|
From the Editor:
The political and
journalistic world is all a-twitter with over the controversy
surrounding the "Burkett Documents." These were the papers CBS
News used to back its story that President Bush received
favorable treatment in getting accepted by the Texas Air
National Guard, and in subsequent attempts to avoid a required
physical examination.
To really study this story, you
need to take it in context. On the day of its release,
both CBS News and the Boston Globe had stories from a former
Texas Lt. Governor who said he pulled strings to get Bush into
the Guard. The subject of the story, Bob Barnes, had
been seen in a streaming video segment on an interview telling
a crowd that he was sorry that he helped Bush get into the
Guard and out of military service in Vietnam. Barnes, a
Democrat, told Dan Rather in an interview: "Sid Adger
(PH), a friend of the Bush family, came to see me and asked me
if I would recommend George W. Bush for the Air National
Guard. And I did. And I talked to a Gen. Rose, who was the
commander of the Air National Guard. I don't know whether my
recommendation was the absolute reason he got in the Guard. He
was a Congressman's son. He graduated from Yale. He was a
person that would have been eligible. But there was a
long list of people waiting to be, or hoping to be a candidate
for the Air National Guard, and for the Army National Guard."
That was the whole story.
Bush got a recommendation from a powerful Texas officeholder,
but in Barnes' own words, Bush was eligible for the position
on his own. The story would be the day's headline, but
had no "staying power." It had no real scandal-after
all, in every community there are men who used their parents'
influence to gain similar exemptions from the Vietnam draft.
Enter Bill Burkett. He'd
been talking to several media outlets, all eager to have a
story with meat on it-and the "documents" he showed them had
real "red meat"...allegations that Bush ignored a direct order
to take a military air readiness physical examination.
Burkett, suffering complications from a disease he said he
contracted while in military service, has spoken out in the
past with allegations that Bush got documents surrounding his
guard duty destroyed. But as with the documents
themselves, the people Burkett claimed he spoke with on the
issue all deny anything of the sort took place.
But Burkett had the stuff to add
real teeth to the CBS story, and producer Mary Mapes was
tasked to get Burkett to give them the permission to
use the documents. The clock was ticking, so Mapes
contacted four people to authenticate them. We now know
that none of those chosen to determine their authenticity were
accredited in document forensics. What we don't know is
how Mapes chose her experts (were they recommended by Burkett
or the Democratic party?). And we know that Mapes chose
to ignore pleas from two of the experts who warned of problems
if the documents were used.
Fast forward to September 8, 2004:
Dan Rather opens the CBS Evening News with the
following statement:
"Good evening. There are new
questions tonight about President Bush's service in the Texas
Air National Guard in the late 1960s and early '70s and about
his insistence that he met his military service obligations.
CBS News has exclusive information, including documents, that
now shed new light on the President's service record. 60
Minutes has obtained government documents that indicate Mr.
Bush may have received preferential treatment in the Guard
after not fulfilling his commitments."
Contrary to what Rather would tell
us later, the documents WERE the story. Everything else
wasn't news-it was OLD NEWS. Rather needed the documents
to "advance the story." When the authenticity of the
documents unraveled, so did Rather's story...but he won't
admit that. He's only saying "I'm sorry" because his
source for the documents now says another person gave him the
papers.
Dan Rather needs to admit publicly
that his story was TOTALLY incorrect, inasmuch as the
documents that were its focus are now completely discredited.
If a lawyer presents a case to a court and his or her
witnesses are found to be either incompetent or are
discredited, there is no case. The same holds true for
Rather and CBS News. There was no "preponderance of
evidence" in the CBS News story-only the Burkett documents.
If he has more evidence, Rather needs to put out for all to
see...or admit they made a much larger mistake than has been
admitted.
|
