It's about time:

Much has been written about CBS' concession that it can no longer vouch for the authenticity of the documents that served as the foundation of its Bush National Guard story. But another story is developing, one that could possibly lead someone not just to public humiliation, but to a jail cell.

...

In Texas, the state in which Burkett concedes the false National Guard memos originated, it is a felony to make or present two or more documents with knowledge of their falsity and with intent that they be taken as a genuine governmental record. Under the U.S. Code, use of an interstate telephone wire, such as the one used to transmit an image of the forged documents from Texas to CBS headquarters, triggers federal jurisdiction.

...

Burkett now insists that he presented the documents to CBS with the proviso that CBS verify them, but there is plenty of evidence that this conversation never took place, and that Burkett in fact presented them as genuine National Guard (search) documents. Indeed, CBS has insisted that prior to broadcast, it was satisfied after speaking with Burkett — whom they dubbed an "unimpeachable source" — that the two memos were real.

It defies logic that Burkett would first lie to CBS about the documents' source in an effort to foil verification (as he now suddenly says he did), and then tell CBS that the documents required verification. But if this is in fact the case, Burkett not only frustrated CBS' verification efforts, but necessarily closed his eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious to him: that the documents were fakes. That alone would probably be enough to satisfy a jury that Burkett knew the documents were fake when he presented them to CBS, which would result in a criminal conviction in a Texas court.

CBS has cause for concern, too. The documents were not just forged; they were obviously forged to the generation over age 40, which has used both a typewriter and a computer to write; CBS did not have to be misled about the source of the documents to be tipped that the documents were not real. While Burkett might have been willfully blind to things that would indicate that the memos were fake, there is mounting evidence that even CBS' experts told producers of 60 Minutes II that they could not verify that the documents were real. The story was aired – or in the terms of the Texas forgery statute, "presented" — in spite of this.

Brit Hume reported tonight that a gaggle of Congressional Republicans wrote a letter to the Texas Attorney General, suggesting that he open and investigation to determine if state or federal laws were violated. The AG says he's referred the matter to, ahem, the Texas Rangers.

Sounds like there's justice a-comin'.

Ace of Spades Justice.

Posted by: Ace at 05:42 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

Don't get too hopeful. I remember linking to similar stories when I started this blog, and the "unrest" and "fighting" just turned out to be fireworks set off during some sort of Zoroastrian fire-festival.

But Ogre Gunner tips me to this unconfirmed report, probably by student activists who have a vested interest in inspiring unrest (not that that's a bad thing), saying that fighting is breaking out in Iran.

I don't believe it myself, and I won't until less-interested parties post similar reports.

But the guy who sent this to me is named is Ogre Gunner, and when Ogre Gunner sends you a tip, you link it. That's my rule, and it's kept me out of trouble so far.

Update: JohnD. points to this VOA article indicating that there is in fact some protesting in Iran right now.

But it's not violent unrest:

According to press reports, about two thousand people milled around streets in downtown Tehran, many of them driving cars up and down major avenues, honking their horns and flashing victory signs. Hundreds of volunteer militiamen arrived on the scene, but there were no violent clashes.

And remember that last time it was all soem Zoroasterian fire-festival? Well, there seems to be a Zoroasterian connection again:

The demonstration on Sunday appears to have been catalyzed by the statements of a Zoroastrian mystic, Ahura Pirouz Khalegi Yazdi. Dr. Ahura, as he's known, has been appearing regularly for the last three months on a Los Angeles-based Iranian expatriate TV channel, saying he has the spiritual power to heal Iran's problems. He promised to return to Iran on October 1, along with thousands of other expatriates, if Iranians in the country showed their support for him.

I don't know much about Zoroasterism, except what I've picked up from an album I own, with lyrics and music by the Zoroasterian Farouk Pluto Bulsara.

Posted by: Ace at 02:21 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Only Succeeds in Confusing Poor Diane Sawyer, Which, To Be Fair to the Squishy Senator, Doesn't Sound Like That Difficult a Trick

Son of Nixon, still on sabbatical at an undisclosed location, tipped me to this. The transcript isn't up at ABCNews just yet, but I found this version at Rush Limbaugh's site:

SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

SAWYER: So it was not worth it?

KERRY: We should not -- depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership, and we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. But I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat -- weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection of Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. The president misled the American people, plain and simple, bottom line.

SAWYER: So, if it turns out okay it was worth it, but right now it wasn't worth it?

KERRY: No. It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done.

Okay. Let's put aside the distortions that there was "no connection" between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that Bush claimed there was an "imminent threat" posed by Iraq.

I guess we also have to put aside the fact that just a month ago he said he'd have voted for the war, even knowing what he does now.

But, like I said, let's just sort of ignore all that for the moment.

What have we learned?

According to John Forbes Kerry of Beacon Hill, it was wrong to go to war in Iraq, depending on the "outcome," in which case it might have been the right thing to do.

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

Possibly...?

Depends on the outcome.

That's what I call a tall drink of nuance.

But in any event you have to elect John Forbes Kerry president, because he has, it seems, a "clear plan" for either getting us out of Iraq or winning the war in Iraq, depending on the day of the week and the hour of the day.

Linked by "Shadowy Connections" Update: William offers the many faces of John Kerry.

Posted by: Ace at 02:01 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.

Without noting previous error, CBS News slips in mention of Beverly Cocco's partisan connections to Parents Against the Draft

This is sort of what I expected, but I'm still surprised. But Rathergate has a clip of the story as it actually aired-- no mention of an ideological affiliation, and they don't seem eager to correct the record.

No mention about the sham emails CBS endorsed, but I expect we'll be seeing a rowback on that score shortly. Another rowback seen by at most thousands, when the actual dishonest broadcast was viewed by millions.

This is a corrupt organization. I said it, I meant it-- corrupt.

There are affiliate phone numbers and emails at the sidebar. It would probably be a good time to use them.

Update: Protein Wisdom has some documents of its own to report.

Posted by: Ace at 01:25 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

FDU's poll puts it at 45 K 44 B, same as the StrategicVision poll yesterday.

This article in the IHT, probably originally from the NYT, calls the results a "shocker," and I don't think they mean one of those "good shockers," either. Other swing state gains for Bush are discussed.

On the other hand, a FreeRepublic poster says that CNN just reported a Gallup poll showing Bush losing his nine point lead in Ohio, falling to 50-48.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

From TimesWatch, and we're just scratching the surface:

Sunday's Arts section brings an interview of leftist documentary filmmaker Michael Moore and a sort of fact-check/review of "Fahrenheit 9-11" from intelligence reporter Philip Shenon, titled "Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up."

A subhead asks: "Will the Facts Check Out?" The Times' answer: Basically, yes. Though Shenon questions some of Moore's points, he also goes out of his way to defend Moore (in an oddly defensive manner) on others.

...

Shenon finds Moore's fact-checking basically credible: "So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?....After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career)Â….

Update! The fair-and-balanced, objective-and-neutral Global Relief Fund fan allows "Bush knew" conspiracy theories to go by unchallenged: Again from TimesWatch:

During the call-in portion of [the C-SPAN program Washington Journal], Shenon didn't refute allegations from a New Jersey caller claiming Bush knew about 9-11 "before it happened," addressing only the factual parts of the caller's rant.

Yet he interrupted a Pennsylvania caller who claimed Bill Clinton wasn't held accountable for besmirching the office of the presidency:

Shenon: "May I interrupt?Â…May I ask you, did, weren't there lots of investigations of President Clinton, including an impeachment investigation while he was in office? I think he was well investigated during his presidency."

Caller: "But what came out of it? Nothing."

Shenon (laughing): "I believe he was impeached by the House of Representatives."

Later a Florida viewer called Shenon on his interruption: "Â…whenever we get these wild allegations and misstatements by critics of the administration, like, 'Jerry Ford pardoned the Iran-Contra people,' [a reference to a false allegation from a previous caller] you never correct it. But any slight variance--and you just interrupted the caller, two calls ago--any slight variance in your mantra, you're quick to defend the previous administration [Clinton] and quick to defend such reports."

Update: And Michael Moore Appreciated Shenon's Boosterism, Too! Here, on MichaelMoore.com, the Husky Huckster quotes Shenon as giving the Times stamp-of-approval to his propaganda piece:

Are the Facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 True?

Yes, absolutely. Phil Shenon, the New York Times senior correspondent who covers the 9/11 Commission, wrote in a major June 20, 2004, article published about Fahrenheit 9/11, “it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).” Shenon noted that Michael Moore “hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film.” Philip Shenon, "Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up," New York Times, June 20, 2004.

So, Michael Moore and Philip Shenon seem to be real big fans of each other's work.

Isn't. That. Special.

Posted by: Ace at 12:08 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.

Not anti-war, just on the other side?:

The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.

The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court.

The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters — Philip Shenon and Judith Miller — as part of a probe to track down the leak.

Hold off-- it's not Judith Miller, as the article makes clear, shortly.

The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation — the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act.

"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.

...

"I would posit that the circumstances here — the decision by the reporter to provide a tip to the subject of a terrorist fund-raising inquiry which seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel — warrant such cooperation in full," Fitzgerald said.

The Times, and Shenon's lawyer, deny the charge.

And yet they're none to willing to disclose the evidence that might exculpate him.

Can I ask a question?

What the hell does the press think it's doing?

Update: Mark from Rational Explications points out that TimesWatch has a nice digest of Philip Shenon's oevure. ("Oevure" is French for "partisan hatchet-jobs.")

Sweet Irony Update: I don't understand how this is all connected, but the prosecutor here seems to be the same man working on the Valerie Plame case.

Of course, the New York Times, which wants Fitzgerald to dig like there's no tomorrow on the Plame matter, seeks special special protections for itself in court.

That last link thanks to Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

It's getting hard for some bloggers to keep up with their bandwidth demands. Not me, of course. Damnit.

But RatherBiased.com, which is being hammered for another huge scoop on CBS' use of fake documents to support a story, will for the time being be blogging on Rathergate.com.

It's about time they joined forces anyway.

If Rathergate.com goes down, I'm told they'll be blogging on SnazzyCat.com, where people publish photographs of their cats dressed in tuxes & top-hats & the occasional monocle.

Rathergate.com is holding a fundraising drive for the RatherBiased.com boys, and he says he'll donate the cost of PayPal fees up to $1,000, all to get RatherBiased.com the bandwidth they actually need. (Hopefully they won't use Andrew Sullivan's very expensive bandwidth provider.)

If you want to help out, click here.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Pic spotted over at the forums at ProtestWarrior.

And Check This Out: Frequent Ace of Spades correspondent & haiku enthusiast RDBrewer has a piece up about Dan Rather, Republican Secret Weapon, over at ChicagoBoyz.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's the Parents Against the Draft contact page listing CBS News' apolitical, Republican mom as the chapter contact for the Philadelphia area.

Here's that organization's links page, linking to International ANSWER, "Not in Our Name," United for Peace & Justice, Student Peace Action Network, etc.

Gee, I'm so suprised that Dan Rather forgot to mention that.

Presumably another apolitical Republican, this one featured on Beverly Cocco's "nonpartisan" site.

Update: Powerlineblog, which can really push a story, is on the case.

Update-- Even One of the "Peace" Groups Beverly Cocco's site links to says the Emails are riddled with inaccuracies; how come Dan Rather didn't mention it?

"That e-mail doesn't die. It's got a lot of inaccuracies in it," said Bill Galvin, a counseling coordinator with the Center on Conscience and War, a conscientious objectors organization in Washington. "We're getting so tired of answering questions about the stupid thing."

Yeahp, if you look at the very Republican, very apolitical links section for Bev Cocco's nonpartisan activist group, you'll see the Center on Conscience and War.

Even her own compatriots admit the emails are fake.

Planet Peschel tips to this Newhouse News Service article debunking the emails.

The emails that CBS represented, through its silent endorsement, as accurate.

I Question the Timing! Update: It just so happens that, once again, CBS News chooses to air an unsubstantiated and dishonest story at the same time the Democrats are pushing the issue.

Dan Rather just happened to run his forged-documents story at the same time the DNC was preparing its Fortunate Son ad campaign.

And now Dan Rather puts this story on the air -- fake emails, fake "apolitical, Republican mom" -- at the same time Kerry and the DNC are pushing the "Bush wants to reinstate the draft" line.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 320 words, total size 3 kb.