Is Paul Lukasiak's Website the Info Source for Memogate?

On August 13, Bill Burkett posted approving comments on democrats.com ( http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=23055 ) about a rabid website that claims President Bush went AWOL while in the National Guard. These remarks were highlighted in an article by Steve Gilbert on the American Thinker website that I want to acknowledge first. ( www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=719 )

The AT piece points out a stark contradiction between Burkett's August comments and his claim to have received the Killian forgeries in March (the cattle show story). Near the end of his August comments, Burkett says "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 . . . " In other words, he is admitting that he had no evidence of such until after August 13.

This means the "evidence" must have suddenly invented itself sometime between the 13th and the 25th, when Burkett posted an article in which he taunted President Bush that "I know from your files that we have now reassembled, the fact that you did not fulfill your oath . . . " ( www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/082504Burkett/082504burkett.html )

The contradiction pointed out in the AT article prompted me to spend some time at the website making the allegations against President Bush. I figured at the very least I'd find a believable explanation as to how an alleged deserter won an honorable discharge, but no such luck! What I did find is a website that I suspect is the information source used by the forger. The reason for my suspicion is simple. There are multiple details in the fake memos that are accurate as to address, dates, players, and military documents. For example:

* The fake dated August 1, 1972 states that the recommendation for Bush's transfer to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron was made in May 1972. A genuine document on the website lists the application for transfer as an attachment and shows that it was, in fact, dated May 24, 1972. ( www.glcq.com/docs/transfer_rejection.jpg )

* The fake August 1 memo notes that the recommended transfer was not allowed. The letter denying the transfer is posted on the website (it's the same document referred to in the above item.)

* The August 1 memo refers to AFM 35-13 and Form 1288. Both are mentioned repeatedly on the website.

* The fabricated memos refer to other officers--specifically, Staudt, Harris, and Hodges. Several documents signed by Harris and Hodges are posted on the website.

* The website has an authentic letter that President Bush wrote to Col. Killian requesting permission to do equivalent training with the 187th Tac Recon Group in Alabama. He addressed the letter to: Col Killian, PO Box 34567, Houston TX 77034. ( www.glcq.com/docs/eqt_request.jpg ) The P.O. Box, city, state and zip correspond to that used on several of the fake documents. This may be significant, as it's my understanding that the use of the P.O. Box address on the fake documents has been something of a mystery.

In addition, I heard someone on Fox say that one of the strange things about the CBS memos was their use of the abbreviation OETR to refer to the Officer Effectiveness/Training Report. Apparently, standard practice is to refer to the form as the OER. And how does this website refer to the Officer Effectiveness/Training Report? Same way as the forger. As the OETR.

I propose that the memos were prepared from information on this website, sometime between August 13, when Burkett posted comments about it and August 25, when he made his claim that "we have reassembled your files." The question is who did the deed?

Gilbert argues that the simplest explanation is that Burkett created them. But I have to wonder how likely it is that someone of Burkett's background would have made the mistakes in them, such as the incorrect abbreviations. In addition to OETR are two others: Grp (Group) and Intrcp (Interceptor). From the real memos on the website (which, by the way are all typed in fixed space fonts) it's clear that the correct abbreviations are Gp and Intcp. Similarly, wouldn't Burkett be familiar with proper style for a military document?

Here's a comment posted to the article at the link I provided at #11 - comment says Lukasiak provided 60 Mins w/ the info that "tipped" the story.

Postings shown here not for debate on the merits (Jim Rob sez no), but to show how widespread was the belief that these leftie bloggers found the "scoop" on Bush's guards recs and gave that "scoop" to 60 Mins:
. Okay, here comes the cow patties:

Quotes from blog start here:

I doubt it. I doubt they’ll [60 Mins] cite Paul either, though he did provide the reporter the information that formed the final tipping point for the article.

Comment by John — 9/7/2004 @ 10:59 pm

Congratulations Raw Story - and special kudos to Paul for digging all of this up. I have to admit; I was starting to think this would never see the light of day.

Great job! Thanks for sticking with it.

Comment by Anonymous — 9/7/2004 @ 11:14 pm

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by kingfish — 9/8/2004 @ 12:16 am

About time the, so-called, mainstream media got off the BUTTS and did some work. Since the war started they seemed to be scared to investigate or even report on anything that would put Bush or the administration in a negative light.

Comment by Donnell — 9/8/2004 @ 2:06 am

congratulations on the scoop.

i’ve been following your coverage on it, for a while, and it seems that y’all have your noses pointed in the right direction for becoming the liberal alternative to drudge.

are you really sure you want to go there?

(j/k is kinda cool to have a place that dares to tell the truth and report on stuff the mainstream ignores, that isn’t rightwing slanted)

Comment by topaztic — 9/8/2004 @ 2:42 am

The Truth is the Truth, you can’t hide it forever! Great job Raw Story.
This is gonna be huge for you guys, even if you don’t get the direct credit, your readers know the real deal on what you’ve acheived. The word of mouth will spread! Keep up the great work!

Comment by walt — 9/8/2004 @ 9:05 am

Four years and a thousand dead soldiers, and finally the truth is coming out about this weasel. But he is just a front man for a corrupt party. Congratulations on your scoop. Please, please keep it up.
George

Comment by george — 9/8/2004 @ 9:22 am

About frickn time!

I am starting a movement to change the name of the war from “the war in Iraq” to Bush’s War.

Please use the phrase in any way as often as you like.
Bush’s War.
Put it right in his lap where it belongs!

-Ivy

Comment by Ivy Hamlin — 9/8/2004 @ 10:33 am

. . .

I’m a bit confused, since I’ve been reading in numerous other news sites for months now, how exactly Raw Story “broke” this one. The Nation, Alternet, the Gaurdian, and several other news sites have been meticulously parsing George Bush’s service record, pointing out the very same inconsistencies. Were there some startling new discoveries that I haven’t heard of? My understanding was that “new” records released by the military (after extensive FOIA demands by AP and other investigators) revealed absolutely nothing new…

Just wonderin’!

Comment by Jon — 9/8/2004 @ 3:49 pm

I’d say to read the story – Raw Story was the first news site to prove Bush was AWOL. A lot of sites have reported on this certainly, but we talked to Korb before the Globe who said, quite clearly, looking at Bush records he would have been AWOL.

Also, if I recall correctly, the pieces you’re citing were published after our piece. They certainly weren’t as comprehensive as ours. Anyway, we’re just happy the piece came out – let’s all be sure to watch 60 minutes.

Comment by John — 9/8/2004 @ 4:02 pm

Ah, the Korb factor. Got it. Bravo, Raw Story! Keep up the incredible work!

Have you all seen how the RNC is already smearing Barnes in advance of the CBS program tonight?

http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=4625

Comment by Jon — 9/8/2004 @ 5:42 pm

Great work–an important story.

Hope you get acknowledgment, but thanks for getting it out there, regardless.

Comment by Diana Wynne — 9/8/2004 @ 8:17 pm

It’s about time–watch it be a non story on Fox & most of the other supposedly news channels. This is why most smart people get their information from the Internet. Do you think it will be beat unrelently on all the stations like the lies about Kerry? No, the truth about Bush and his cronies rarely sees the light of day in the newspapers or the tv stations.

Comment by Helen Miller — 9/8/2004 @ 11:39 pm

I wasn’t fortuanate to get home in time to see the special on 60 minutes today. Did they air anything on Bush’s Guard record?

I checked out the CBS website and all they had was an interview and another small segment that added up to about 5 to 7 minutes.

I would love to hear from anyone who saw it. Or are they going to air it at another date if they didn’t tonight.

Comment by TheLastCowboy — 9/9/2004 @ 12:04 am

Congrats on the mainstream pickup. I don’t think it’s uncommon for mainstream reporters to get leads/tips from the alt press but not acknowledge it. But I hope the Boston Globe gives some belated credit. If I were you guys, I’d write to the editor and demand recognition. Hey, when Drudge or The Smoking Gun reveals something, they often get the cred. Fair is fair, right?

Comment by Melinda Barton — 9/9/2004 @ 8:35 am

Dude! So nobody saw the segment? I missed it last night. Who do I have to kill to see it or get the scoop?!?!!! Somebody? Anybody?

Comment by TheLastCowboy — 9/9/2004 @ 2:21 pm

Several reports on right-wing sites are asking some interesting questions about the documents revealed on 60 minutes last night - namely, how a memo supposedly written in the early 70’s, has a Microsoft Word superscript function (the “th” after 111) when all they had were typewriters with Courier font…

Also - what about a letterhead?

I’m as liberal-progressive as you can get, but some of the questions raised need investigating. Let’s see what 60 Minutes says.

Comment by Jon — 9/9/2004 @ 4:39 pm

of course, i’ve known this all along … and to think the military is in his dirty hands … i’d spit, but i think this 60 minutes will do that for me …

congrats!!!!

Comment by eldon — 9/9/2004 @ 5:18 pm

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.