September 18, 2004
THE KERRY PLUMBERS CRACK:
Ex-Guardsman: I Contacted Kerry Campaign (KELLEY SHANNON, 9/18/04, Associated Press)
A retired Texas National Guard official mentioned as a possible source for disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Guard said he passed along information to a former senator working with John Kerry's campaign. [...]The retired Guard official, Bill Burkett, said in an Aug. 21 e-mail to a list of Texas Democrats that after getting through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" in the Democrat's campaign, he talked with former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland about information that would counter criticism of Kerry's Vietnam War service. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the e-mail Saturday.
"I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. (Cleland) said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with," Burkett wrote.
From nutty Bill Burkett to Mad Max at Kerry HQ to Dan Rather, who's been looking for revenge since George H. W. Bush played him for a fool on national tv. All it needs is a pretty pink bow cause it's already gift-wrapped.
MORE:
-CBS News:A Source of Contention (Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Anne Belli Gesalman, 9/27/04, Newsweek)
CBS insiders are increasingly worried that the credibility of the network's news division has been grievously damaged by anchor Dan Rather's persistent defense of a story which relied on questionable documents about George W. Bush's National Guard service. "This has clearly hurt us," one veteran correspondent told NEWSWEEK. Network sources describe finger-pointing within the news division, with concerns greatest among "60 Minutes" producers, who fear the issue has tainted their entire program. While CBS News president Andrew Heyward has publicly backed Rather, the network has quietly assembled a team of additional producers to work the case. Rather is privately telling colleagues he remains "confident" that the story, and the memos, will be vindicated.One problem is that the network has not explained where the purported Texas National Guard records have been for the last 30 years and why they happened to surface in the closing weeks of a presidential campaign. Emily Will, a documents expert approached by CBS to examine the memos, told NEWSWEEK that she was told by a CBS News producer that the network's source had received the memos anonymously through the mail. Intense scrutiny has centered on the role of William Burkett, a former National Guard official who charged last February that he saw Bush Guard documents in a trash can in 1997—an allegation that Guard officials strongly denied. A source who worked with CBS on the story said Burkett was identified by a producer as a conduit for the documents. Three days before the broadcast, Burkett e-mailed a friend that there was "a real heavy situation regarding Bush's records" about to break. "He was having a lot of fun with this," said the friend, Dennis Adams. Burkett told a visitor that after the story ran, Rather phoned him and expressed his and the network's "full support."
-In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries (Howard Kurtz, Michael Dobbs and James V. Grimaldi, September 19, 2004, Washington Post)
In the early-morning hours of Sept. 8, Dan Rather was preparing to fly to Washington for a crucial interview in the Old Executive Office Building, but torrential rain kept him in New York.White House communications director Dan Bartlett had agreed to talk to "60 Minutes," but only on condition that the CBS program provide copies of what were being billed as newly unearthed memos indicating that President Bush had received preferential treatment in the National Guard. The papers were hand-delivered at 7:45 a.m. CBS correspondent John Roberts, filling in for Rather, sat down with Bartlett at 11:15.
Half an hour later, Roberts called "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes with word that Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents. Mapes told her bosses, who were so relieved that they cut from Rather's story an interview with a handwriting expert who had examined the memos.
At that point, said "60 Minutes" executive Josh Howard, "we completely abandoned the process of authenticating the documents. Obviously, looking back on it, that was a mistake. We stopped questioning ourselves. I suppose you could say we let our guard down."
The premise of the CBS story was that this colonel had kept secret files but they thought some press spokesman would be able to authenticate them? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 18, 2004 8:52 PM
The fact that conspiracy theorists always miss, whether they're dealing with Kennedy being really assassinated by the CIA or whatever, or fake moon landings, etc., is that conspiracies always involve some idiot who gets found out, or has second thoughts, and then the whole thing unravels. Here the whole conspiracy appears to have been idiots from top to bottom...
Posted by: brian at September 18, 2004 9:56 PMI guess Max won't be talking to any reporters for the rest of the campaign.
How the bitter have shriveled!
Posted by: at September 18, 2004 10:14 PMKerry isn't talking to reporters, Edwards is in hiding, Max won't talk to reporters, pretty soon it'll be only the Clintonites left to speak for the party. Hard to believe they'll shut up.
Posted by: pj at September 18, 2004 10:34 PMeeww. With "Kerry Plumbers Crack", the first thing I thought about was what you see when the plumber is hunched over under the kitchen sink. . . .
Posted by: Twn at September 18, 2004 10:36 PMPeople have been saying that if the documents were linked back to Kerry then he would really be toast. With the AP reporting it one would think it would get everyone's attention.
Posted by: AWW at September 18, 2004 10:44 PMGo read Jeff Goldstein's protein wisdom. Do not read it while you are drinking any thing near your keyboard.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 19, 2004 12:29 AMSenator Plumber's Crack. I like that. It's got kind of a ring to it.
Posted by: joe shropshire at September 19, 2004 1:13 AMI believe the intended story line was powdered cocaine, not crack.
Posted by: ghostcat at September 19, 2004 1:34 AMbrian --
That's why I never believe in conspiracy theories, especially those that involve more than one person. :-) (Just in case there is a humorless lefty in the audience.)
Posted by: Uncle Bill at September 19, 2004 8:38 AMThere's that Democratic Party doublethink again. Rove is a super-villian level evil genius, yet there's no reason to suspect a setup in the White House non-reply. OK...
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 19, 2004 10:22 AMThe info about the interview with Bartlett makes me think Rather was looking for a 'The White House denies...' angle to add some icing to the cake he was baking up. That would have made all the forgery accusations moot.
It does sound like Bush got lucky though.
Roberts probably doesn't have the faith in the documents that Rather does, so he wasn't able to provoke a denial out of Bartlett.
Hopefully it wasn't luck but smarts that kept Bartlett's mouth shut about them.
Posted by: Chris B at September 19, 2004 11:46 AMBartlett has been answering questions about this story since 1999 (at least) - when he saw them, he either gagged (but kept his mouth shut) or gave Dan Rather the best poker face ever. My guess is the latter. The White House has played Rather like a drum since last week, first by letting Laura Bush give a response, now with possible Congressional hearings, and then with the President supposedly agreeing to be on O'Reilly this upcoming week.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 19, 2004 12:01 PMI think Dan used to work for the Stasi under the code name "Kenneth" and really does know the frequency. And I've just discovered the documents to prove it.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 19, 2004 12:53 PMRaoul -- Even if you don't have the actual documents, just write them up and include the signature of whoever you believe is responsible. They will still be "substantially true", won't they?
Posted by: Josh Silverman at September 19, 2004 8:18 PMI am prepared to authenticate all such documents if someone would kindly read their contents to me over the telephone.
That would of course include any signatures attached.
Posted by: Oswald Booth Czolgosz at September 19, 2004 8:44 PM