Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BURKETT CONTRADICTED HIMSELF ON SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (Big Surprise!)
USA Today | 9/22/04 | soccermom

Posted on 09/22/2004 7:21:04 AM PDT by soccermom

OK, we shouldn't be surprised by now that Burkett is exposed as a fraud, but I found this contradiction so glaring I can't believe the press hasn't picked up on it:

Burkett is claiming that he was given the documents by someone named Lucy Ramirez (or her shadowy courier). From USA Today:

"Burkett said he arranged to get the documents during a trip to Houston for a livestock show in March. But instead of being met at the show by Ramirez, he was approached by a man who asked for Burkett, handed him an envelope and quickly left, Burkett recounted."

But as recently as August 13 he posted on DemocRATS.com, claiming that he had no such documentation:

"I have found no documentation from LTC Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to either cover for the failures of 1LT Bush, or to provide him pay or certification for training not completed. On the contrary, LTC Killians' remarks are rare, indeed, especially considering that 1LT Bush was known clearly as a congressman's son and had utilized his position as such, to gain a favor of his failure to train while in Alabama. I have to believe that earning that favor was completed by false pretenses also due to LTC Killian's officer evaluation comment."

Clearly Burkett is lying. So on the 13th he claims to have had NOTHING, but a week later he is calling the Kerry campaign with information. Hmmmmmmm......IMO, he never had any documentation and became frustrated with the Swiftboat success so he forged the documents himself. Now that the forgery has been exposed, he is inventing this Lucy Ramirez.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: burkett; contradict; democrats; forgeddocuments; lied; lucyramirez; source; stainedbluememo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 09/22/2004 7:21:05 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: soccermom

THE DOCUMENT ISSUE IS DEALT WITH, FINISH THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR dnCBS... THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE IN THE PRESS EVERYWHERE AND IT WILL FINISH dnCBS

The other issues expose HOW THE MEDIA WING OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY ACTUALLY WORKS! CBS' "gold standard" included:

1. The widow and son were IGNORED
2. Document experts were IGNORED
3. Hodges was MISLED
4. The old secretary was NOT INTERVIEWED until afterward
5. Staudt, who had his character attacked in one memo, was never contacted
6. The opinions of the experts were MISREPRESENTED
7. The swift boat veterans were MALIGNED
8. George Bush's roomate DURING HIS GUARD YEARS, who AGREED TO SPEAK TO THEM WAS TURNED DOWN BECAUSE HE WAS TOO "PRO BUSH"...

And the list goes on. Fact is, this was a HIT PIECE ON BUSH. And just because dnCBS owns up to fake documents does NOT CLEAR THEIR PROPAGANDA / DNC REPORTING!!


2 posted on 09/22/2004 7:21:43 AM PDT by woodb01 (Take out the 'dnC'BS "news" trash... Make dnCBS EXTINCT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

Sorry -- I accidentally posted this before proof-reading. I hope it is OK.


3 posted on 09/22/2004 7:23:23 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
CBS can't pretend any more that they are protecting their sources. It's time for them to release all their records on forged document story.

It's time for CBS to come clean.

4 posted on 09/22/2004 7:24:09 AM PDT by dano1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

All excellent points -- but, clearly, the source of the forgery is important, too.


5 posted on 09/22/2004 7:24:22 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

It's more than OK! It's really good, and you're making a good point. I think you should send it as a letter to the ditor at USA Today.


6 posted on 09/22/2004 7:25:35 AM PDT by EllaMinnow (Dan would RATHER lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

Also add to that that Staudt has since come forward to deny ANY special treatment for Bush and See BS has YET to interview him.


7 posted on 09/22/2004 7:26:01 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EllaMinnow

Good suggestion --- not that I have much luck with getting letters published to USA Today.


8 posted on 09/22/2004 7:26:44 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Sorry -- I accidentally posted this before proof-reading. I hope it is OK.

No, you should phrase that "I actually did proofread the post before I didn't."

9 posted on 09/22/2004 7:27:39 AM PDT by VRWCmember (I actually ignored this thread before I posted to it. jfk, 08/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
Here are twenty things C BS should apologize for: (from ratherbiased.com)

1. Failing to use the best document experts it could find,
2. Hiring a signature expert to look at a copied document when he himself said earlier that doing such a thing was foolish,
3. Ignoring and lying about the testimony of those it did hire,
4. Failing to interview Marian Knox as well as the others listed above,
5. Not interviewing anyone directly connected with Lt. Col Killian,
6. Not informing viewers that Staudt had retired a year-and-a-half before the time he was supposedly trying to help "sugarcoat" Bush's record,
7. Failing to inform viewers that not a single verified document signed by Killian or his fellow officers during the time period used the typographical techniques used in the CBS Memos,
8. Not mentioning Ben Barnes's partisan background enough,
9. Not disclosing the 30-year friendship of the two Texas Democrats Barnes and Rather,
10. Failing to even know who producer Mary Mapes's document source was before the broadcast,
11. Dishonestly impugning the motives of critics,
12. Using its news broadcasts to defend a bad report instead of examining how it could be wrong,
13. Never once featuring a single document expert on the air who doubted CBS's claims,
14. Putting total non-experts on the air to spin the preferred "authentic" line even though CBS would not allow them to see its documents,
15. Not mentioning that Killian never kept notes and hated to type,
16. Failing to provide the public with copies of the documents as close as possible to the ones CBS obtained,
17. Not finding out if the office in which Killian worked even had a typewriter capable of duplicating most of the complex formatting used in the CBS documents (it did not),
18. Using the testimony of a vehemently anti-Bush author to prove its case and simply referring to him as an author who "wrote two books on the subject,"
19. Failing to inform viewers that its document source was someone who hated George Bush,
20. Not telling viewers that one of its key (if not the key) sources was a man known to be mentally unstable and one who has lodged false accusations against Bush for years.

10 posted on 09/22/2004 7:29:12 AM PDT by TigersEye (Free speech is only for Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Because USA today, are GOOD FRIENDS with the bias BBC.
11 posted on 09/22/2004 7:29:52 AM PDT by lillybet (.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

LOL!


12 posted on 09/22/2004 7:30:43 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

Has anyone noticed that Burkett says he would not give over the documents to CBS until he spoke to someone from the DNC -- while Lockhart says that CBS had already received the documents and a day later he was asked to call Burkett. Methinks Lockhart is LYING.


13 posted on 09/22/2004 7:31:54 AM PDT by WashingtonSource (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Also add to that that Staudt has since come forward to deny ANY special treatment for Bush and See BS has YET to interview him

I have sent numerous emails to all talk show hosts. No mention anywhere. Hannity needs to read that article every night until someone, somewhere, picks up on it.

14 posted on 09/22/2004 7:32:47 AM PDT by sarasotarepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Clearly Burkett is lying.


As probably are many others..... But what are the lies and where is the proof of each. So far all that is out there are assertions one way or the other and nothing has been dissected in a court of adjudication.... It will take a long time to sort this out if it ever gets sorted out.
15 posted on 09/22/2004 7:33:59 AM PDT by deport ("Because we believe in human dignity..." [President Bush at the UN])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

I have been saying it for several months now, the one thing about the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq/Afghanistan that is exactly the same is ... the media is lying to us.


16 posted on 09/22/2004 7:35:15 AM PDT by TigersEye (Free speech is only for Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasotarepublican

I've read from more than one source about Colonel Staudt's comments and I know Fox News has covered it. What we need to be demanding is why SEE BS, who claims to have been working on this story for 4 years, never bothered to interview him -- and STILL hasn't.


17 posted on 09/22/2004 7:38:15 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

18 posted on 09/22/2004 7:38:52 AM PDT by CharlieChan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport

Well, I've illustrated Burkett's lie. The "proof" is he has said two contradictory things. One of them has to be a lie.


19 posted on 09/22/2004 7:39:59 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

I believe Burkett is the forger. There are small clues such as the (previous freeper posts) of the phrases he has used in postings on the internet that have been retrieved by googling. Also the use of "army" NG terms vs. air force NG terms in the memos. I do think the documents have been around since at least early August and possibly early this year. I think all the chief "Rats" have been aware of these documents for a while and that it is common knowledge - was supposed to be the "October Surprise" Estrich and others talked about. The 60 minutes broadcast pre-empted the official season beginning, which was supposed to be next week. My 2 cents...


20 posted on 09/22/2004 7:40:02 AM PDT by Sleeping Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Nice job securitymom! He definately forged the so-called document. He writes all over the web and it was written in Army dialect. The co-ordination came between Mapes/Kerry campaign.

Pray for W and Our Troops

21 posted on 09/22/2004 7:43:34 AM PDT by bray (Nam Vets Rock!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

I never said he didn't lie..... I expect that lies would be a part of his game. The question is which are the lies and which are the truth. My point is none of this has been proven in a court of law but rather it is assertions. Do you know for a fact that the supposedly post to the Texas yahoo group is really Burkett or is it someone using his name? Has that been proven.


22 posted on 09/22/2004 7:45:59 AM PDT by deport ("Because we believe in human dignity..." [President Bush at the UN])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Great catch, soccermom!

If the FBI or such is investigating, they could get possession of a target's computers and see if the documents exist on them in other than an image format before their posting on the web, i.e. to indicate they were created on those particular computers. Another indication would be the existence of a contemporaneous image file of Killian's signature.

It would do Burkett - or any such "person of interest" - no good to delete the files or reformat the disk, the FBI can still read much of what was once there.

Also, I suspect they are able to do this remotely via software and may have already done so if they acted quickly enough to obtain search warrants on "persons of interest".

23 posted on 09/22/2004 7:51:20 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Freeper

He also (as he says) burned the originals. Why? It only makes sense if he is the forger. Also, in one of his rants in August he says that "we" reassembled the files. Who is we - but it is clear to me that reassembled = forged.


24 posted on 09/22/2004 7:52:55 AM PDT by markytom (why burn the originals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

21 -- Treating its viewers as swine and feeding them swill.


25 posted on 09/22/2004 7:53:00 AM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
21. For willingly becoming complicit in the forgery. They are ethically bound to disclose the so-called alleged "unimpeachable" originator of the documents, as whoever did that or conspired with others to do that has crafted false US Govenment/Military documents, committing one or more felonies under US Law.

HF

26 posted on 09/22/2004 7:54:45 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: holden

I think Burkett did it himself too. That these documents use Army jargon and Burkett was a member of the Army National Guard is a little obvious. I haven't seen anyone in the news media point that out, but someone in the Army had to have had a hand in their creation.


27 posted on 09/22/2004 7:59:23 AM PDT by linda11567
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Freeper

I agree. I think, clearly, Burkett forged the documents out of frustration over the Swiftees. On the 13th he was claiming he had no such documentation and week later he is calling the Kerry campaign with "information" to counter the Swiftees! Also, he first said the source was some National Guardsman named Cook or something. (That was what he told See BS and USA today before the documents were exposed as forgeries.) Now, that they have been exposed as forgeries, he comes up with this crazy story about Lucy and how he BURNED the originals! The man is a NUT! "CYA" is not only the title of his forged memo -- it is the mode he is in now!


28 posted on 09/22/2004 8:30:35 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bray

Thanks -- I like the new handle, too!


29 posted on 09/22/2004 8:31:23 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: deport

My source is NOT the yahoo group. There is a full length article posted at democRATS.com entitled "Lukasiak Study Proves Bush Was Legally AWOL" by Bill Burkett, Lt. Col. I can't post the link because freerepublic won't let me post links to democRATS.com. But you can certainly find it on the web. We're not talking about some guy with a handle. We're talking about an article authored by Burkett. It isn't a post -- it is a featured article on August 13.


30 posted on 09/22/2004 8:36:35 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Thanks. I doubt the FBI will investigate. It'll look like a White House abuse of power. It is funny to see the nut scrambling in CYA mode, though.


31 posted on 09/22/2004 8:38:55 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markytom

Yep -- how conveeeeeeenient! He burned the originals and we can't find LUUUUUUUUSEEEEEEE!


32 posted on 09/22/2004 8:40:53 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: deport

Sorry -- I looked back at my originial post and see I didn't make it clear. I said he "posted" at democRATS.com. It wasn't a post -- it was an article written by Burkett that democRATS.com posted.


33 posted on 09/22/2004 8:43:29 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

I saw Lockhart giving his little speech 2 or 3 days ago. He reminded me of a little boy lying. His body language gave him away. If you can, go back and look at that clip, he is moving around (while setting in a chair).


34 posted on 09/22/2004 8:43:35 AM PDT by Trashyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Thank you for your reply!

Indeed, I imagine the FBI will not investigate. It would however greatly benefit the Democrat party's credibility to insist on just such an investigation, i.e. that their hands are clean and they have nothing to hide.

35 posted on 09/22/2004 8:51:18 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

I find the use of the name "Ramirez" fascinating. I noticed that a group called Football Fans for Truth has a list of Kerry "athletic offences".
Kerry once praised Manny Ortez of the Red Sox. The problem is the Red Sox has no player by that name. But they DO have Manny RAMIREZ. Very interesting.


36 posted on 09/22/2004 8:53:52 AM PDT by Bushiefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

Burkett's the fall guy. He's a stupid loose cannon. No way he's the brains behind this crime. More coming soon...


37 posted on 09/22/2004 9:02:30 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Freeper
Burkett's too stupid to be the forger.

He's the fall guy for a powerful team. The kind smart enough to hire a PR firm to put shills on FreeRepublic.

How soon before some of them come forward and talk? They have families, right. And they know and some will talk. This is going to get better and better. BOO!!!

38 posted on 09/22/2004 9:06:35 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

BTTT


39 posted on 09/22/2004 9:07:46 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trashyhill

My reaction exactly. His body language said I'm lying through my teeth.


40 posted on 09/22/2004 9:16:36 AM PDT by WashingtonSource (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: linda11567
I consider that several signs inconclusively point to Burkett himself, but if SeeBS's representation is not only that they got those docs from him, but that Burkette produced them, surely calling Burkette "unimpeachable" is a bald-faced lie, to which they must fess up.

The most glaring features that the medically messed-up Burkett either did not do the forgery, or at least had help is the flowing, feminine Killian signature and the aesthetically-tuned eye for centering, proportional spacing, etc. I think Burkett would have been strongly inclined to take the ham-fisted approach, and/or to get it pretty close to right, having surely seen hundreds of such documents during his TArmyNG tenure.

IMHO, Burkett must have "handed over" at least a portion of the actual forgery production and signing to someone else, probably a woman.

HF

41 posted on 09/22/2004 9:20:44 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bushiefan

LOL! Good point!


42 posted on 09/22/2004 10:06:02 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

I wish I could say it had more direct ties to Kerry, but there really were no "brains" behind this. It was dumb from the beginning and the fact that it is unraveling so quickly causes me to think that it really was just the lone nut. If anything, I think he duped them rather than them using him.


43 posted on 09/22/2004 10:08:45 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix

thanks


44 posted on 09/22/2004 10:11:05 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Freeper; soccermom

I'm one who highlighted the favored phrase of Burkett - "run interference" - coming out of Killian's mouth in the CYA memo. And Michael Dobbs of the WaPo found THAT AND other dead ringers.

Burkett is the forger.

Unless the forger framed Burkett in case the forgeries were caught, by using Burkett's published lingo to hide his/her own guilt. Then gave Burkett the memos, & he ran with them.

What else is feasible?


45 posted on 09/22/2004 10:32:54 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
If anything, I think he duped them rather than them using him.

Nah, it doesn't work that way in the world of big time journalism. Lone nuts are a dime a dozen, and folks like Rather can spot them in seconds. No, this is much bigger. The "unimpeachable source" is the one we're after.

46 posted on 09/22/2004 10:48:18 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Good job! Certainly, there are forensic people that specialize in writing style, etc. It would be interesting to have them confirm your observations. Unfortunately, that will only happen if this is investigated as a crime and I don't think that will happen any time soon.


47 posted on 09/22/2004 10:56:59 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Yeah -- they are. The fact that See BS took the word of a lone nut speaks volumes. I thought Burkett was their "unimpeachable source." You think there is someone else? As I understand it, Burkett told them (before the blow-up) that he got the documents from a National Guard guy by the name of Cook. Perhaps he is the one they considered "unimpeachable". Of course, they never interviewed the guy, so I don't know how they could say he was unimpeachable. He has since denied being the source and Burkett has admitted he lied when he said the source was Cook.


48 posted on 09/22/2004 11:01:33 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

George Conn


49 posted on 09/22/2004 1:30:14 PM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Thanks!


50 posted on 09/22/2004 3:12:00 PM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson