Smith, an anti-Bush researcher working with Mapes on the story, mused on how he could induce Bill Burkett to turn over the "files [he had] reassembled" with this email to Mary Mapes:

Today I am going to send the following hypothetical secnario to a reliable, trustable [sic] editor friend of mine...

What if there was a person [i.e., Burkett] 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 kind of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind the book probably could not make it out until after the election... [NOTE the non-journalist, political emphasis onElection Day.] What I am asking in this best case hypothetical scenario, can we get a decent sized avdvanced payment, and git turned around quickly.

Then they will respond with some possible scenarios of what they could do. When we got to Burket's house I will have at least some sencarios to tshow Burkett about what could happen if he played ball with the documents. If he shows us what we want, then I can call my friend and tell him the real detalis and start the process.

[Emphasis added.]

Did Mapes recoil from the suggestion of pay-for-play?

Ummm, not exactly:

Mapes responded in an e-mail to Smith's proposal, stating "that looks good, hypothetically speaking of course."

Smith says this was his idea, and "not a 60 Minutes deal," but plainly Mapes of 60 Minutes was receptive to the plan-- "hypothetically," of course.

The Report notes, rather obviously:

To the extent that any of the other proposals outlined by Smith were offered to or discussed with [Burkett] as a possible enticement to convince him to give the documents to 60 Minutes Wednesday, such an offer would have constituted a clear violation of CBS News' Stard II-I as an "unethical newgathering practice."

Well.... Kinda.

Fairness Update: Smith's email is cast as what he would say to a book publisher, in order to induce him to give Burkett a deal; obviously, "changing the momentum of an election" would be a selling point, no matter what one's politics.

So that isn't necessarily what Smith wanted; it's what he thought he might pitch to an editor.

Still, it establishes that these cats were perfectly aware of what they were doing.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm obviously typing this report in by hand, as fast as I can, and I'm glitching words left and right. I'll track down my errors later; for now, speed is more important to me, as I'm late on this story as it is.

I hope you understand.

And I hope you're all actually impressed at the myriad alternative methods of spelling "Lieutenant" I've provided you.

As (I think) orthographically-challenged president Thomas Jefferson observed, it's an uncreative and dull mind that can only imagine a single manner of spelling a word.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Dan Rather Called Burkett "Unimpeachable;" CBS WH Correspondent John Roberts Called Burkett "Unreliable"

There have been two names mentioned frequently as possible replacements for Dan Rather, and one of them is John Roberts.

In a report filled with derogatory information about overly-credulous reporters, the report takes time to note that there were doubts at CBS News in February 2004 about Burkett, and that these doubts were expressed by... John Roberts:

On February 12, 2004, the CBS Evening News broadcast a report produced by the network's Washington Bureau regarding Lieutenant Colonel Burkett's "scrubbing" allegations. The report included a sound bite from an interview of Lieutenant Colonel Burkett by John Roberts, CBS News' White House Correspondant, and a statement by [Joe] Allbaugh denying the charges against him [who pronounced the charges "hogwash"] .....

Roberts explained to the Panel that he had asked his producer to seek a statement from Allbaugh because he thought Lieutenant Colonel Burkett
was "unreliable." He told the Panel that wehn he initially contacted Lieutenant Colonel Burkett to question him regarding his allegations, Lieutenant Colonel Burkett launched into an unprovoked "tirade" against him and insisted that he call author [of Bush's War for Re-Election] Jim Moore to get Moore's permission before Lieutenant Colonel Burkett would speak further with Roberts. This struck Roberts as highly unusual as Lieutenant Colonel Burkett had already given many interviews to other media outlets. Moore approved the interview and Roberts interviewed Lieutenant Colonel Burkett on February 12. Roberts described the interview as "meandering."

...

Contrived or not, juiced up or not, the report seems to struggle to find a hero in this mess, and it seems to have struck on John Roberts as being a good possibility for that role. After all, he did indicate he thought Burkett was "unreliable;" the implication is that the same story would have come out a lot differently had Roberts been in charge, rather than, ahem, Rather.

Seems to me like Moonves is going to pick Roberts. He's the one guy who Moonves can claim was essentially cleared by the report, and thus the one guy who can deliver a clean break from the ludicrously biased and unprofessional reportage of the past.

Anyone want to bet against me?

Johnny Coldcuts says he's a shoo-in.

Update: Roberts Campaigning Hard for Job Through Panel Interview? Roberts said he sought out Joe Allbaugh for comment (re: Burkett's allegations that he "scrubbed" Bush's TexANG files) because he found Burkett "unreliable."

But this cause-effect claim seems to make little sense to me. Even if Roberts had found Burkett perfectly reliable, wouldn't he have been required, by the most basic journalistic standards, to seek out comment from Allbaugh? Or has CBS News actually made seeking comment from persons derided in its reports an "if you feel like it" kind of thing?

I don't think they've sunk quite that low, as far as announced standards, anyway. (As far as actual practices: most definitely.) So it seems to me that Roberts went out of his way to portray himself as the anti-Rather -- the one who wasn't taken in by Burkett, the one who actually bothered to get a comment from the people Burkett was making allegations about -- in his interviews with the Panel.

Did Roberts really find Burkett "unreliable" at the time? He did air a report on Burkett's allegations, so he obviously didn't find him so unreliable as to be dismissed completely. And the niggardly soundbite from Allbaugh -- "hogwash" -- doesn't seem to be in itself a full and fair report on Burkett's unreliability.

I didn't see the piece, and I haven't yet found a transcript. Perhaps Roberts was fair and balanced in reporting on Burkett's unreliablity, inconsistency, and anti-Bush animus. When I find the transcript of this report, we'll see.

Posted by: Ace at 10:00 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

It is to laugh. It turns out that Mapes' big lead as to Burkett's newly-announced possession of documents proving Bush's malfeasance in the guard came from... bloggers.

Page 59:

On Monday, August 23, Mapes learned that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett was rumored to have important documents regarding the Presidents TexANG service. Paul Lukasiak, who operates a website on which he posts disparaging analyses of President Bush's TexANG serice, told Mapes that another blogger, Linda Starr, had seen new [NEW-- the correct word here, eh-- ed.] TexANG documents regarding President Bush. Starr hosts a website that recently contained the slogan, "Bush lied, Americans died," and is the editor of Online Journal, and online newsletter often critical of President Bush.

Mapes contacted Starr [did Mapes contact Powerline or LGF, I wonder? -- ed.] who responded that she believed that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett had a two-page, classified document regarding President Bush's TexANG service, and Starr speculated it might be a disciplinary report. [Speculated? But I thought she'd "seen" the documents-- ed.] ... Starr told Mapes that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett was trying to determine the best way to disseminate this information to journalists "without leaving any fingerprints."

As the lawyers say: Not really chock-a-block full of "indicia of reliability." Rumors from one left-wing crank blogger and a man with a grudge who wants to disseminate documents "without leaving any fingerprints" -- i.e. without willing to vouch for their accuracy.

Once again: left-wing bloggers good, right-wing bloggers partisan and suspect and to be dismissed without any sort of investigation whatsoever.

Update: The report refuses to find any political bias at work at CBS News -- stating that there's not enough evidence for such a charge -- but has little trouble deciding that the bloggers who exposed the forgeries had a "conservative agenda."

Posted by: Ace at 09:45 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Pages 51-51:

In February 2004, Lietuenant Colonel Burkett Issued statements in advance of the release of James Moore's [anti-Bush] book, Bush's War for Reelection, in which Lietueant Colonel Burkett is cited as a source regarding the alleged "scrubbing" in the late 1990's of then-Governor Bush's TexANG records. Lietutenant Colonel Burkett's allegations, as well as interviews of Lieutenant Colonel Burkett, were reported in February by many major news outlets, including CBS News, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, USAToday, the Los Angeles Times, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Kansas City Star, the Detroit Free Press, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, MSNBC and CNN. The various interviews and statements revealed inconsistencies in Lieutenant Colonel Burkett's allegations, which led to questions regarding his credibility and whether his claims could be proven. Mapes told the [Boccardi-Thornburgh] Panel that she was aware of the news reports at the time, but that she was not involved in any of the contemporaneous reporting related to Lieuteant Colonel Burkett given that she was then investigating the Abu Ghraib Iraq prison scandal.

The Panel vies this news coverage as significant because, although such information could have been accessed nearly instantly through the Internet or Lexis-Nexis searches [like I, and others, did-- easily-- ed.], the Panel found that no one involved in the vetting of the September 8 Segment seemed to be aware of it. The Panel finds it unlikely that the Segment would have aired as it did if the vetters had been provided details of Lieutenant Colonel Burkett's controversial history.

[Emphasis added; footnotes deleted.]

Remember: they're better than us because they have "multiple layers" of "fact-checkers" who "thoroughly vet all stories for fairness and accuracy," whereas we morons (let's be honest: we're retards in pajamas) can't run the simplest Google search.

And yet-- Mapes and crew all claim that not a one of them knew of the rather extensive reporting on Burkett's dubious charges, inconsistent statements, and self-admitted animus against George Bush for (if I recall the quote correctly) "wreak[ing] havoc upon his life."

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Page 44-45:

Prior to giving the documents to Mapes and Smith, Lieutenant COlonel Burkett demanded that he not be revealed as the source, and Mapes agreed to protect his identity. In addition or some time either before or after Lietuenant Colonel Burkett gave the documents to Mapes and Smith, he requested various "arrangements," including the following: a consulting contract, which would allow him to be compesnated by 60 Minutes Wednesday; security protection or relocation assistance if the sotry put him or his family in danger; and for Mapes to place him touch with someone from Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign so that he could provide strategic advice to that campaign aas to how to rebut the attacks on Senator Kerry's Vietnam service by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

[Emphasis added.]

So, he wanted cash and he explicitly asked for CBSNews to arrange for him to provide partisan service on behalf of George Bush's political opponent.

"Unimpeachable"? To Dan Rather, apparently so.

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Article-- three producers asked to resign, Mary Mapes fired;

A pdf of the Boccardi-Thornburgh report;

"TKS" digging through the report quickly for juicy parts and contradictions;

and SoxBlog makes this terrific observation:

HereÂ’s what I wanted to hear and I bet you did, too: Number 1, the documents were forgeries; and Number 2, The CBS apparatchiks involved in this sordid affair were animated by their black heartsÂ’ desires to wound the President. Alas, the Report says neither.

But hereÂ’s what you do get. The Report lays out the factual case of what happened here better than anything else that I've read. And the factual case is incredibly damning to CBS News and the soon to be departing individuals involved in this endeavor. Yes, the Report doesnÂ’t explicitly say that the documents were forgeries, but no sentient reader could make any other conclusion based on the evidence it offers.

...

I have a feeling those of us in the right wing blogosphere will dismiss the Report because it declines to make explicit that which we “know” regarding CBS’ motives and the documents authenticity. To do so would be a mistake. The Report lays out the facts and those alone are damning enough.

I suppose Mapes and Rather were determined to report what they "knew" in their hearts rather than what they could actually prove or at least confirm. So I suppose the report can be forgiven for refusing to repeat their mistakes.

SoxBlog quote comes via Instapundit.

Posted by: Ace at 08:20 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

As the enormous man tottered forward and the planks of the stage began to squeal and pop from the weight, Ernest realized that perhaps he wasn't quite so lucky to have been seated in the second row.

But seriously-- dig that butch, athletic haircut, Mikey! For one second, I was like, "Wait a minute-- how did Henry Rollins of the Henry Rollins Band win an People's Choice Award? I didn't know that 'Favorite Angry-Jock Spoken-Word Album' was a category!"

Then I thought you were Drew Carey, except that Drew Carey is, well, kinda svelte compared to you, to be honest.

Posted by: Ace at 09:23 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Football Fans for Truth lays out the case:

[H]er story is compelling. She's a sharecropper's daughter. As Jack Kelly observes, "Janice Rogers Brown is Condoleezza Rice with a law degree. She is a bright, articulate, black woman who accomplished much despite growing up in the segregated South." If the Democrats want to crap on an American success story, they should have at it.

[She] is a dangerously articulate ideologue. She will not duck and cover before the snide inquiries of such lowlights as Senators Kennedy, Leahy and Durbin. She'll fire back hard in what will be nationally televised hearings. The Republicans don't want someone who has to "explain" their support for a parental notification law. They want someone who can explain why such a law is in no way unconstitutional and, in fact, critical to "societal values" (as Brown wrote in her dissenting opinion in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren ). ....

he's young. 54 years young.

Posted by: Ace at 01:32 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

The "People's" Choice Awards? Makes sense to me.

Lefty filmmaker Michael Moore has been tipped he's going to win the People's Choice Award tonight, Tom O'Neil reports at goldderby.com.

This is the first year these awards - which insiders have long suspected notifies winners in advance - resorted to online voting instead of a Gallup poll.

...

Moore's flacks didn't return Post movie critic Lou Lumenick's calls, but sources confirmed he is snubbing tonight's New York Film Critics Circle awards to attend the Hollywood ceremony, where polar opposite Gibson is also expected to make an appearance.

I've never watched these awards in my life, and tonight will not be the night I start.

Why is he winning? Well, isn't it obvious? It must be because he loves America so darned much.

Wait-- he doesn't love America. He lurves America.

Either that, or these aren't the "People's" Choice Awards so much as the Lefty Spambot Automated-Script Voting Awwards. In which case Mikey should be very proud indeed.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.