Kerry-Cleland-Burkett Connection

[DKW 86 7,433]

Link

September 17, 2004

The Cleland-Burkett-Kerry Campaign Connection?

Michael Dobbs pushes the Rathergate story even farther forward in tomorrow's Washington Post, in the first indication that the Kerry campaign may have been explicitly involved in the Killian forgeries:

The former Texas National Guard officer suspected of providing CBS News with possibly forged records on President Bush's military service called on Democratic activists to wage "war" against Republican "dirty tricks" in a series of Internet postings in which he also used phrases similar to several employed in the disputed documents. ...

In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats over the past few months, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed "down and dirty" tactics against Bush. He said he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed "afraid to do what I suggest."

In another message, dated Sept. 4, Burkett hinted he might have had advance knowledge of some details in an explosive segment that aired Sept. 8 on the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

More and more evidence has come out that Burkett was the culprit behind the forgeries. His proximity to the Kinko's that faxed them to CBS (and their computers, which could have produced them), his claim to have "reassembled" Bush's record, and his postings on the Internet groups he frequents all point to the fanatical ex-Guardsman.

However, Dobbs notes a new revelation at the end of the article which links Bill Burkett to Max Cleland, of all people -- and an idea where Burkett went with his proposed smear campaign:

In an Aug. 21 posting, Burkett referred to a conversation with former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) about the need to counteract Republican tactics: "I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with. But none of them have called me back."

Cleland confirmed that he had a two- or three-minute conversation by cell phone with a Texan named Burkett in mid-August while he was on a car ride. He remembers Burkett saying that he had "valuable" information about Bush, and asking what he should with it. "I told him to contact the [Kerry] campaign," Cleland said. "You get this information tens of times a day, and you don't know if it is legit or not."

On August 21, after pushing his idea for a dirty-tricks campaign to the DNC with little success, Burkett asks Cleland where he can take derogatory material on George Bush -- and Cleland directs him to the Kerry campaign by his own admission, a revelation in itself. (You'll note that Cleland isn't bright enough to suggest Moveon.org, which would have protected his candidate.)

On August 25th, Burkett publishes his Online Journal piece, warning Bush that Burkett had "reassembled" Bush's Guard files.

By September 4, he's posting messages that more information is waiting to come out against Bush after the Barnes interview, and the forgeries are on their way or already in the hands of CBS.

It looks like Cleland's advice worked, didn't it? If I had subpoena power, I would check Burkett's phone records to see if he contacted the Kerry campaign during the period between the Cleland contact and the date on the faxes. This appears to be moving towards a very ugly conclusion -- that someone in the Kerry campaign has some involvement in perpetrating a fraud intended to pervert an election.

I think the Congressional hearings may be a good idea now. In fact, an FBI investigation may be an even better idea.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Link

September 17, 2004

The Cleland-Burkett-Kerry Campaign Connection?

Michael Dobbs pushes the Rathergate story even farther forward in tomorrow's Washington Post, in the first indication that the Kerry campaign may have been explicitly involved in the Killian forgeries:

The former Texas National Guard officer suspected of providing CBS News with possibly forged records on President Bush's military service called on Democratic activists to wage "war" against Republican "dirty tricks" in a series of Internet postings in which he also used phrases similar to several employed in the disputed documents. ...

In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats over the past few months, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed "down and dirty" tactics against Bush. He said he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed "afraid to do what I suggest."

In another message, dated Sept. 4, Burkett hinted he might have had advance knowledge of some details in an explosive segment that aired Sept. 8 on the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

More and more evidence has come out that Burkett was the culprit behind the forgeries. His proximity to the Kinko's that faxed them to CBS (and their computers, which could have produced them), his claim to have "reassembled" Bush's record, and his postings on the Internet groups he frequents all point to the fanatical ex-Guardsman.

However, Dobbs notes a new revelation at the end of the article which links Bill Burkett to Max Cleland, of all people -- and an idea where Burkett went with his proposed smear campaign:

In an Aug. 21 posting, Burkett referred to a conversation with former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) about the need to counteract Republican tactics: "I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with. But none of them have called me back."

Cleland confirmed that he had a two- or three-minute conversation by cell phone with a Texan named Burkett in mid-August while he was on a car ride. He remembers Burkett saying that he had "valuable" information about Bush, and asking what he should with it. "I told him to contact the [Kerry] campaign," Cleland said. "You get this information tens of times a day, and you don't know if it is legit or not."

On August 21, after pushing his idea for a dirty-tricks campaign to the DNC with little success, Burkett asks Cleland where he can take derogatory material on George Bush -- and Cleland directs him to the Kerry campaign by his own admission, a revelation in itself. (You'll note that Cleland isn't bright enough to suggest Moveon.org, which would have protected his candidate.)

On August 25th, Burkett publishes his Online Journal piece, warning Bush that Burkett had "reassembled" Bush's Guard files.

By September 4, he's posting messages that more information is waiting to come out against Bush after the Barnes interview, and the forgeries are on their way or already in the hands of CBS.

It looks like Cleland's advice worked, didn't it? If I had subpoena power, I would check Burkett's phone records to see if he contacted the Kerry campaign during the period between the Cleland contact and the date on the faxes. This appears to be moving towards a very ugly conclusion -- that someone in the Kerry campaign has some involvement in perpetrating a fraud intended to pervert an election.

I think the Congressional hearings may be a good idea now. In fact, an FBI investigation may be an even better idea.

Nothing new here except more speculation and innuendo.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Nothing new here except more speculation and innuendo.

Kinda like the dems questioning Bush's Natl Guard service?

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Nothing new here except more speculation and innuendo.

Kinda like the dems questioning Bush's Natl Guard service?

Actually, if you were honest with yourself and did your homework, you would know he never fullfilled his obligations.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Nothing new here except more speculation and innuendo.

Kinda like the dems questioning Bush's Natl Guard service?

Actually, if you were honest with yourself and did your homework, you would know he never fullfilled his obligations.

Then why can't they 'prove' it without fake documents?

And assuming he DIDNT fufill his commitments...Ill take him skipping a physical over Kerry committing WAR CRIMES.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Isnt skipping a physical a War Crime?

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Nothing new here except more speculation and innuendo.

Kinda like the dems questioning Bush's Natl Guard service?

Actually, if you were honest with yourself and did your homework, you would know he never fullfilled his obligations.

Then why can't they 'prove' it without fake documents?

And assuming he DIDNT fufill his commitments...Ill take him skipping a physical over Kerry committing WAR CRIMES.

News outlets who have analyzed the records released by the Pentagon have reached that conclusion. CBS "documents" have been a blessing for Bush because they distract folks from the truth.

The story points to two key documents, signed by Bush and promising to meet training requirements or face a call-up to active duty. One from 1968 "has received scant notice," the Globe observed. The other, from 1973, "has been overlooked in news media accounts," the paper said.

Robinson pointed out that other documents had been released since February, but would not say how much of the story came from more recent information. "We are talking about several hundred pages of records that most people would not understand because they use a lot of military parlance," Robinson said. "That means it takes a lot of effort."

In 1999, the Globe story observed, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Now Bartlett, presently the White House communications director, concedes, ''I must have misspoke."

The Globe's re-examination of the records showed that Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973. In fact, the records, the Globe said, "along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974."

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it was clear to him that Bush ''gamed the system."

''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1000625709

Lawrence Korb ain't no liberal.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Okay. Let's assume that Bush got some special treatment to avoid combat in Vietnam.

Does that change whether or not he's qualified to be president?

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Okay. Let's assume that Bush got some special treatment to avoid combat in Vietnam.

Does that change whether or not he's qualified to be president?

No. But failing to meet his minimal commitment to the Guard, failure to maintain his flying status and violating that agreement after a million dollar investment in his training lessens his moral authority to send troops, especially Guard troops into combat. Not going to

Viet Nam is not the major problem, although to "support" the war and specifically refuse to go was grossly hypocritical. How does a Commander-in-chief have the moral authority to prosecute Guard troops who don't show up for duty when he failed to show up for duty? Cheney avoided Viet Nam with 5 deferrments, but he is better situated than a man who was in the Guard and did not meet his obligations.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Okay. Let's assume that Bush got some special treatment to avoid combat in Vietnam.

Does that change whether or not he's qualified to be president?

He has also lied about it on a number of ocassions, including his offical biography.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Okay. Let's assume that Bush got some special treatment to avoid combat in Vietnam.

Does that change whether or not he's qualified to be president?

He has also lied about it on a number of ocassions, including his offical biography.

Didnt answer my question.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Okay. Let's assume that Bush got some special treatment to avoid combat in Vietnam.

Does that change whether or not he's qualified to be president?

He has also lied about it on a number of ocassions, including his offical biography.

Didnt answer my question.

I did. You didn't read it up thread.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Okay. Let's assume that Bush got some special treatment to avoid combat in Vietnam.

Does that change whether or not he's qualified to be president?

No. But failing to meet his minimal commitment to the Guard, failure to maintain his flying status and violating that agreement after a million dollar investment in his training lessens his moral authority to send troops, especially Guard troops into combat. Not going to

Viet Nam is not the major problem, although to "support" the war and specifically refuse to go was grossly hypocritical. How does a Commander-in-chief have the moral authority to prosecute Guard troops who don't show up for duty when he failed to show up for duty? Cheney avoided Viet Nam with 5 deferrments, but he is better situated than a man who was in the Guard and did not meet his obligations.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that bush logged far in excess of the required flight time etc.

But if he got a favor to stay out of vietnam, i dont see how that is different from Clinton. And saying he lied about it is surely not different from things clinton did.

My point is, that happened a long time ago. And it came up before the last election. Now that bush has been president for 4 years, Kerry (and kerry supporters) should worry about what he has done for 4 years as PRESIDENT instead of what he did in the 70s.

I mean what is the Kerry mantra now? Its unfair/mean/ill spirited to criticize/smear my vietnam service...but its OKAY to slam bush on his guard duty?

Kerry SLAMS bush publicly for the Swift Vet ads AFTER bush had already denounced them...saying it was a personal smear attack. (eventhough bush had no hand in it)...but then a month later the DNC comes up with an actual CAMPAIGN against bush's guard duty? WTH is that? sounds like ive been saying all along...kerry says do as i say, not as i do.

This is the doublespeak im used to at this point from the DNC.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Okay. Let's assume that Bush got some special treatment to avoid combat in Vietnam.

Does that change whether or not he's qualified to be president?

No. But failing to meet his minimal commitment to the Guard, failure to maintain his flying status and violating that agreement after a million dollar investment in his training lessens his moral authority to send troops, especially Guard troops into combat. Not going to

Viet Nam is not the major problem, although to "support" the war and specifically refuse to go was grossly hypocritical. How does a Commander-in-chief have the moral authority to prosecute Guard troops who don't show up for duty when he failed to show up for duty? Cheney avoided Viet Nam with 5 deferrments, but he is better situated than a man who was in the Guard and did not meet his obligations.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that bush logged far in excess of the required flight time etc.

But if he got a favor to stay out of vietnam, i dont see how that is different from Clinton. And saying he lied about it is surely not different from things clinton did.

My point is, that happened a long time ago. And it came up before the last election. Now that bush has been president for 4 years, Kerry (and kerry supporters) should worry about what he has done for 4 years as PRESIDENT instead of what he did in the 70s.

I mean what is the Kerry mantra now? Its unfair/mean/ill spirited to criticize/smear my vietnam service...but its OKAY to slam bush on his guard duty?

Kerry SLAMS bush publicly for the Swift Vet ads AFTER bush had already denounced them...saying it was a personal smear attack. (eventhough bush had no hand in it)...but then a month later the DNC comes up with an actual CAMPAIGN against bush's guard duty? WTH is that? sounds like ive been saying all along...kerry says do as i say, not as i do.

This is the doublespeak im used to at this point from the DNC.

I don't know if you even read my post, but you certainly did not respond to it.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I didnt respond to your scenario because if it is TRUE that bush dodged vietnam...it is the same as Clinton IMO. I didnt like it then, i dont like it now. But as a liberal you can't say back then it was okay...and now its not.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

I didnt respond to your scenario because if it is TRUE that bush dodged vietnam...it is the same as Clinton IMO. I didnt like it then, i dont like it now. But as a liberal you can't say back then it was okay...and now its not.

You obviously fail to comprehend my post. Have you really read it?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Dude, i read it. You think IF Bush dodged Vietnam its bad because he skipped out on Vietnam while he was in GUARD DUTY, thus lending him little to no credibility in commanding troops etc. And i said i disagree. I think its the same as Clinton...if bush actually did it...which has yet to be proven.

I also said it was irrelevant SINCE bush has been president for 4 years. And the dems would be better suited to attack his PRESIDENCY instead of what he did 30 years ago. You lose credibility when all you do is whine about what happened 30 years ago....thats what im saying.

I also think its petty and two faced for kerry to whine about the swift vet stuff while leading a campaing to smear Bush's guard duty.

The average american wont let military service decide for them who gets their vote.

I guess you only read the stuff you agree with.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

Dude, i read it. You think IF Bush dodged Vietnam its bad because he skipped out on Vietnam while he was in GUARD DUTY, thus lending him little to no credibility in commanding troops etc. And i said i disagree. I think its the same as Clinton...if bush actually did it...which has yet to be proven.

I also said it was irrelevant SINCE bush has been president for 4 years. And the dems would be better suited to attack his PRESIDENCY instead of what he did 30 years ago. You lose credibility when all you do is whine about what happened 30 years ago....thats what im saying.

I also think its petty and two faced for kerry to whine about the swift vet stuff while leading a campaing to smear Bush's guard duty.

The average american wont let military service decide for them who gets their vote.

I guess you only read the stuff you agree with.

Dude, you may have read it, but you don't comprehend it. You certainly can't restate my argument. You restate what you want the argument to be. I gave you a thoughtful, coherent answer. You can't get off your talking points.