Minutes” broadcast”, should any outside observer respond with anything but “so the fuck what?”

Oh, and in regard to CBCD’s original question, this too from the CNN article:

"(Bill) Burkett’s attorney, David Van Os, said Tuesday that a woman who called herself Lucy Ramirez contacted Burkett to tell him about the documents, which were subsequently hand-delivered to him in March by an unidentified man during a trip to Houston.

In order to protect Ramirez from being traced as the source of the memos through DNA on the documents, Burkett then burned the original documents after making copies of them, Van Os said. He later gave the copies to CBS News, identifying someone other rather than Ramirez as the source.

CNN has not been able confirm Burkett’s scenario of how he came to be in possession of the documents. Van Os also said that he did not see the original documents."

7

The Kerry campaign coordinated their “Fortunate Son” series of TV ads with the broadcast of CBS’s story.

CBS aided the Kerry campaign at the expense of the Bush campaign.

8

Wrong. The “Fortunate Son” ad was a DNC ad, and “not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.”

9

A distinction without a difference in this case.

10

Perhaps. I haven’t seen the “Fortunate Son” ads. Did they include any content that depended on the forged memos? Or did they just rely on a combination of (a) everything that was already known, and (b) Barnes’ testimony that he helped get Bush into the TANG at Bush family friend Sid Adger’s request?

Since CBS telegraphed what Barnes was going to say a few days ahead of time, the DNC doing the latter would hardly be evidence of improper (or any) collusion.

Anyway, I find this whole tempest in a teapot to be a bore. Fox and the SCLM slime Dems all the time on the basis of equally shoddy evidence, and the people involved still have jobs.

Not to mention this little comparison from Kos:

11

Doesn’t matter. The issue is the TIMING of the events, not the exact content. They were similar and that’s all that matters. BTW, I’m not necessarily buying that there was significant “coordination” going on, but if there was, whether it was Kerry or the DNC is irrelevent since we’re talking about CBS and whether or not they are favoring one side or the other. (Unless of course you or **Shayna **want to argue that the DNC is a neutral party in the election. :slight_smile: )

I made the same comparison in one the “Bush ANG document” threads last week. Not sure which one it was.

12

Airblairxxx wrote

The CNN story still doesn’t explain how it happened that Mary Mapes knew to contact Burkett about these documents. Who told her he had them? Whatever way the answer to that question unfolds, it is going to be nasty.

13

Wow.

I wonder how the DNC happened to be ready to go with those ads, then? Quite lucky, they were, to have CBS broadcast a story just as they were rolling out an ad campaign that dovetailed nicely with that story.

With that luck, perhaps we should elect Kerry.

I mean, the DNC had the luck. Not Kerry.

  • Rick
14

While we are throwing all sorts of innuendo around, can we have a chronology of events here, please? I just went and looked at the DNC ad and it had footage from the Dan Rather 60 Minutes piece (unless it was from a different 60 Minutes Piece). Doesn’t this suggest it was produced after the CBS report?

15

There’s also the “Texans for Truth”, a democratic group formed to play ‘hardball’ to counter the Swiftvets.

The Dems on this board were ready to claim Republican conspiracies with the Swiftvets on no more evidence than the fact that a guy who knows Karl Rove also happens to know John O’Neill. Given those kinds of standards, I wonder if they are ready to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon in a case where we have forged memos, shadowy couriers, a major television network acting as a conduit between a forger and the Kerry campaign, and a very fortuitously timed DNC commercial on the same subject as the story coming out of the forgeries…

16

I don’t have a cite, but I’ve been following along. This is from memory, if I forget a major event please let me know.

I did refresh my memory with this article.
And this one.

  • Burkett makes statments accusing President Bush of cleaning his national guard record.
  • He claims not to have documentation of any privilege. I don’t remember if this was on the internet or in an interview.
  • Around Feburary He says he is contacted by a woman named calling herself Lucy Ramirez.
  • He goes to meet her at a Rodeo and is instead met by a man who gives him a sealed envelope.
  • He travels to a nearby kinkos, makes copies of the memos and then burns the originals. He says this was at Lucy’s request because she was concerned DNA might lead back to her.
  • He then puts the copies into “cold storage” and tells no one he has them.
  • By August he is contacted by the media CBS and USAToday at least looking for the memos. This is the first part of his story confirmed by CBS and USAToday.
  • Eventually he gives the memos to CBS and then USAToday.
  • He tells them he got the memos from “George Conn, a former Texas National Guard colleague”. He later admits this was a lie. He says to cover for Lucy.
  • He gives the documents to CBS on condition that they arrange a conversation between himself and someone at the Kerry campaign.
  • Mary Mapes calls Joe Lockhart and requests that he call Burkett. (That it was Mary Mapes has not been confirmed. Lockhart just said it was a female producer from CBS.)
  • September 5th: A few days before the 60 minutes program, Lockhart does in fact call Burkett. He claims they talked about Burkett’s concern over the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth ads and what Kerry could do to counter them. He maintains that they did not discuss the memos. Burket has also maintained that Kerry and the Democrats had nothing to do with the documents.
  • Around one of the experts CBS hired to examine the documents sends an email warning that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the memos.
  • September 8th: 60 Minutes airs thier story about George Bush defying an order to get a physical and recieving preferenciial treatment.
  • A few hours after that story aired, a poster on the internet suggests that the memos are fakes. This poster turns out to be MacDougald a GOP supporter.
  • <I think the next day but I could be wrong> The Kerry campaign announced a new ad campaign called “Fortunate Son” attacking George Bush for recieveing privileges in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam war.
  • For the rest of that week, different news organization continued to find experts (including those CBS had hired to look at the documents) willing to say the documents were likely forgeries while CBS continued to claim they were genuine. The phrase unimpeachable source was used.
  • The next week, CBS aird an interview with Marian Carr Knox Killian’s (the supposed memo writer) secratary. She claims that the memos did not look like anything she typed. The formatting was wrong, some of the language was wrong, and they were probably forgeries.
  • She also says, however that the memo regarding an order to Geroge Bush to get a physical resembles closely one she remembers typing. Also she says she remembers much talk about an air of privilege around George Bush.
  • Speculation that Burkett was the source of the memos starts to be reported. Apperently the kinkos were he faxed them to CBS was traced and his picture was recognized.
  • By the end of the week, CBS finally admits that the memos were recieved from Burkett. Admits they should not have aired them and appologizes.
  • They then promise to appoint a commission to investigate what went wrong.

I did not get most of the dates but I think I faithfully put the events in order. I was not concerned so much with when a particular fact was reported as when it happened. Obviously, we learned about most of these events in reverse order.
If I made any mistakes or mischaracterized any of the events please let me know.

For the record, I do not think either campaign was involved with the production or propagation of these memos. Apperently Burkett got CBS to put him in contact with Lockhart, but I am inclined to believe that they primarily talked about countering the Swiftboat ads. I find it difficult to buy the sort of conspiracy that would have been necessary to make this happen.

17

Or, as the Daily Show put it:

18

So I guess saying, “The Bush campaign’s “Swift Vets” ads…” would be perfectly acceptible, right?

Doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant that they aren’t unbiased, seeing as how I wasn’t commenting on the content, but correcting an erroneous claim about their origin. The “Fortunate Son” ads were created and aired by the DNC, not the Kerry campaign.

Wow.

I wonder how you can claim to be an honest debater when you post factually incorrect information, proveably wrong, and then when called on it, wriggle around about something completely irrelevant to the correction I made.

19

Shayna, you seem to be quite knowledgeale about the Fortunate Son ads. Can you tell me when the anouncement was made that they would be running? The only cite I found claimed that the Fortuante Son campaign was anounced Spetember 9th, the very next day. I am not going to post it because it is so clearly partisan that I simply do not trust it.

Can anyone clear this up?

20

Not if you were implying that the the former is responsible for the latter’s actions. But, if you were trying to find unethical behavior in a network and that network gave preferential treatment to either of those two groups, no there wouldn’t be any difference which group the preferenetial treatment was given to.

True. But your comment was a nitpick, in that it didn’t deal with the actual substance of the issue. It’s possible someone could have interpreted that as refuting the actual issue being made by Bricker.