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 previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
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]

To: soccermom
Rather's been around the block - hundreds of times. He knows the difference between a nut and an unimpeachable source. Trust me. Either he was lying then (which I doubt) or he's lying now - (which I suspect). Or Rather's nuts. Which I doubt.

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.

51 posted on 09/22/2004 8:35:03 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
I believe this can be interpreted to back up the docs and possibly why he posted it in anticipation of releasing the docs......

"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.

This could be construed as him stating that Killian was straightforward and didn't give Lt Bush any cover thus fitting with the forged memos that he was ordered to report for the medical(physical) exam. In other words LTC Killian was reliable and any docs he produced would show it...

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."

I am not sure what to make of tis gobely gook, but it seems to me he was trying to state that Bush gained favor under false pretenses, but that Killian found out, then ordered him to the physical...to me it is an attempt to shore up the forged documents...JMO..

52 posted on 09/22/2004 8:59:13 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Well, one way or the other, he is lying!


53 posted on 09/23/2004 1:48:10 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Nahhh -- I don't see it that way at all. I don't see how he could get away with spinning it that way. The memo was titled "CYA" and mentioned him having to "sugarcoat". If that isn't considered "covering for the failures" of Bush, I don't know what is.


54 posted on 09/23/2004 1:53:55 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
We agree:

Well, one way or the other, he is lying!

55 posted on 09/23/2004 8:08:29 AM PDT by GOPJ (The effect of‘MSM bias’ is the Democratic party and the press sustain each other’s delusions. Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 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