So Did the White House Release The Killian Memos Last Night?

[ruggerson]

There was a yahoo story based on AP reporting that said that the WH released the memos AFTER Rather had blown them wide open on 60 Minutes. Now Yahoo has changed the story back. Something very bizarre is going on.

Did the WH release them?

[madmax]

1. Yes, they did.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf

There is one more but, I can't find the link.
Don't know if they released them before or after the CBS story.

[underpants]

3. Is this the THIRD time they have "released ALL his records"?

Or just the second. I am losing count.

[displacedtexan]

2. MSNBC just reported that.

Hm.

Too many secrets. Too many lies.

[Maddy McCall]

4. If the WH has had these documents all along...

and they hadn't released them until last night, then the public will see that they only released them to mitigate the sting of the Rather story.

And it becomes even more obvious that GW is hiding something--all along, he has claimed that he has released all documents related to his TANG service, then, after the explosive story last night, he releases the whopper of documents.

From what I have read, even though his TANG documents were sanitized, the WH never expected that Killian kept his own files. I bet there is more incriminating stuff there, too.

[Gin]

5. Rather said the handwriting was examined to prove authenticity...

he had to have the memo to do that...right?

[Maddy McCall]

6. Exactly.

Yes. I am almost certain that the WH release was a CYA move AFTER the fact.

[sandnsea]

7. I'm confused

60 minutes reported on the Killian memos. Are the White House memos the same, conflicting, what? I'm having a hard time tracking this for some reason.

[Maddy McCall]

9. My understanding is that the documents are the same.

Again, it appears to be a CYA move to reduce the impact of the Killian memos unearthed by Rather.

In other words, it was a move by the WH to make it appear that the info came to light because of their disclosure of the documents. The problem is that all along the WH has said it had disclosed ALL documents pertaining to Bush's NG service. Why did the WH hold on to the Killian documents in its possession? Because they were scandalous.

[sandnsea]

11. Okay, but

I thought it was two different sets of documents. Or, are there official documents and private memos as well? Maybe that's where I'm confused. Sorry, I didn't sleep well last night and actually should probably go back to bed!

[Maddy McCall]

14. Yes, it is my understanding that it is two sets...

but the two sets are identical.

I think the WH is trying to make it appear that they hid nothing.

"See, we even released the documents that Rather exposed. Nothing to see here. Move along."

[russian33]

8. Isn't withholding information wrong? Or did they 'mis-speak' ...

..when they said they released 'all' documents?

[Maddy McCall]

10. Exactly. They knew they were witholding documents that were...

damaging to Bush.

I think the whole Swiftvet attack on Kerry was done to create a false equality of scandal between Kerry and Bush.

The WH knew what was coming, so they went on the offensive against Kerry's record, so that, when the Killian documents found light, Bush's record wouldn't seem so bad.

[cthrumatrix]

12. isn't this illegal?

[Maddy McCall]

13. I don't think so.

If a FOIA request were filed with TANG, and they didn't disclose documents, that would be illegal. But if the WH has a copy of documents and didn't disclose them, that wouldn't be illegal, per se--because the WH isn't the repository for TANG documents. However, it is UNETHICAL that the WH has claimed that it disclosed ALL documents while it sat on the incriminating ones.