NEWS: CBS Admits it Cannot Authenticate Bush "Memos"

CBS today admitted it could not vouch for the authenticity of the supposed memos regarding President Bush's service in the Air National Guard. After a 20/20 special featuring documents that appeared to show inconsistencies in Bush's attendance and seeming special treatment by his superiors, the veracity of these memos was immediately called into question. While Dan Rather and CBS initially stated the memos were "unimpeachable," they have now stepped back on that statement.



In a statement, Rather indicated that the station was "misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers." He also stated that they would not have run the story as they did if they had all the information they have today.

Speculation is that Bill Burkett, a former Air National Guard official, was a key player in providing CBS with the falsified documents.

Related ATS Discussion:
CBS can't authenticate documents

Related News Links:
CBSNews.com


[edit on 20-9-2004 by Banshee]

[edit on 21-9-2004 by John bull 1]

Oh so contrite aren't they,

From the CBS Link,

In the statement, CBS said: "Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point."

Its getting to be clear that Burkett is being setup to be the fall-guy in order to keep the heat away from the Kerry campaign.





For a great view of the web of connections involved in memogate try this link,

Memogate Web of Connections

Enjoy!

[edit on 20-9-2004 by Phoenix]

Thanks a lot, CBS.

Can you imagine the stink if Fox had done the same with Kerry's service records? I can't beleive this crap.

Originally posted by Odd
Thanks a lot, CBS.

Can you imagine the stink if Fox had done the same with Kerry's service records? I can't beleive this crap.

Odd you are so right,

A call to revoke Fox's broadcast license would have been heard from the depths of hell all the way up to heaven as well as the call for Bush to resign or face impeachment.

Where is the indignation from the rest of the media?

Ok, they can not authenticate them, but can they proof they are not?

I mean it's only fair to leave a doubt?

They may be or they maybe not.

[Edited on 20-9-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
Ok, they can not authenticate them, but can them proof they are not?

Uhhhh.
I think it's quite certain that documents were forged.
CBS is passing the buck and trying to save face by pussyfooting around and saying they can't "authenticate" the memos.
They got forged docs, didn't research them or their source as thoroughly as they should have, and now it's done bit 'em in the butt.

The question remains whether someone at the CBS camp knowingly allowed the forged docs to be aired or not.

[edit on 20-9-2004 by Banshee]

It seems that with all the media covering of the elections and the candidates this "professional" news media with all the money the have will be able to afford somebody to test those papers and see what they are or they are not.

Actually I did not give them much thought to me they did not looked right from the beginning.

Originally posted by marg6043
Ok, they can not authenticate them, but can they proof they are not?
I mean it's only fair to leave a doubt?
They may be or they maybe not.

Geeze havent we talked that one to death already? I mean unless the Texas Guard had a PC with WordPerfect on it, what is to authenticate? They are clearly forged. Did you not see the 2nd 60 Minutes?

However, Banshee raises and intersting point. I cannot believe that someone at CBS did not check these things out before they had thier high profile anchor man go on the air with false documents. The asserion Banshee made about someone knowingly allowing them out should be looked at.

Originally posted by marg6043
Ok, they can not authenticate them, but can they proof they are not?

I mean it's only fair to leave a doubt?

They may be or they maybe not.

Then explain this:

Drudge Report Exclusive: from Dan Rather's statement
EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question�and their source�vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where�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.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

Note: Quote will be reduced to a link when available.

Even myopic Dan has seen the writing... errr... forgery on the wall (public opinion), why can't you?


Document Monkeys, not just for collating anymore...

I guess if they were to make any damage to a candidate image they cause a lot of stir, I don't care for tv news much I got ATS to read the latest news

We will wait and see of somebody is going to get fired

If is something I disagree is the way the media makes a bid deal of things.

This would not be so bad if CBS had not automatically ignored all contrary opinion to the original story from the get go. Anyone who maybe didn't agree with the ant-Bush sentiment was ignored. Even analysts that had questions to the doc credibility prior to the story were ignored. It just proves what we all know. The mainstream media is in the Kerry in camp and if you think you are going to get any credible info from them you are fooling yourself. As is typical elite demo fashion, the end justifies the means. They have no problem lying or fabricating to get their agenda out and slander those they disagree with.

Now the question is were the memos planted "evidence" forged
by the Bush campaign to discredit efforts to discredit Bush
while he was in the guard. For many people the fact that
"some" negative "evidence" about Bush may have been forged
brings into question the validity of other negative "evidence".
Until the source of the memos has been verified by independent
researchers without a vested interest, there will always remain
some question about it.

[edit on 20-9-2004 by mockan]

And who owns CBS? Viacom.

And who is the head of Viacom? Viacom is controlled by, and is 68% owned by the privately held National Amusements, Incorporated. Sumner Redstone is the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of both Viacom and National Amusements.

And is he political? Yes, he has made the following contributions:
www.newsmeat.com...

99.99% democrat and a quite few contributions for Kerry. If you look at the dates on the first and second links, he goes a ways back with Kerry. I looked back to 1995 and found contributions when Kerry was a Senator. Interesting....

Here are some more including the DNC:
www.newsmeat.com...

He is also former a military intelligence codebreaker (WWII - Japanese).

The "good ole' days" for Rather are slowly and increasingly painfully coming to an end.....
CBS News says Documents Not Authentic and Should Not Have Been Used
OPPSS.....



seekerof

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
And who is the head of Viacom? Viacom is controlled by, and is 68% owned by the privately held National Amusements, Incorporated. Sumner Redstone is the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of both Viacom and National Amusements.

It is funny though, he did give money to McCain and Hatch. However, he also gives to Teddy Kennedy too according to opensecrets.org. But as you pointed out, he is mostly a Democrat supporter. VIACOM also gives as well. Look a tthe difference between the parties!

Viacom Inc
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
(2000 DATA) (1998 DATA) ALSO AVAILABLE
NOTE: The donations listed may be made by individuals associated with the organization as well as by the organizationitself.
VIACOM Donations

To Democrats: $1,344,041 (99%)
To Republicans: $19,000 (1%)
Total: $1,363,041

Originally posted by Phoenix
Its getting to be clear that Burkett is being setup to be the fall-guy in order to keep the heat away from the Kerry campaign.

How can the "source" be the fall guy, which implies he didn't really do it? The only ties of Burkett to the Kerry campaign on this document issue are repeatedly being blown off by them in his own words.

Even if he sent copies to Max Cleland (which I'd like to hear from Max on), Burkett's still the one that gave them to CBS, and dumb as they are CBS ran.

I went throught the "web of connections" and have been following this fairly closely, but Burkett's largely one way communication at anyone that will listen "ties" him to nothing but a much needed straight jacket.

Source = source.

And increasingly it's looking like he's the actual forger as well. Either way, I certainly hope something definitive is proven out of all this. I never thought any investigation would get this far as these things tend to go.

From
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's in the interest of the illuminati to keep current governments in place, i.e. that Bush wins. So Kerry plays the role of the idiot crook (btw, the same situation now in all NATO countries).
The controversy that CBS was ordered to play has two main objectives :
- distract the masses by convincing them that Kerry is fighting Bush to death, even capable to resort to forgery ...
- convince the masses that Bush is better than Kerry, who has to resort to forgeries to attack Bush ...

Originally posted by Banshee

They got forged docs, didn't research them or their source as thoroughly as they should have, and now it's done bit 'em in the butt.
[edit on 20-9-2004 by Banshee]

I agree completely that their own lack of research effort lead to this blow to their credibility. I also think that they were simply pawns to the political machine like all other mainstream newsources. We're along way past journalistic ethics in this century. That is not meant to be a slam to hardworking and honest journalism professionals. They all have bosses, editors and news directors who have bosses like the owners who are buddies with the people that are being reported on. I didn't trust CBS before, so I don't trust them any less now. I just don't trust them. Any of them.

doctorduh

Sorry to banshee for screwing up the quote

[edit on 20-9-2004 by doctorduh]

Originally posted by mockan
Now the question is were the memos planted "evidence" forged
by the Bush campaign to discredit efforts to discredit Bush
while he was in the guard...

Not a chance. If the person who forged the documents and gave them to Burkett were a RNC person, Dan Rather & CBS would have outed them in a heartbeat. I personally think that Dan Rather & CBS knows who gave Burkett the forged docuements, but they don't want to say because it was a DNC person... and that would do unbelievable damage to Dan Rather, CBS News, and the Kerry Presidential campaign.

Here's a few questions asked before:

1. What was Bush's actual service record, unexpurgated?

2. Where is it?

3. Why have parts been removed?

4. Who benefits from clouding any of the evidence that Bush's record in service and carrying out of leadership responisbilities have been abysmal?

There is sometimes more (and less) to reportage than meets the eye.

Bush was an uncommitted shirker. Forged documents were not necessary to demonstrate this under the circumstances.