Skip to main content

View Diary: Gannon scoop shows White House Forged TANG/CBS memos?!?! (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Despite my love for speculation (3.92)
    And I truly do love for people to ask questions, but this post is over the top.

    First, it should just be cleaned up in terms of what is actually known and what is speculation.  I don't have a problem with speculating, but it should be obvious where the evidence ends and the suspicions begin.

    Second, the gratuitous reference to Nazis is irritating.

    Lastly, if people want a more put together theory of the TANG forgeries, I suggest they read this one, by Hunter, from last September.

    Although it doesn't relate to Guckert, I find it to be a more useful launching pad to asking where Guckert fits in.  In particular it explains why the memos were designed to be discovered as forgeries.

    •  I read Hunter's diary (4.00)
      and it is excellent. His speculation is very plausible.

      Since the content of the documents has been verified by a secretary, it is the so-called WORD processing that made them suspicious. They could have easily been re-processed from the originals. If I remember correctly, only 2 docs were suspect and therefore the others were also disgarded. Also, the show did not really need the docs to back up the story on Bush's TANG record. They had living witnesses. If it was a Rovian plot it worked remarkably well.

      Then there's the fact that the producers actually thought that the White House 'cleared' the docs when they were submitted for comment. I heard over & over -The White House read them and did not question their authenticity.- I find that very suspicious.

      To thine own self be true - W.S.

      by Agathena on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 10:52:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A forensic ananlysis showed the docs (none)
        were made with an electric typewriter.  Knox typed the originals on a manual.  Buckhead erroneously said they were word-processed.
        •  Either way, they were re-processed (none)
          if as the secretary said, the content was authentic.

          To thine own self be true - W.S.

          by Agathena on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:57:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  not quite (none)
            She said that she didn't type them, but that the content reflected the views of her old boss.  That's not quite the same thing as authentic.

            My current guess is that the documents were forged, but were designed specifically to fool CBS, with the purpose of burning and discrediting CBS and eliminating the issue of Bush's Vietnam service or lack thereof as a campaign issue.  The plan all along was to burn 60 Minutes so badly that no reporter would touch it with a 10-foot pole.  And it worked.

      •  I remember a statement that WH was (none)
        giving out copies and it puzzled me no end.  Did the WH have access to the copies from Rather?  Or did they have them before Rather?
    •  Agree, in part (none)
      Hunter's is on firmer ground.  But the specific, non-speculative news I take out of this diary is Gannon's "whistle-blowing" role.  To have reacted so quickly, a lackey like him had to have had advanced warning.  Which means there were folks in the White House and in the Bush campaign who, at minimum, knew the documents were not authentic before the story aired.  How would they have known that if they did not have a hand in creating and/or distributing them?

      Democrats must confront the cultural populism of the wedge issues with genuine economic populism. Thomas Frank.

      by Paleo on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:00:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Deja vu (none)
        all over again. In "The Hunting of the President" we find out that Ann Coulter, the 'elves,' Jonathan Goldberg knew of the Lewinsky tapes. But they kept the lid on very tight, waiting and hoping that when Clinton made his statement, he would defensively lie about it. Of course, if Clinton knew about the existence of the tapes... They laid a trap for him.

        Rathergate was another trap.

        To thine own self be true - W.S.

        by Agathena on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:07:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hunter's diary lays out the known story (none)
      My diary deals more with the unknown--such as who could Lucy Ramirez and the Unknown Man be?  There are 2 real people here un-ivestigated by the blogosphere.

      I don't agree with Hunter that the docs were to discredit Burkett as the phony Ramirez told Burkett to call the Kerry campaign.  That was the real target--unless everything Burkett says was a lie or delusion.

      •  Wasn't the whole point (none)
        to discredit the Kerry campaign and then when they didn't bite, 60 Minutes took the fall.
        But, if I remember correctly, the documents were always referred to as "true copies."  That was a standard statement on copies that had to be written up separately before the advent of copying machines.  In fact, it was usual to have this statement attested or sworn to, much as the identity of signatories is certified by a notary public on a legal document.
        I would guess that the problem was that once they were characterized as "fakes" it wasn't possible to say "yes, but" to the accusation that they weren't the originals.  Who in the MSM knows what a "true copy" is?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site