LAT: In the Rush for a Scoop, CBS Found Trouble Fast

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cbs18sep18,1,5442164,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

It was 11 a.m. on Sept. 8 — nine hours before "60 Minutes" was to air. But as news executives debated whether to broadcast a story on newly obtained paperwork offering fresh evidence about President Bush's National Guard service, a big question hung over CBS News' Westside headquarters: Were the photocopied documents real or fake?

Suddenly, the answer seemed to materialize, and from an unlikely source — the White House itself.

John Roberts, the network's White House correspondent, called to report he'd just completed an on-camera interview with Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. Bartlett, it appeared, had no quarrel with the authenticity of the documents.

That was the turning point.

"If we had gotten back from the White House any kind of red flag, raised eyebrow, anything that said, 'Are you sure about this stuff?' we would have gone back to square one," Josh Howard, the program's executive producer, told the Los Angeles Times in an interview Friday. "The White House said they were authentic, and that carried a lot of weight with us."

The WH knew from the beginning that someone was going to claim forgery. That's why they've been mum to the press. It was a trap.

... but the Bush re-election campaign may have had people ready to respond to any situation such as this.

Let's assume that the source is knowledgeable, has authentic documents, but so does the WH, which they've not revealed. It would still be a bit of a stretch to believe that the WH copies of all possible documents had been disseminated to all possible operatives ahead of time, so that they would be already analyzed and a response from the naysayers ready for any eventuality.

Possible, but not likely. More likely is that they were distributed when received from CBS as background for the CBS story. Since the WH had Bartlett (who was reported to be in on the original document purge) do the interview with CBS, he could have been on the phone and fax several hours before the show ran, so that RNC operatives would have had time to come up with a few plausible explanations for forgeries.

The uproar coming as the program was broadcast strongly suggests that the documents were leaked selectively ahead of time. Remember that the documents released from the WH were supplied by CBS, not different copies culled from WH files.

I could think of a few ways to challenge the documents in a lot less time than a few hours... but not as the program was being broadcast.

Cheers.

... there's been no definitive refutation of the authenticity of the documents--just a bunch of Repug operatives or sympathizers coming out of the woodwork claiming they are forgeries--since when is that evidence? And the content has been verified as paralleling knowledge at the time.

So?

Bush was taken off flight status for not performing and failing to follow two direct orders to take his flight physical (one from his commanding officer, and one from the general signing the orders from the National Guard Bureau). Nor did he comply with prior agreements to fly for five years, or to find a guard unit which would take him in Massachusetts. And, he and or his spokespeople have consistently lied about these matters.

`Nuff said.

are innocent dupes in all this! Aw, c'mon! When even an innocent dumbass like me can sense the malevolence, can recognize the lies, the distortions, the ultimate evil goals of the crazy bastards!
Do these people really expect us to believe that they were living so high up in their ivory tower that they have no f**king clue, whatsoever?! Naah, come on now! I realize that most news people are faking innocence and pretending to be objective so they are not called on the carpet by their corporate masters, and they can ignore the desparate screams of the viewing public.

Surely Rather and company knew that the bastards in charge would like nothing better than to bring down CBS and end up owning them just like all the other broadcast media. Could they really be that dumb?

Democrat Dishonesty

Has anyone else noticed the ease with which Democrats find contacts, connections, and collaboration between President Bush’s reelection campaign and various organizations (such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) that are running advertisements? I hear, for example, that Benjamin Ginsberg's legal representation of both President Bush and the Swifties establishes collaboration, which is illegal. Is this the same party that couldn’t find the slightest contact, connection, or collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda? Mind-boggling, isn’t it? Or maybe it’s just dishonesty.

his name is Keith-Burgess Jackson. guess he never took a class in investigative journalism..(see his blog)

K.