Skip to comments.CBS and The DNC (THE TIMELINE)
Posted on 09/21/2004 8:56:19 AM PDT by conservativecorner
Last week, I tried to make some sense of CBS's stonewalling inthe faceof obvious forgeries, and I noted:
I think we are now to the point where CBS is frantically trying to minimize the damage, and this statement, while it says nothing, really, is rather inciteful. It seems pretty clear to me that they understand how damaging this memogate bit has been to their reputation and their credibility. However, they have determined that revealing their sources and methodology in a forthright, open statement would be more damaging still. I think we are going to learn, in the not so distant future, about a serious incestuous relationship between CBS News and some person, persons, or group. I also bet we will see a bit of the sausage making- and these facts terrify CBS. The only reasoning I can come up for this continued self-inflicted wound is the fear that the truth is much more damaging than the current stonewalling. Right now, they merely appear incompetent, and they have determined incompetence is better than complicit.
Enter Joe Lockhart:
CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard. Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.
Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.
Where does lead us? I think we can put to rest CBS's latest remarks that this was simply a mistake, an error in judgement. It now appears that in order for the piece to be aired, the following had to happen:
- Ben Barnes refused to go on 60 Minutes unless he was assured that he would not be the only person making the charges. Barnes had made the charges CBS intended to use numerous times, and was well aware that he had credibility issues. So, in order for Barnes to speak, there had to be another angle to the story.
- Because they had no story without Barnes, CBS defied reality and trusted Bill Burkett. Not only did they trust Burkett, which is by itself insane, but they marketed him as an unimpeachable source, despite the fact that he never proved to them where the documents came from. This follow-up interview shows that he just threw a name out, and that was good enough for them.
- Once they received the documents, they ignored all of their experts, ignored the wife of Lt. Col. Killian, ignored Killian's son, and only superficially interviewed Hodges. Why? Why would they be so willing to go forward with these obviously fraudulent documents? The answer, again, is because they had to, otherwise Ben Barnes would not come forward again.
- In order to get the documents, they had to play go-between for Bill Burkett and the Kerry campaign. Why?
In short- Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were writing a hit piece- they 'knew' the real story, they just needed anything they could find to back it up. Listen to the company line today- the memos were 'fake but accurate.' They still believe they have proven their point, despite the fact that they have done nothing of the sort. They had to have Ben Barnes speak- his testimony was, for the uninitiated, damning. But in order to have Ben Barnes, they had to have something else- and that is where the whacko Burkett comes into the story. Each part of the story was built on the other, and all of it was based on nonsense.
Which begs the question- where did the forgeries come from, and is it unrealistic to envision DNC involvement. We already know that Joe Lockhart was involved, and his simple denial does not cut it. Ben Barnes, Bill Burkett, and Dan Rather's daughter are all Kerry and DNC fund raisers. Why is Bill Burkett claiming he handed documents to Max Cleland? What of the mysterious Kerry opposition researcher who received similar documents?
And before you totally deny any collusion between the DNC and the 60 minutes crew and the Burkett/Barnes interlopers, let's examine what happened around the time of the CBS airing:
September 8th- the CBS 60 Minutes hit piece airs
September 9th- DNC launches 'Fortunate Son' campaign:
Seizing on 30-year-old memos and memories, Sen. John Kerry's operatives are painting an unflattering portrait of President Bush as the "fortunate son" who used family connections to dodge the Vietnam War and then lied about it... The DNC has nicknamed its effort "Operation Fortunate Son" after a Creedence Clearwater Revival anti-war anthem from the 1960s. The song speaks of the privileged few, "born silver spoon in hand," who send others to war.
Bush is not the "senator's son" written about in the song, but he's the son of a former president who served in the House during the Vietnam War.
Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, a Kerry supporter, says he helped Bush and the sons of other wealthy families get into the Texas National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam.
As a young lieutenant, Bush was "talking to someone upstairs" and trying to "get out of coming to drill," according to newly unearthed memos by the late Col. Jerry B. Killian, squadron commander for Bush in Texas.
September 10th- Terry McAulliffe states:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said more than a dozen times Friday that President Bush had lied to the American public. "It has become crystal clear that the president has lied to the American public about his military service," McAuliffe said.
Really though- this is all just a coincidence. Joe Lockhart meeting with Bill Burkett via 60 Minutes several days before the 60 Minutes piece aired had nothing to do with the timing and shape of the attacks from the Democrats. Just a big, fuzzy, uncoordinated occurrence. Don't read anything into it at all.
very well done indeed. You should get a job in the media-I think I know where an opening is coming up for an anchor position.
That's an extremely interesting piece. It held my interest, and really tied things together. Good job.
Shouldn't Mary Mapes be henceforth known as "Typhraud" Mary?
Tony Blankley last night, when this broke, on Scarborough, said flat out that Lockhart was lying..Joe said he spoke with Burkett, but supposedly NOT about the NG memos...the mind boggles..
I think CBS is trying to keep this thing bottled until after the election. Yncovering the DNC connection now might well drive Frenchy's numbers down to hopelessness.
I think you also have stir in the Kitty Kelley book and its supposed verification of the cocaine rumors that Dems have been circulating for years. The timing of 60 Minutes and the DNC wrapped around the book release very nicely. It would have been a crescendo of whispers and accusations that Danny could have self righteously demanded answers for right up until November 2.
This sort of stuff used to be their bread and butter.
But if they can't pull off a good old fashioned smear campaign like the old days, why should anyone vote for them?
Your assumptions are quite valid. But the record will ultimately show collusion between the Dims and CBS well before the Burkett--Mapes--Lockhart conversations...
Is the "fortunate son" campaign still going on?
Bush is not the "senator's son" written about in the song,
that would be the son Of Albert Gore, Sr......who spent 6 months in Vietnam as a reporter with bodyguards who wrote about operations he did not attend.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Terrific! Nice work!
It goes back to July 20, and in some cases, even before that.
Search FR for the thread "Is the DNC involved" for more details.
Here is my straw man for you to pick apart.
(1) Mary Mapes prepares the forged documents Her own father said that she became a journalist because she had an axe to grind.
(2) Mapes either plants the documents for Bill Burkett to find or conspires with him.
(3) Burkett faxes the documents to CBS News (maybe just back to Mapes).
(4) Mapes prepares the story for the liberal talking head Ted Baxter ---- oops, I mean Dan Rather, knowing that he will fall for it.
(5) Mapes calls Lockhart to tell him that Burkett has dynamite evidence on Bush.
(6) Lockhart calls Burkett to get the details.
(7) Kerry campaign prepares Fortunate Son campaign.
(8) Rather goes on air with the story.
(9) Kerry campaign immediately follows with Fortunate Son.
CBS is stonewalling on the original source of the forged documents because they now knows it is actually CBS (Mapes).
Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe said the accusations were based on documents uncovered by the Associated Press and Boston Globe, not the disputed memos shown on 60 Minutes.
But then Terry had to open his mouth to say that...which is a sure clue he just might be lying.
You're ahead of the curve. Viacom is getting that sick feeling in their stomachs about now over this. Dan will be put out to pasture before the first investigation begins. It's one thing to be biased-it's another to get the board of directors scrutinized.
Thanks for posting this. It connects the dots. More people need to know about the evidence of collusion between the old media and the RATs. It has been SO blatent this election.
not bad at all.
Lets not forget Carl Cameron reporting that Kerry was telling the press on the trail that they all should pay close attention to the news coming out (referring to 60 min).
Your event sequence is interesting.
Rush disclosed that the Carey campaign was using the Aug '72 date from the bogus documents in print in April of this year, which means they had them then. To yours or any one's knowledge, can this jive with your sequence? Or, is it possible the Carey campaign is the source?
She has very close ties to the kerry campaign and probably knew they were sitting on something "electric".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.