Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Fraudulent memos roundup: ABC News and The Washington Post have pieces on CBS News' decision to ignore some of the document experts they hired who cautioned them against using the fraudulent memos.
The New York Times in typical fashion, reports that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's secretary, Marian Carr Knox -- who would've typed the documents -- says the CBS documents are fake, but accurately reflect how Killian felt about Bush.
Knox isn't a Bush supporter and according to other reports said she believed Bush was "selected, not elected" putting her on the extreme left of the political spectrum.
The Times also buries the a significant development low in today's story.
But one person at CBS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed a report in Newsweek that Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer who has charged that senior aides to then-Gov. Bush had ordered Guard officials to remove damaging information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files, had been a source of the report. This person did not know the exact role he played.
Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said "the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?" and that Mr. Burkett "is not the proper object of attention."
Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett "a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony."
The Times fails to note that Burkett's charges were discredited and he apparently made them because of a medical dispute he had with the National Guard.
There's much more over at National Review's Kerry Spot, including another fisking of Tuesday night's CBS "coverage" of the "controversy."
There is also a rumor that CBS will issue another (lame) press release today stating that it continues to "stand by its story."
As each day passes, CBS worsens the ruin that is its news division. Is attacking President Bush this way really worth this to CBS? It shouldn't be, but the fact that it is shows how deep the rot is in Dan Rather's world.