C-BS report not a complete whitewash but, severely lacking
Well the much anticipated and delayed C-BS report is out on the President Bush TANG memo report. I have now had a chance to read much of the report and my thoughts of it so far are this. (A link to the report can be found at the end of the post)
The report is not the complete whitewash that I expected and, is very critical of C-BS in many areas, but, falls short of condemnation in many areas where it is deserved. The report is a great source of information overall, and, leaves some things as an inference of impropriety without actually coming out and saying it. Here are my observations so far.
First off the report found no evidence of political bias even though it makes it quite obvious it existed and indeed it did. There are several e-mails in the report between Ms. Mapes and her colleges where in my opinion and many others opinion her political bias was evident. Ms. Mapes defiantly suffered Bush derangement syndrome and so did Dan Rather, of which whom the report deals little with. Bellow is some of Ms. Mapes e-mails where her bias indeed shows. How else do they explain Ms. Mapes chasing a dead story for five years where before her every lead was a dead end on factual evidence and only conspiracy theories kept her going.
On July 23, Michael Smith, a freelance journalist in Texas who was working on the story along with Mapes, sent her an email that began: "I am close to something that the Bushies are worried about..." Mapes responded: "I desperately want to talk to you....Do NOT underestimate how much I want this story."
On July 30, Mapes sent an email to one of her superiors at CBS in which she wrote: "...there is some very interesting Bush stuff shaking out there right now...Re...his qualification [sic] and refusal of service in Vietnam, etc. Lots of goodies."
On August 3, she emailed again: "There is a storm brewing in Austin re the Bush stuff....It is much more intense than it was four years ago and there is a strong general feeling that this time, there is blood in the water."
Today I am going to send the following hypothetical scenario to a reliable, trustable editor friend of mine...
What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind that the book probably could not make it out until after the election.
Mapes replied: "that looks good, hypothetically speaking, of course."
Remember Mapes had chassed this story for five years and turned up very little and no coo berating witnesses. So if it was not bias that drove her what was it? There was allot more evidence of the Swift Boat Veterans claims why didn’t she, or, any other mainstream reporter chase those leads? The report also shows how Mapes mislead people in her interviews such as Bobby Hodges, Buck Staudt, and the White House communications director.The panel found that Mapes misrepresented the following to her staffers that contacted the White House.
1) That she had obtained the Killian documents relating to President Bush’s TexANG service; 2) That she had interviewed someone who served in the TexANG at the same time as President Bush who said that the documents seemed accurate to him; 3) That she had asked four experts to review the documents and was satisfied that she had “covered her bases”; 4) That, in response to a question as to whether Democrats had been involved in handing over the documents, Mapes said, “Texas Republicans of a different chromosome” were her source; and 5) When asked why she was rushing the story, Mapes said that USA TODAY had also obtained the documents and planned to publish them on Wednesday. (page 97)
Second the report says little about the connection to the Kerry campaign when indeed there was one. We know from the report that Mape’s had conversations with Chad Clanton and Joe Lockhart but Mape’s account of the conversation and Lockhart’s differ.
Mapes claims the phone call to Lockhart lasted two minutes and Lockhart claims it was much more detailed and longer, and, that Mapes had spoken to Chad Clanton on several other occasions Lockhart’s account makes more sense, how else was the Kerry campaign able to coordinate operation “fortunate son.” Within a day of the C-BS report without foreknowledge.
“Mapes also told the Panel that before calling Lockhart, she discussed this request with
Howard and that he approved the contact. Mapes said that Howard had reasoned that reporters exchange information from various sources and this request was not problematic. Howard, however, told the Panel a very different version of this conversation and said that he clearly informed Mapes that it would be inappropriate to intervene with Lockhart or anyone else associated with the Kerry campaign on Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s behalf.
Mapes further told the Panel that at some point prior to September 8 she spoke to
Lockhart. According to Mapes, Lockhart called her and the conversation lasted only
approximately two minutes. Mapes told the Panel that she merely informed Lockhart that
Lieutenant Colonel Burkett wanted to speak with him. She did not think she described
Lieutenant Colonel Burkett as a source or that the subject of the documents ever came up during the call.”
“Lockhart told the Panel a contrasting version of this conversation. Lockhart said that
Clanton, who reported to Lockhart, had asked Lockhart to take a call from Mapes about a story she was working on related to President Bush’s TexANG service. Lockhart told the Panel that Clanton said that the story involved documents and that a call from Lockhart to a 60 Minutes Wednesday source who wanted input into the Kerry campaign might assist 60 Minutes Wednesday in obtaining the documents from the source. Lockhart was reluctant to speak with Mapes given that he did not want to give the impression that the campaign was assisting on the matter. Lockhart said that he agreed to speak with Mapes only after he was assured by Clanton that Mapes already had obtained the documents in question and that the reporting stage of the story was complete.
Lockhart informed the Panel that Mapes called him on the evening of Saturday,
September 4. Lockhart said that she told him that she had lined up an interview with Ben Barnes and had obtained documents that had been authenticated by some number of experts. Lockhart stated that Mapes said that there may be more documents and Mapes asked him to call Lieutenant Colonel Burkett, whom she described as a source for the story. Lockhart said that it was his impression that a call to Lieutenant Colonel Burkett could be helpful in obtaining the additional documents.
Lockhart told the Panel that he did not immediately call Lieutenant Colonel Burkett as he
recognized it could be perceived negatively. However, he ultimately changed his mind and
spoke to him on Monday, September 6, by which time Mapes had received the rest of the Killian documents. Lockhart said the call lasted less than five minutes and that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett gave his opinion on how the campaign should address the Swift Boat issue. Lockhart stated that he said very little during the call and the subject of documents never came up.
The Panel is unable to resolve definitively the conflict between the accounts of Howard
and Mapes concerning whether permission was given to speak with a representative of the Kerry campaign in connection with the TexANG story. Whether or not permission was given to Mapes, the Panel finds this contact to be highly inappropriate. The September 8 Segment had a strong political focus and it was to air in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign.
While it is certainly proper to receive information from a variety of sources, this contact crossed” (pgs 26 and 27)
The report stops short of condemning the obvious. That Mapes (And most likely Rather) had an agenda to change the election and bring down Bush, and that her report was based a flawed forged documents and on at least two partisan sources (Barnes and Burkett) one of which (Burkett) was a complete whack-job ( the guy that shot himself up with bovine penicillin to treat his mystery ailment) people who had an axe to grind with President Bush. And that Mapes ignored contrary evidence, and, testimony as well as her own document experts to generate the report. In my opinion Ms. Mapes bias is clear.
That there was indeed at least cooperation with the Kerry campaign if not collusion. The report stops short of concluding this but also, makes it quite evident to a half way intelligent non-biased reader.
MORE LATTER……….
Exerts from the C-BS report as well as Powerline blog were used in this post.
The report is not the complete whitewash that I expected and, is very critical of C-BS in many areas, but, falls short of condemnation in many areas where it is deserved. The report is a great source of information overall, and, leaves some things as an inference of impropriety without actually coming out and saying it. Here are my observations so far.
First off the report found no evidence of political bias even though it makes it quite obvious it existed and indeed it did. There are several e-mails in the report between Ms. Mapes and her colleges where in my opinion and many others opinion her political bias was evident. Ms. Mapes defiantly suffered Bush derangement syndrome and so did Dan Rather, of which whom the report deals little with. Bellow is some of Ms. Mapes e-mails where her bias indeed shows. How else do they explain Ms. Mapes chasing a dead story for five years where before her every lead was a dead end on factual evidence and only conspiracy theories kept her going.
On July 23, Michael Smith, a freelance journalist in Texas who was working on the story along with Mapes, sent her an email that began: "I am close to something that the Bushies are worried about..." Mapes responded: "I desperately want to talk to you....Do NOT underestimate how much I want this story."
On July 30, Mapes sent an email to one of her superiors at CBS in which she wrote: "...there is some very interesting Bush stuff shaking out there right now...Re...his qualification [sic] and refusal of service in Vietnam, etc. Lots of goodies."
On August 3, she emailed again: "There is a storm brewing in Austin re the Bush stuff....It is much more intense than it was four years ago and there is a strong general feeling that this time, there is blood in the water."
Today I am going to send the following hypothetical scenario to a reliable, trustable editor friend of mine...
What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind that the book probably could not make it out until after the election.
Mapes replied: "that looks good, hypothetically speaking, of course."
Remember Mapes had chassed this story for five years and turned up very little and no coo berating witnesses. So if it was not bias that drove her what was it? There was allot more evidence of the Swift Boat Veterans claims why didn’t she, or, any other mainstream reporter chase those leads? The report also shows how Mapes mislead people in her interviews such as Bobby Hodges, Buck Staudt, and the White House communications director.The panel found that Mapes misrepresented the following to her staffers that contacted the White House.
1) That she had obtained the Killian documents relating to President Bush’s TexANG service; 2) That she had interviewed someone who served in the TexANG at the same time as President Bush who said that the documents seemed accurate to him; 3) That she had asked four experts to review the documents and was satisfied that she had “covered her bases”; 4) That, in response to a question as to whether Democrats had been involved in handing over the documents, Mapes said, “Texas Republicans of a different chromosome” were her source; and 5) When asked why she was rushing the story, Mapes said that USA TODAY had also obtained the documents and planned to publish them on Wednesday. (page 97)
Second the report says little about the connection to the Kerry campaign when indeed there was one. We know from the report that Mape’s had conversations with Chad Clanton and Joe Lockhart but Mape’s account of the conversation and Lockhart’s differ.
Mapes claims the phone call to Lockhart lasted two minutes and Lockhart claims it was much more detailed and longer, and, that Mapes had spoken to Chad Clanton on several other occasions Lockhart’s account makes more sense, how else was the Kerry campaign able to coordinate operation “fortunate son.” Within a day of the C-BS report without foreknowledge.
“Mapes also told the Panel that before calling Lockhart, she discussed this request with
Howard and that he approved the contact. Mapes said that Howard had reasoned that reporters exchange information from various sources and this request was not problematic. Howard, however, told the Panel a very different version of this conversation and said that he clearly informed Mapes that it would be inappropriate to intervene with Lockhart or anyone else associated with the Kerry campaign on Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s behalf.
Mapes further told the Panel that at some point prior to September 8 she spoke to
Lockhart. According to Mapes, Lockhart called her and the conversation lasted only
approximately two minutes. Mapes told the Panel that she merely informed Lockhart that
Lieutenant Colonel Burkett wanted to speak with him. She did not think she described
Lieutenant Colonel Burkett as a source or that the subject of the documents ever came up during the call.”
“Lockhart told the Panel a contrasting version of this conversation. Lockhart said that
Clanton, who reported to Lockhart, had asked Lockhart to take a call from Mapes about a story she was working on related to President Bush’s TexANG service. Lockhart told the Panel that Clanton said that the story involved documents and that a call from Lockhart to a 60 Minutes Wednesday source who wanted input into the Kerry campaign might assist 60 Minutes Wednesday in obtaining the documents from the source. Lockhart was reluctant to speak with Mapes given that he did not want to give the impression that the campaign was assisting on the matter. Lockhart said that he agreed to speak with Mapes only after he was assured by Clanton that Mapes already had obtained the documents in question and that the reporting stage of the story was complete.
Lockhart informed the Panel that Mapes called him on the evening of Saturday,
September 4. Lockhart said that she told him that she had lined up an interview with Ben Barnes and had obtained documents that had been authenticated by some number of experts. Lockhart stated that Mapes said that there may be more documents and Mapes asked him to call Lieutenant Colonel Burkett, whom she described as a source for the story. Lockhart said that it was his impression that a call to Lieutenant Colonel Burkett could be helpful in obtaining the additional documents.
Lockhart told the Panel that he did not immediately call Lieutenant Colonel Burkett as he
recognized it could be perceived negatively. However, he ultimately changed his mind and
spoke to him on Monday, September 6, by which time Mapes had received the rest of the Killian documents. Lockhart said the call lasted less than five minutes and that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett gave his opinion on how the campaign should address the Swift Boat issue. Lockhart stated that he said very little during the call and the subject of documents never came up.
The Panel is unable to resolve definitively the conflict between the accounts of Howard
and Mapes concerning whether permission was given to speak with a representative of the Kerry campaign in connection with the TexANG story. Whether or not permission was given to Mapes, the Panel finds this contact to be highly inappropriate. The September 8 Segment had a strong political focus and it was to air in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign.
While it is certainly proper to receive information from a variety of sources, this contact crossed” (pgs 26 and 27)
The report stops short of condemning the obvious. That Mapes (And most likely Rather) had an agenda to change the election and bring down Bush, and that her report was based a flawed forged documents and on at least two partisan sources (Barnes and Burkett) one of which (Burkett) was a complete whack-job ( the guy that shot himself up with bovine penicillin to treat his mystery ailment) people who had an axe to grind with President Bush. And that Mapes ignored contrary evidence, and, testimony as well as her own document experts to generate the report. In my opinion Ms. Mapes bias is clear.
That there was indeed at least cooperation with the Kerry campaign if not collusion. The report stops short of concluding this but also, makes it quite evident to a half way intelligent non-biased reader.
MORE LATTER……….
Exerts from the C-BS report as well as Powerline blog were used in this post.
posted by low26 at 6:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home