User:Kaisershatner/sandbox2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
One of the Killian documents.
One of the Killian documents.

The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate or Rathergate) involved faxed copies of unauthenticated documents that were publicized by CBS News during the 2004 US presidential campaign. The photocopied documents, obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Air National Guard (TexANG), were the basis for a 60 Minutes Wednesday segment that aired on September 8, 2004 and was presented by CBS anchor Dan Rather, who asserted the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files" and had been authenticated by document experts retained by CBS. They contained criticisms of President George W. Bush's service in the Guard during the Vietnam war of the 1970s, purportedly by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and re-opened the George W. Bush military service controversy.

CBS' claims were contested within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mainstream media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised persistent doubts about the credibility of CBS' claims, and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004: Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[1] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[2][3]

The documents have subsequently never been authenticated and are considered by many to be forgeries. No originals have been produced for examination. Several months later, a CBS-appointed independent Panel[4] detailed several serious criticisms of both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath. The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of producer Mary Mapes; several senior News executives resigned, and CBS apologized to viewers. The Panel did not specifically consider the question of whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."

Some Republicans (and others, such as conservative bloggers) claimed CBS was attempting to influence the 2004 US Presidential election and made allegations of political bias on the part of CBS staff. Some Democrats claim the document controversy was engineered to misdirect media attention and undermine legitimate criticism of Bush's service record.

Contents

[edit] Background and timeline

The memos, supposedly written in 1972 and 1973, were obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes and Michael Smith, a freelance journalist from Texas who was collaborating with Mapes, from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former Texas Air National Guard officer, although CBS would not name him as the source until other news organizations began to speculate about Burkett's role. Burkett had received publicity in 2000, after alleging and then retracting a claim that he had been transferred to Panama for refusing "to falsify personnel records of Governor Bush,"[5], and in February of 2004, when he claimed to have knowledge of "scrubbing" of Bush's TexANG records[6],[7] According to the review panel, investigations by major news outlets at the time, including CBS, "revealed inconsistencies... which led to questions regarding his credibility and whether his claims could be proven." [8] The Review panel found that despite this coverage, "no one involved in the vetting of the September 8 segment seemed to be aware of it." [9]

Mapes and Smith made contact with Burkett in late August, and on August 24 Burkett offered to meet with them to share the documents he possessed. Emails between Smith and Mapes document their discussion of providing assistance to Burkett (financial compensation, help negotiating a book deal, security, and Burkett's request that they facilitate his contact with the John Kerry Campaign) in exchange for the documents[10] but found no evidence that any of these proposals "contemplated in these emails was ever consummated, except for putting Burkett in touch with the Kerry campaign,"[13] "a clear violation of CBS News' standard II-I as an 'unethical newsgathering practice.'" During the last week of August, Mapes contacted her immediate superior, Josh Howard, who "emphatically denied giving Mapes permission to make the call." Mapes claims that Howard authorized the contact[11] and in any case, she was in contact with the campaign several times during the period of the end of August through September 6, when she spoke with senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart regarding the progressing story[12]. Lockhart later told the Panel that he was "wary" of contact with Mapes at this stage, because if the story were true, his involvement might undermine its credibility, and if it were false, "he did not want to be associated with it."[15]

Two documents were provided by Burkett to Mapes on September 2 and four others on September 5, 2004. At the time he supplied the documents, Burkett told Mapes that they were copies of originals that had been obtained from Killian's personal files via Chief Warrant Officer George Conn, another former member of the TexANG (Later, Burkett changed his story more than once about his claims regarding how he supposedly came into possesion of the documents). At this time, Mapes contacted Rather to keep him up to date on the progress of the story, which was being targeted to air on September 8.

[edit] Content of the memos

The documents allegedly showed that Bush disobeyed orders while in the Guard, and had undue influence exerted on his behalf to improve his record, and included the following accusations:

  1. An order directing Bush to submit to a physical examination. This order was not carried out.
  2. A note that Killian had grounded Bush from flying due to "failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards, and for failure to submit to the physical examination as orderd. Killian also requested that a flight inquiry board be convened, as required by regulations, to examine the reasons for Bush's loss of flight status. Independent documents confirm Bush was grounded for failure to complete a physical.[13]
  3. A note of a telephone conversation with Bush in which Bush sought to be excused from "drill." The note records that Bush said he did not have the time to attend to his National Guard duties because of his responsibilities with the Blount campaign.
  4. A note (labeled "CYA" for "cover your ass") claiming that Killian was being pressured from above to give Bush better marks in his yearly evaluation than he had earned. The note attributed to Killian says that he was being asked to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance. "I'm having trouble running interference [for Bush] and doing my job."

USA Today also received copies of the four documents used by CBS and two additional memos.[14], and identified Burkett as the source for this set of documents.[15]

[edit] CBS investigations prior to airing the segment

Mapes and her colleagues began preparing a news segment to air on the September 8 program, interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents while also retaining four forensic document experts (Marcel J. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will, and Linda James) to assess the validity of the memos.

On September 5, CBS interviewed Robert Strong, a friend of Killian's who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office. Among other issues covered in his interview with Rather and Mapes, Strong was asked if he thought the documents were genuine. Strong had first seen the documents 20 minutes earlier and had said he had no personal knowledge of their content, but also replied, "they are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."[16][17]

On September 6 CBS interviewed General Robert "Bobby" Hodges, a former officer at the Texas Air National Guard and Killian's immediate superior at the time. Hodges declined CBS' request for an on-camera interview, and Mapes read the documents to him over the telephone. According to Mapes, Hodges agreed with CBS's assessment that the documents were real, and CBS reported Hodges stating that details read to him over the phone were "the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."[18] According to Hodges, when Mapes read portions of the memos to him he simply stated, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt," and he claims he never confirmed the validity of the content of the documents[19], further asserting to the investigatory panel that he told Mapes at the time that Killian had never to his knowledge ordered anyone to take a physical and that he had never been pressured regarding Lieutenant Bush, as the documents alleged (op. cit.) Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed,[20] and following the September 8 broadcast, when Hodges had seen the documents and heard of claims of forgery by Killian's wife and son, he was "convinced they were not authentic" and told Rather and Mapes on September 10. (Panel Report, p. 12).

[edit] Response of the document examiners

Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:(Panel Report, pp. 84–86)

  1. Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.
  2. Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written.
  3. James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. Pierce also told Mapes he could not reach a conclusion about authenticity because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.
  4. Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies." (Panel Report, p. 98–99). In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them. (Panel Report, p. 101)

[edit] The Segment, September 8

The segment, entitled "For The Record," aired on 60 Minutes Wednesday on September 8. A transcript is available here[21]. After introducing the documents, Rather said, in reference to Matley,

"We consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic," (Panel Report, p. 127)

The segment introduced Lieutenant Robert Strong's interview, describing him as a "friend of Killian" (without noting he had not worked in the same location and without mentioning he had left the TexANG prior to the dates on the memos). The segment used the sound bite of Strong saying the documents were compatible with how business was done without the disclaimer that he was told to assume the documents were authentic (Panel Report, p. 128–129).

In Rather's narration about one of the memos, he referred to pressure being applied on Bush's behalf by General Buck Staudt, and described Staudt as "the man in charge of the Texas National Guard." Staudt had retired from the guard a year and a half prior to the dates of the memos.

Interview clips with Ben Barnes, former Speaker of the Texas House, created the impression "that there was no question but that President Bush had received Barnes' help to get into the TexANG," because Barnes had made a telephone call on Bush's behalf, when Barnes himself had acknowledged that there was no proof his call was the reason, and that "sometimes a call to General Rose did not work." (Panel report, p. 130) Barnes' disclaimer was not included in the Segment.

[edit] Initial skepticism

Within hours of the segment, the authenticity of the documents was questioned by posters on Free Republic, a conservative Internet forum, and discussion quickly spread to various weblogs in the blogosphere:

The initial skepticism appeared in the following posts on Free Republic:

"TankerKC": "[The documents are] not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF...Can we get a copy of those memos?" (posted 19 minutes after the CBS broadcast began) [22]
"Buckhead": "Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts...I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively." (this response came three hours and forty minutes later) [23]
Charles Johnson's animated GIF image comparing what CBS claimed to be a 1973-era typewritten memo with a 2004-era Microsoft Word document made with default settings
Charles Johnson's animated GIF image comparing what CBS claimed to be a 1973-era typewritten memo with a 2004-era Microsoft Word document made with default settings

"Buckhead," who gained Internet notoriety, would later be identified as Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney who had worked for conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation and who had helped draft the petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court for the disbarment of President Bill Clinton.[24] These facts, along with his rapid response and specific technical complaints about the memos, would fuel speculation on the political left that the entire document controversy was preemptively engineered by Republicans to discredit a potentially legitimate source of criticism over Bush's quality of service in the Texas Air National Guard.

The following morning, several blogs including Power Line[25] and Little Green Footballs[26][27] claimed the memos were almost certainly forgeries. At 11 am on September 9, Charles Johnson at LGF produced an animated .gif file (at right) superimposing the photocopied memo on a copy he produced using the default settings of Microsoft Word, while other writers explored in detail the typographical characterstics of the memos. Within hours, the anti-Kerry weblog defeatjohnjohn[28] had offered detailed supporting research, ultimately offering a $10,000 prize to any individual who could recreate the Killian memos using technology available at the time.

From there, the story was picked up by The Drudge Report and broke into the mainstream media, including the Associated Press and the other major news networks, as well as getting serious attention from conservative writers such as the National Review Online's Jim Geraghty[29][30][31], and RatherBiased.com, [32], a blog devoted to criticizing Dan Rather for being liberally biased in his reporting. The first article doubting the documents appeared in the Washington Post on September 10.[33]

[edit] CBS's response

CBS News initially claimed the documents were "thoroughly vetted by independent experts" and that they were "convinced of their authenticity," having acquired them from an "unimpeachable source."

  • On the CBS Evening News, on September 10, Rather dismissed critics of the story, whom he described as "partisan political operatives."
  • In the broadcast, Rather stated Marcel Matley "analyzed the documents for CBS News. He believes they are real," [34] and broadcast additional excerpts from Matley's September 6 interview showing Matley's agreement that the signatures appeared to be from the same source. Rather did not report that Matley had referred to them as "poor material" that he had only opined about the signatures, or that he had specifically not authenticated the documents (qv). [35]
  • Rather presented footage of the Strong interview, introducing it by stating Robert Strong "is standing by his judgement that the documents are real,"[36] despite Strong's lack of standing to authenticate them and his brief exposure to the documents (supra).
  • Rather concluded by stating, "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."[37]

In an appearance on CNN that day, Rather asserted "I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been."

On September 10, a CBS memo reiterated the company's confidence in the authenticity of the documents, which it said were "backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content" and insisted that no internal investigation would take place. A former Vice President of CBS News dismissed the allegations of bloggers, suggesting that the "checks and balances" of a professional news organization were superior to individuals sitting at their home computers "in their pajamas." In response, some conservative bloggers started to refer to themselves as Pajamahadeen.

Left-wing blogs tended to be skeptical of their criticisms. As one poster on the liberal blog Daily Kos wrote in a preface to his rebuttal of forgery arguments:

"As everyone on the planet no doubt knows by now, the hard-right of the freeper* contingent ... discovered that if you used the same typeface, you could make documents that looked almost — but not exactly — like the TANG documents discovered by CBS News."[38]

Concurrently, USA Today reported that it had also obtained copies of some of the memos and had hired independent document examiners to review them, and other news outlets began to pursue the story aggressively.[39]

On September 11, a CBS News Segment stated a document expert Phillip Bouffard had initially expressed doubts but then reported to CBS that the documents "could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer Typewriter, available at the time,"[40]. Bouffard had claimed there is a very high probability that the memos were fake [41], but the Boston Globe cited him as a "skeptic" whose "further study" caused his views to shift [42]. Bouffard claims that further study left him "more convinced" that the memos were forgeries and that he was quoted out of context by the Boston Globe. [43].

CBS noted that General Hodges had changed his opinion about the authenticity of the documents he had never seen, but stated "we believed General Hodges the first time we spoke with him," and "we believe the documents to be genuine."[44]

By September 13, Rather acknowledged that "some of these questions come from people who are not active political partisans,"[45] but reaffirmed that CBS "talked to handwriting and document analysts and other experts who strongly insist the documents could have been created in the 70s, (emphasis added)"[46] a change from his and CBS' previous position that the material was authentic.

The analysts and experts cited here by Rather pointedly did not include the original four experts consulted by CBS, who had not authenticated the documents; instead, Rather presented two additional viewpoints, from Bill Glennon and Richard Katz. As a result, independent media and blog sites accused CBS of expert shopping to produce document examiners who supported CBS' minority view that the documents were genuine. Glennon, a former typewriter repairman with no specific credentials in typesetting beyond that job, was found by CBS after posting several opinionated defenses of the memos on left wing blog sites such as Daily Kos. [47] In any case, neither interviewee asserted that the memos were genuine; Rather ended by stating CBS "believes the documents to be authentic."[48]

[edit] Response statement, Carr interview

By September 15, Emily Will was publicly stating she told CBS that she had doubts about both the production of the memos and the handwriting prior to the segment, and in interviews, Linda James stated that the memos were "very poor quality" and that she did not authenticate them.[49] In response, 60 Minutes Wednesday released a statement [50] suggesting that Will and James had "misrepresented" their role in the authentication of the documents and had played only a small part in the process. CBS News concurrently amended their previous claim that Matley had authenticated the documents, saying instead he had only authenticated the signatures.[51] On CNN, Matley stated he had only verified that the signatures were "from the same source," not that they were authentically Killian's [52]:

"When I saw the documents, I could not verify the documents were authentic or inauthentic. I could only verify that the signatures came from the same source," Matley said. "I could not authenticate the documents themselves. But at the same time, there was nothing to tell me that they were not authentic."

CBS located and interviewed Marian Carr Knox, who was a secretary at Ellington Air Force from 1956 to 1979, and Colonel Killian's assistant on the dates of the memos. According to Knox, she did not type the memos and the memos were not written by Killian, though she believed they reflected the truth about Lieutenant Bush.[53] She also stated she had no first hand knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard.[54] Referring to the disputed memos, Knox commented "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said. "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another." CBS also hired a private investigator to look into the matter after the story aired and the controversy began.[55]

Copies of the documents were first released to the public by the White House. Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that the memos had been provided to them by CBS in the days prior to the report and that, "We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time." Some have critically suggested that this belief of authenticity by the White House could not have existed if the memos contained information they knew to be inaccurate. Others suggest that if the White House did not release what CBS gave them (documents/photocopies of unknown provenance), there would have been complaints of 'failure to disclose'.

The Washington Post reported that at least one of the documents obtained by CBS had a fax header indicating it had been faxed from a Kinko's copy center [56] in Abilene, Texas, leading some to trace the documents back to Burkett.

[edit] CBS states that use of the documents was a mistake

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source." While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries [57], CBS News President Andrew Heyward did state

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[58] [59]

On November 9, 2005, Mary Mapes gave an interview to ABC News correspondant Brian Ross. Mapes stated that the documents have never been proved to be forgeries, Ross expressed the view that the responsibility is on the reporter to verify their authenticity. Mapes responded with, "I don't think that's the standard." in spite of the fact that the president of CBS News had said exactly that.

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS has yet been unable to identify. [60]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda." [61] The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation.

[edit] Review panel established

Soon after, CBS established a review panel "to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken." [62] Dick Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney General, and Louis Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer and former executive editor of the Associated Press, made up the two-person review board.

[edit] Findings

On January 5, 2005 the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8, 2004 60 Minutes Wednesday Segment "For the Record" Concerning President Bush's Air National Guard Service was released.

The purpose of the panel was to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast, to examine the circumstances surrounding the subsequent public statements and news reports by CBS News defending the segment, and to make any recommendations it deemed appropriate. Among the Panel's conclusions were the following:

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment were:
  1. The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;
  2. The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;
  3. The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;
  4. The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’ s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;
  5. The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files";
  6. The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;
  7. The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;
  8. The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;
  9. The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and
  10. The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry—a clear conflict of interest—that created the appearance of a political bias.
Once questions were raised about the September 8 Segment, the reporting thereafter was mishandled and compounded the damage done. Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:
  1. The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;
  2. Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;
  3. The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;
  4. The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;
  5. The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and
  6. Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

[edit] Panel's view of the documents themselves

The Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the authenticity of the Killian documents, but consulted Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner and typewriter and typography expert who had been sought by CBS prior to the original airing but who did not begin analysis of the documents until September 9th. Tytell informed Miller on September 10th that he did not think the documents were genuine.

The Panel report stated, "The Panel met with Peter Tytell, and found his analysis sound in terms of why he thought the documents were not authentic...The Panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects."[63]

[edit] CBS response to the panel findings

CBS apologized to viewers, terminated Mary Mapes, and demanded the resignations of Senior Vice President Betsy West, who had been in charge of all prime time newscasts, 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard, and Howard's top deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. Murphy and West resigned on February 25, 2005,[64][65], and after settling a legal dispute regarding his level of responsibility for the segment, Josh Howard resigned on March 25, 2005.[66]

[edit] Views about authenticity: contemporaries, colleagues, and Killian relatives

In an effort to shed light on the authenticity and provenance of the documents, various figures with second-hand knowledge of the issues and people involved were interviewed:

Marion Carr Knox, Killian's former secretary, stated that the disputed documents were forgeries[67] but that they accurately reflected Killian's opinion of Bush's quality of service in the Texas Air National Guard[68].

In a May 1971 performance review, a year prior to the date on the disputed documents, Killian endorsed the rating officer's evaluation of Bush, which in part described him as "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot".[69]

Killian's son, Gary Killian, questioned one of the memos and stated that others "appeared legitimate"; characterizing the collection as "a mixture of truth and fiction".[70]

[edit] Explanatory theories for the possibility of forgery

[edit] An attempt to harm Bush?

Some critics of CBS and Dan Rather have contended that CBS's decision to air the story reflected an attempt to influence the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, and supported accusations of liberal bias at CBS[71]. It has also been suggested that nothing more than ambition was needed for a motive, since breaking such a story would be a major achievement.

CBS producer Mary Mapes was faulted (and later lost her job) for issues arising from this controversy—such as violating CBS' ethical standards. There was a finding by CBS that she "creat[ed] the appearance of political bias" because of her call to Joe Lockhart.

[edit] An attempt to help Bush?

Another possibility advanced by some bloggers and some prominent Democrats was that the documents were forged by supporters of Bush to produce a controversy over the documents themselves, undermine the credibility of Bush's opponents, and direct attention away from criticisms of Bush.

Supporters of this view point out that the original source of the documents is still unknown: Burkett ultimately claimed that a woman named "Lucy Ramirez" phoned him from Houston in March 2004 to offer the documents,[72] but no such person has been identified. [73][74]

Supporters also argue that the lack of an ongoing investigation into the felony of forging military documents implies high-level pressure not to investigate the crime. [75].

Supporters also argue that it is suspicious that people who supposedly had no advance access to the documents were nevertheless able to analyze the typographical issues based only on the televised image and quickly present detailed arguments. [76]. (Detractors of this argument such as Charles Johnson have countered that the documents were almost immediately disputed simply because the forgery was very poor.)

One person often suggested as having masterminded the incident is Bush adviser Karl Rove. The most prominent advocate of the Rove hypothesis to date has been Representative Maurice Hinchey (D.-NY) who suggested that Rove's motivation was that "they knew that Bush was a draft dodger." [77] Supporters claim Rove has come under suspicion because of his history of deceptive tactics. [78] To date, however, there is no direct evidence of his involvement and Rove has denied involvement. [79]

The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, suggested Roger Stone might have a hand in what McAullife called the "forgeries" [80], and others have suggested that Stone's wife, who is Cuban, may have been "Lucy Ramirez" [81]. Stone also denied any involvement in the forgeries, stating, "I have nothing whatsoever to do with this. I'm a firm believer in political hardball, but I draw the line at forged documents." [82]

[edit] Detailed analysis of authentication issues

Main article: Authenticity of the Killian documents

No generally recognized document experts have positively authenticated the memos. Since CBS possesses only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards would be impossible regardless of the provenance of the originals.


[edit] External links

=== Primary source documents === (links to large PDF documents)

The four CBS News Killian documents:

The six USA Today Killian documents:

[edit] News items

[edit] Editorials

[edit] Blog and other links

[edit] Notes

  1. ↑  CBS News story from September 20, 2004 on Dan Rather's statement. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.
  2. ↑  "CBS Names Memo Probe Panel : September 22, 2004 15:13:54 (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  3. ↑  "Dan Rather Statement On Memos : September 20, 2004 21:16:43 (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  4. ↑  "Thornburgh-Boccardi report", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  5. ↑ Knox's interview with CBS on September 20, 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  6. ↑  Marion Carr Knox's interview with the Drudge Report on September 14, 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.
  7. ↑  Crowe, Robert and Mason, Julie; "Ex-staffer: Bush records are fake. Secretary to military officer says she never typed the memos." Houston Chronicle, September 15, 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.
  8. ↑  Jerry B. Killian's May, 1971 performance evaluation of George W. Bush Accessed December 20, 2005.
  9. ↑  CBS News Story 9/10/04 with Gary Killian interview. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.
  10. ↑  Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 53.
  11. ↑  Burkett, Bill; "What do you say?" Online Journal March 19, 2003. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.
  12. ↑ Rezendesz, Michael, "Doubts raised about Bush's accuser." Boston Globe online, February 13, 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.
  13. ↑  Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 51.
  14. ↑ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 52.
  15. ↑ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 60-62
  16. ↑ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 64-65
  17. ↑ Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 90-91
  18. ↑  http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/personnel_pt5.pdf Part 5 of Bush records released under Freedom of Information Act]
  19. ↑ Bush documents obtained by USA TODAY
  20. ↑ Moniz, Dave; Johnson, Kevin; and Drinkard, Jim; "CBS backs off Guard story," USA TODAY, September 21, 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.
  21. ↑ "Bush Guard Memos Questioned." CBS News, Associated Press, September 10, 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-20.
  22. ↑  Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p.88
  23. ↑  Dobbs, Michael and Allen, Mike. "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush," Washington Post, September 09, 2004. Retrieved on 2004-12-20.
  24. ↑  Panel report, p. 103
  25. ↑ Blumenthal, Ralph and Rutenberg, Jim. "An Ex-Officer Now Believes Guard Memo Isn't Genuine," New York Times, September 12, 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-20. Registration required.
  26. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1B.pdf", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  27. ↑  Live Thread: Ben Barnes and CBS Attempt Another Bush Smear (60 Minutes). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  28. ↑  Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [post 47]. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  29. ↑  "Nation & World: "Buckhead," who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney", The Seattle Times. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  30. ↑  Power Line: September 2004 Archives. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  31. ↑  lgf: Bush Guard Documents: Forged. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  32. ↑  lgf: The Smoking Memo. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  33. ↑  DJJ. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  34. ↑  "http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/052822.html", National Review. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  35. ↑  "http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/052796.html", National Review. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  36. ↑  "http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/053921.html", National Review. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  37. ↑  RatherBiased.com : News : Was Rather Duped by Anti-Bush Hoax?. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  38. ↑  "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush (washingtonpost.com) (See above)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  39. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1D.pdf", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  40. ↑  "A Look Back At The Controversy : January 11, 2005 15:31:56", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  41. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1D.pdf (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  42. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1D.pdf (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  43. ↑  Daily Kos: State of the Nation. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  44. ↑  "http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909.html", ABC News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  45. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1E.pdf", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  46. ↑  INDC Journal:. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  47. ↑  "Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos / Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used", San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  48. ↑  INDC Journal: HOT UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe!. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  49. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1E.pdf (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  50. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1F.pdf", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  51. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1F.pdf (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  52. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1F.pdf (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  53. ↑  "CBS' experts say they didn't authenticate Bush memos - Sep 15, 2004", CNN. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  54. ↑  "September 15, 2004", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  55. ↑  "CBS Defends Bush Memos : September 15, 2004 08:17:47", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  56. ↑  "CBS' experts say they didn't authenticate Bush memos - Sep 15, 2004 (See above)", CNN. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  57. ↑  "http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091504dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html", The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  58. ↑  Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  59. ↑  "The New York Observer - Redirecting You to The Story...", New York Observer. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  60. ↑  "CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's (washingtonpost.com)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  61. ↑  "CBS Names Memo Probe Panel : September 22, 2004 15:13:54", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  62. ↑  "CBS Names Memo Probe Panel : September 22, 2004 15:13:54 (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  63. ↑  "Dan Rather Statement On Memos : September 20, 2004 21:16:43 (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  64. ↑  "CBS Statement On Bush Memos : September 20, 2004 21:16:44", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  65. ↑  "A Look Back At The Controversy : January 11, 2005 15:31:56 (See above)", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  66. ↑  "CBS News Statement On Panel : September 22, 2004 12:55:05", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  67. ↑  Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 175.
  68. ↑  "CBS Producer on Flawed Bush Report Resigns", ABC News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  69. ↑  Rathergate.com » Betsy West resigns. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  70. ↑  "Foxlife - Final Figure in '60 Minutes' Scandal Resigns", Fox News Channel. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  71. ↑  RatherBiased.com: Documenting Dan Rather and CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  72. ↑  "Source for Rather Seeks New Lawyer, Might Sue CBS (washingtonpost.com)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  73. ↑  "The Whacking of CBS (washingtonpost.com)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  74. ↑  "Whitewash", The Weekly Standard. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  75. ↑  Media Monitor - Who Was the CBS Forger? - April 14, 2005. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  76. ↑  Just Cut Out Their Tongues. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  77. ↑  WBNG-TV FRONT PAGE. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  78. ↑  National Guarding Bush: Did Karl Rove Plan Leak of Alleged Forged Documents to 60 Minutes? - A BuzzFlash Guest Contribution. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  79. ↑  "Rove rejects charges he was CBS source - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - September 22, 2004", The Washington Times. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  80. ↑  The Democratic Party. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  81. ↑  Daily Kos: State of the Nation. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  82. ↑  "Parties lob accusations over suspect papers", USA Today. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  83. ↑  "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf", CBS News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  84. ↑  creativepro.com - The Digital Dish: Making Headlines, Not Setting Them. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  85. ↑  Bush Guard Documents Forgeries. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  86. ↑  http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=324. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  87. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  88. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc9_1-3.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  89. ↑  http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/ftnsrpts.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  90. ↑  White House memorandum. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  91. ↑  "'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake -- 09/09/2004", Cybercast News Service. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  92. ↑  "'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake -- 09/09/2004 (See above)", Cybercast News Service. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  93. ↑  "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush (washingtonpost.com)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  94. ↑  "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  95. ↑  "TIME.com", TIME. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  96. ↑  "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  97. ↑  The Shape of Days. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  98. ↑  Daily Kos :: Comments TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  99. ↑  INDC Journal: EXACTLY. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  100. ↑  QandO: A compendium of the Evidence. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  101. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  102. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  103. ↑  "http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf", USA Today. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  104. ↑  http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  105. ↑  "Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos / Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used (See above)", San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  106. ↑  http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  107. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  108. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  109. ↑  Chronically Biased - Keeping Tabs On The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  110. ↑  The Shape of Days (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  111. ↑  http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  112. ↑  ImageBASIC Display Print Job. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  113. ↑  http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  114. ↑  lgf: Word 5 vs. Word 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  115. ↑  Daily Kos: State of the Nation (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  116. ↑  "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14guard.html?pagewanted=2", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  117. ↑  Daily Kos: State of the Nation (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  118. ↑  lgf: Yet Another CBS Document Experiment. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  119. ↑  TUMNZ: Fau^Hxed Bush Memos. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  120. ↑  http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6vxcr/ URL broken as of 2006-01-04 (no copy available in the Internet Archive).
  121. ↑  DJJ. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  122. ↑  "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  123. ↑  Bush Records (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  124. ↑  http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/006148.php. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  125. ↑  "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/11guard.html", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  126. ↑  "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  127. ↑  Questions mount on Guard memos' authenticity - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - September 11, 2004. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  128. ↑  "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?pagewanted=print&position=top", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  129. ↑  "ABC News "Speaking Out"", ABC News. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  130. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001141.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  131. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  132. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc8.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  133. ↑  http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/BushFlightRecords.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  134. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc2_1-5.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  135. ↑  http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&q=col+site%3Aaf..mil&btnG=Search. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  136. ↑  http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  137. ↑  ImageBASIC Display Print Job (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  138. ↑  ImageBASIC Display Print Job. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  139. ↑  http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=nlt+%22not+later+than%22+site%3A.mil&btnG=Search. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  140. ↑  "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com)", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  141. ↑  ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, and DEFINITIONS. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  142. ↑  http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=grp+group+site%3Amil++&btnG=Search. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  143. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  144. ↑  ImageBASIC Display Print Job. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  145. ↑  ImageBASIC Display Print Job (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  146. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc6.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  147. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf (See above). Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  148. ↑  http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001193.pdf. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  149. ↑  AF&PA : The U.S. Standard Paper Size. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  150. ↑  Index of /bush_memo_study. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  151. ↑  "Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers", Wired magazine. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.
  152. ↑  The Hailey Connection. Retrieved on 2005-12-21.

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/i/User%7EKaisershatner_sandbox2_bb1f.html"