Dan Rather Admits Using Fake Documents
Dan Rather finally admits what everyone else in the world already knew, he used fake documents in an attempt to smear the President. Drudge has the statement.
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.
The question now should be who the source was that gave Dan Rather the documents. he does not state the source in this statement. To me, if a source lies, that source should immediately be revealed so that other journalists do not rely on this same source. My guess though is the source is connected to the Kerry campaign and now the media needs to do everything to prevent that from coming public.
so……it seems that CBS has learned a lot from the Bush administration……read what you want, and run with it. Don’t bother to discern the truth. Too bad we have lost 1,000 American men and women because of the Bush administration mistakes.
Campaign tactics of this election year…get something out in the public eye…validate it later.
Shame on us all! And there is enough blame to go around!
The source will become the next issue. I don’t think they need to necessarily identify the person by name, just his/her party affiliation. This story will continue to drag on, and CBS’s failure to reveal the source will add further questions that it has to do with Camp Kerry. In addition, the Demos ads plus the comments by Terrance McCaulluff raise further questions.
This is a big blow to Camp Kerry and the liberal media.
I agree, Tina. Rather’s attempts to hide the source that passed these fraudulent documents to him defies all logic. If this source purposely tricked Rather, then why cover up for him, unless that source has something to do with the Kerry Camp?
Now the issue is what did Kerry know about the documents and when did he know it? Who passed on these documents to CBS, etc, etc.
It adds an extra few days to the story, overshadows Kerry’s NY speech, and puts his campaign on the defensive.
Dan Rather will give up the source, just as soon as Robert Novak reveals who leaked him the CIA agent’s identity.
Jeff,
Nope. Rather will have to cough up the source regardless. This was a crime (falsifying military documents and impersonating an officer) that attempted to affect a Federal Election. It is also hot news right now.
-Polaris
I just read this on the CBS website:
“In a statement, CBS said former Texas Guard official Bill Burkett ‘has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents’ and ‘admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents’ orgins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source.”
This story will continue to drag on and on. Like I said, he does not need to name the person, just indicate that it came from partisan sources, or a Democrat activist, etc.
This relevelation overshadows Kerry’s speech. The next target will be whether his campaing was involved in it. More and more facts continue to point that way.
Is Bill Burkett a democrat? Is he tied to the DNC, kerry campaign, Texas Demos? What did Kerry know and when did he know it? Who knew what, when? Was McCaulluff involved?
I can go on and on. Thanks, Rachel, I will have to go to the site.
One analysis that I’ve been shocked not to hear over the last two weeks: how amateur this document fraud was. It does show how easily documents would have believed, if they had been made with old typewriters.
There is a story floating around that this Burkett guy gave them to Max Cleland. If true, this would be a HUGE story.
(not that is not already)
I heard the same thing Bryan. It makes a big story even bigger, and focuses the sights on Camp Kerry, therby placing him on the defensive.
Polaris,
It’s also a federal criminal offense to release the identity of an undercover CIA officer.. “Hello Kettle? This is Pot. You’re black!”
Did the Clintons leak this?
I think there are five questions now, not just one. The last four are about CBS credibility, objectivity, and liberal bias.
1) Information about the source and his connections. What exactly he represented to CBS, and who from the Kerry campaign or DNC is involved.
2) Why CBS rushed the story to air with so many obvious questions and so much evidence against the story, some of which they knew about at airtime. Their “unimpeachable” source, in fact, was a previously known fraud.
3) Why the evidence against the story wasn’t presented as a counterbalance to the story.
4) Why they didn’t actively seek additional information from other sources.. Why they didn’t interview the secretary, why they didn’t interview the colonel guy mentioned in the memo.
5) Why CBS hasn’t put the swift boat guys on air, with over 200 “unimpeachable” sources.
Jeff,
Where is one shred of evidence that anyone connected to the Bush admin. leaked the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife…..where?
I have heard that it was Karl Rove setting them all up; that would be a real stroke of genius on his part, since no-one denies the validity of the story, it’s only the validity of the documents that are in question.
#17 – I’ve also heard thre are little green men on Mars.
tjs-
Everybody denies the validity of the story. Killian’s wife denies the validity. Killian’s son denies the validity. The general that had already retired denies the validity.
In fact there isn’t a single person, who is not committed to Kerry, who BACKS the story. The 86 year old secretary, who said that these were the sentiments of Killian also said that Bush is not fit for command! Barnes, who denied the story four years ago has changed his mind, but he has also given in excess of $400,000 to the Kerry campaign, and ranks as their number three personal donor!
Lets face it, this story was a crude attempt to alter an election with less than two months to go.
I would “Rather” get my news from someone else.
This phrase will take over the world…..well maybe my house at least.
tjs, that is a nice hail mary try, but your pass fell incomplete. Even discredited CBS isn’t saying today what you said. The colonel mentioned in the memos denies he exerted pressure for Bush to get into the guard.
Excuse me Dan, can you please answer the following questions:
Q: Did the DNC have anything to do with it?
A: Rather not say
Q: Who is the source
A: Rather not say
Q: Why did you just now admit to being deceived
A: Rather not say
Q: Are you a pawn for the Kerry campaing
A: Yes.
Jeff,
You totally missed the point. Rathergate is news and this isn’t…and there is no indication the Bush campaign had anything to do with what you are talking about….unlike Rathergate and Cleland.
Nice try though.
-Polaris
Just a reminder: Dan Rather was the featured speaker at a $1000 a plate democratic fund raiser in Texas. With that clear conflict of interest, Dan shoudl have recused himself from political investigations. Bill Burkett has been peddling anti-Bush stories/conspiracies/rumors for almost 20 yrs, how could CBS have failed to vet him as a source?
From the Associated Press (as reported in wsj.com):
“Mr. Rather this weekend interviewed Bill Burkett, a retired Texas National Guard official who has been mentioned as a possible source for the documents. His interview will be aired on “CBS Evening News” Monday night.
CBS said Mr. Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So it seems someone is using Bill Burkett (as a willing accomplice) to feed CBS phony “evidence”. He knows the documents are phony, but he feeds CBS a bull story knowing they will run with it.
So where did Burkett get the documents? We should be able to find that out since he does not enjoy freedom of press privledges that a reporter would…
This is shaping up to be another bad week for Kamp Kerry.
The Ballad of “Democrat Dan” and “Three Dollar Bill” (Burkett). Maybe they could do it to the tune of “Ballad of Pancho and Lefty”.
“Ballad of The Paunchy Lefties”?
E HOUSE REAX: “There are a number of serious questions that remain unanswered and they need to be answered,” says Scott McClellan. “Bill Burkett, who CBS now says was their source, is not an unimpeachable sources, as CBS claimed. There are news reports of Burkett having senior level contact with the kerry campaign. That raises questions. What were those contacts and what was discussed? Who is the original source of the documents? Who is responsible for forging the documents?”
This is like watching rabid dogs tear at a chew toy. I’m seeing theories on everything from Kerry’s involvement to Bill Clinton’s involvement, to the DNC. Take it easy there, we don’t want an elephant stampede. This is Dan Rather and Bill Burkett being a couple of idiots, trying to help the Kerry campaign but only succeeding in legitamizing Bush’s very questionable service and knocking Kerry’s big Iraq speech today totally out of the news. Gloat about that if you wish, but let’s get a leash on these conspiracy theories.
Polaris and Bryan,
I disagree, there’s as much evidence and rumor floating around to the source of the Novak leak as there is Rather’s piece. And, does it really matter anyway? If a crime has been committed and the press has helped propagate it, then isn’t it important, not too mention the right thing to do, that they reveal the source?
Or is a crime only a crime when there’s politics involved?
Might explain why Enron wasn’t caught until it was too late.. hmm….
Novak’s information was accurate. Rather’s was not.
Thus, there is a difference between real journalism and a hack piece.
Another difference might be that Rather’s crime is slander, while Novak’s crime is treason.
Cory,
You still haven’t shown that any republican had anything to do with Novak’s piece. For that matter, IIRC Novak was investigated and exonerated.
Rather is news right now; Novak is not. Deal.
-Polaris
Who are the figures in the story that have commited crimes?
What are you talking about Polaris? ‘I still haven’t shown that any Republican had anything to do with Novak’s piece’?? When did I say I was going to do that, or when did I try to do that, or why should I have to do that??? Did you just pull this out of thin air? Are you on drugs? And am I only supposed to discuss things that are approved as ‘news’ by the media, or maybe, by you? You are a wacko. Deal.
Let’s assume Novak is a traitor for revealing a CIA operative. And let’s assume that Kerry is a traitor for intentionally demoralizing our troops. Which is more important in our presidential election?
The culprit is the Bush campaign. Apparently, CBS passed copies to the White House and they pronounced it genuine, or that’s what MSNBC says…That was why Rather went with it.
Had the White House said the documents were fake, CBS wouldn’t have gone with it. The guy who “outed” the documents worked for Richard Vigurie. That’s another clue.
If true, this would be typical Republcan dirty tricks.
HA HA HA. I read that conspiracy theory on a liberal blog. How in the world would the white house know one way or the other? They are personal files of someone. How is Bush supposed to know about them?
Well, they would know the truth for one thing. If they knew what was in it was true, then they would say it was genuine so as not to appear to be officially lying. If they were the source of the documents, they knew that and would use them to destroy Rather…blaming Kerry.
Simple, no?
We want some new Swift Boat ads!!!
The White House didn’t say they were genuine. They did not give any opinion, since they were given such a short time to do so.
Why isn’t anyone talking/comparing/ contrasting this with
the Novak situation with Wilson’s wife? I mean Rather’s questionable journalism was admittedly irresponsiblebut for God’s sake -conservative and liberal alike- can we just admit that Novak’s journalistic blunder could have cost someone’s life and jeopardized national security? How in the world has Novak gotten a pass , yet we are still feasting on Rather? Drop the politics and lets just hold journalist responsible period…our nations future depends on people knowing the truth ???