Deborah Norville is discussing the forged memos on MSNBC now.

[Skinner]

But it looks like they're pushing the "CBS talked to the Kerry campaign" angle, and completely ignoring the "GOP Operative responsible for forged memos" angle.

If this story doesn't catch on soon, I think we'll need to start blasting it to every newsroom in the country.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. I noticed that too. But I also noticed today on ABC that it was stated

that no connection was made to the campaign other than a phone call in which the campaign declined to participate.

[tjdee]

5. Thankfully, Peter Jennings is not hysterical.

The rest of these people seem content to jump all over even ridiculous assumptions.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

17. Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings, as well as Leher are decent reporters.

I didn't expect them to parrot CNNFOX!

[ScreamingMeemie]

18. I will never ever forgive Brokaw for his reporting on the eve of this

illegal war. And I quote,"In a few days we're going to own this country..." It made me want to vomit and I've been unable to watch him since.

[ScreamingMeemie]

19. He's brought his raised eyebrow back from the early days of the Iraq

War. And I love it!!! :hi:

[Clinton Crusader]

2. She did this her entire show last night

Until I was so enraged I turned it off and sent her a pointed email.
:kick:

[moondust]

28. I did the exact same thing.

Told her she had a credibility problem after starting her show with the line "Today CBS admitted that the memos were fake." They did not.

[creeksneakers2]

3. Please don't blast this story

Its a trick to suck us in. The vast right wing conspiracy very much wants to keep this story alive so they can continue to smear Joe Lockhart, Max Cleland, and maybe Kerry. That's why they tried to sucker the left into hyping the Stone story.

There is no evidence against Roger Stone. There won't be. The evidence is overwhelming that Burkett forged the memos himself. All this can come to is a distraction against the Hell breaking loose in Iraq and another day for the RW to pound this Lockhart story. Look what's happened on all the shows tonight.

I'll try to edit in more about this.

[Skinner]

4. I've gotta disagree with you on this one.

The GOP has absolutely nothing to gain from from the Roger Stone story.

[spooky3]

6. but what is the evidence that Stone is involved?

Is there anything more than his "no comment"?

[yardwork]

9. That "no comment" alone is very telling imo

[creeksneakers2]

8. It isn't going to be the Roger Stone story

The threads point out what actually happened tonight. There is nothing to this but a report of a rumor posted by a RW publication that would love to do us in.

There is overwhelming evidence Burkett forged the memos. Insiders know this. While I'm trying to edit in some stuff, please read the USA Today story from today about the riciculous excuses Burkett is making to try to point the finger at somebody else. Insiders all know Burkett did it. They are just running the obligatory RW spin.

[creeksneakers2]

13. I'll start posting evidence against Burkett

Burkett used the term "billet" in his Internet posts. That was very odd because that is not a term the air guard uses. The memos contained the word "billet." That alone points directly to Burkett. On top of that, Burkett used the words "running interference" in his Internet posts. Those words also appear in the memos.

Burkett posted that he thought the Dems should respond to GOP "dirty tricks." He said he tried to contact the DNC but got nowhere. That shows me that he had nutty ideas to do nutty things and nobody would listen to him. I think that left him frustrated.


Burkett lied to CBS about where he got the memos. If Burkett received them from someone else, he would have told them at least a correct hint in the first place. I don't think the, "Somebody I didn't know passed them secretly to me once and I never saw them again" story Burkett is giving now should be taken seriously. He's obviously lying, just like he did before.

A Calpundit interview has this paragraph about an interview with Burkett on his previous story about Bush's files being scrubbed:

"In addition, although I haven't yet transcribed this part of the interview, he explained his "clarification" in 2000 that, as he puts it, seemed to "over-retract": basically, he got scared by the attention and backed down. He now admits it was a mistake."

After telling the scubbed memo story, Burkett gave Cobb as a source that would coroborate it. Cobb didn't though. He just said that he knew Burkett to be an honest man. (See Calpundit interview)

Burkett gave Cobb as the source of the memos for his first explanation to CBS. Cobb denied it this time. It looks to me like Burkett figured he could name Cobb because he thought Cobb would just, once again, refuse to answer but say that Burkett was an honest man. Burkett figured wrong. Hence, the Lucy Ramirez yarn.

When asked about the originals, Burkett told another wild tale. He said right after he got the documents, he took them to a Kinkos, made copies, and burned the originals in the parking lot, so that they couldn't be trace. How could they be traced if Burkett didn't even know who he got them from? (See USA Today Story)

Since its well established that Burkett doesn't have any credible story about where he got the memos, I conclude that he didn't get them from anybody. Hence, Burkett forged the memos.

[Catch22Dem]

20. The Air Force and Guard use the word "billet"

I was active duty for 8 years. Used it all the time.

[Chili]

27. I'm glad you said that...

...because in one of the Knox interviews, she said "billet" wasn't a word used in the ANG. Her memory and certainty about events was impressive, and I believe her completely - but I thought this comment was stretching it, saying 32 years later that the word "billet" wouldn't be used. Ever? LOL... thank you.

[Catch22Dem]

31. Thanks

Not exactly a stirring revalation though. I mean, go to any ANG or AF base and the first thing you'll see is a sign pointing you to the "Billeting Office"

[John_H]

21. OMG!!! He used the words from the memos?

You got him dead to rights, dude. Oh shit! You got me dead to rights. I have used those words in posts within the last week. Fuck, I wrote the memos!!

Ok maybe I read the memos and used words in my internet posts. Whew. maybe I didn't write the memos; maybe I just read them. I cant remember. But you're right: I will not use the words.....


ROGERSTONE ROGGERSTONE ROGERSTONE ROGERSTONE ROGERSTONE.

[maryallen]

34. Cobb? Conn? or Kahn?

Stange about this other guy's name:
I've read that his name was Conn and/or Kahn, and now this article says Cobb?

Very unusual ...

[girl gone mad]

39. I wouldn't put much credence..

on the fact that language from the memos appears in Burkett posts.

I often repeat words or phrases I've read in other people's posts, usually because they're fresh in my mind.

I'm not a psychologist, but I would bet this is a pretty common phenomenon. I've seen it happen in television interviews and in regular conversation.

I do agree that Burkett's actions are unusual. I can't imagine that I would have burned the memos. On the other hand, he could have just said he was given copies rather than make up such a bizarre story.

[Chili]

26. excuse me a second...

...you keep saying "There is overwhelming evidence Burkett forged the memos. Insiders know this." What overwhelming evidence? There is no evidence that the documents are forged or fake other than the right-wing saying so. It has not been proven that they were typed on a keyboard and printed from Word (and in fact I tried doing this, and copying and copying, and couldn't get it to look like the memos). I'm not arguing this point strongly, because we don't know what happened. But since we don't know - and "insiders" can't know either, unless they're Burkett confidantes, which DNC members apparently are not - then you can't categorically label the documents as forgeries.

[creeksneakers2]

14. They want to keep this story alive

So they can smear Lockhart, Cleland, and maybe Kerry. They also don't mind trying to destroy Dan Rather and CBS News. The RWs did everything they could do today to keep this story alive.

Its a big distraction from losing the war in Iraq.

Bombarding the media with E-mails will just show them that there is a lot of interest in the story.

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. Of course there is a lot of interest in this story

because it's going to lead straight to Rove.

Funny, anytime anyone tries to talk me out of discussing something, just makes want to scream even louder.

[deckerd]

29. I don't think you OR the anti-Stone people have it right

DUers, Dem operatives, and other Internet bloggers are the ONLY people who should be looking into this. And they should continue until they find a connection to Stone.

That includes ruling out malice on the part of Burkett (trying to blame a known Republican operative for your own f*ckups -- which would be just pathetic).

Easiest way to do that is simple detective work: talk to Burkett directly, Dem-on-Dem, and ask him leading questions (the man is a hostile witness) to determine if he genuinely, in private, wants to protect his source.

Don't deal with Van Os -- except to arrange a phone interview or e-mail exchange w/ Burkett.

If Burkett's eager to give up his source to a fellow Dem, and says we should look into it, in private, that probably means Burkett is lying about "Lisa Ramirez" in an effort to distract from a Dem culprit.

If so, then cut him loose, since he burned the originals and is simply trying to cover for himself, Marty Heldt, Van Os, or else some mysterious whistleblower who can't prove the docs are legit -- since Burkett -burned- them. If so, end of story -- forget about Stone.

If NOT, if you've spoken to Burkett and he genuinely feels he is protecting a woman named Lisa Ramirez, it's probably a GOP plant.

Next step is convincing Burkett that "Lisa Ramirez" is NOT some kind of persecuted Deep Throat. You'll need to get a copy of Burkett's phone records from Burkett himself in order to prove ANY CONNECTION to Stone (ATTN Skinner!!)

Which means that SOMEONE HERE or on the blogs must contact Burkett, presumably thru his lawyer (Van Os) -- and approach him as a bona-fide Dem activist, WITH CREDENTIALS, who wants to get to the bottom of this, and promises not to release ANY information to DU OR the media UNLESS it corroborates your investigation (of Stone). Otherwise it is useless information anyhow, and shouldn't be disseminated. Make sense?

A limited number of people here or other blogs have the skills and street credentials needed to approach Burkett directly, discuss the matter with him, and get to the bottom of this as an independent investigator. Walt might be able to; certain blog moderators might be able to... anyone who's not a pure armchair blogger who has credibility.

Unsupported innuendo about Stone, with no connection to the CBS story that meets any kind of journalistic standards, should not be disseminated here or in the media. It alerts Stone to your suspicions if true, permitting him to cover his tracks while you wait in vain for the media to prove a connection exists; meantime, it will simply keep the forgery story going, without proving that the KERRY camp didn't do it!

(given that assumption is fresh in the minds of most DEMOCRATS I talk to as a "more convincing" explanation to the layman, than unsupported allegations of GOP dirty tricks.)

If one of y'all can allege a real connection to Stone via this Lisa Ramirez, that's a different story. Start by talking to Burkett and
doing some real leg work.

Blast faxing this story back to the media, when you don't yet know
where it's leading, is wrong, and detracts from the Kerry campaign.

Walt Starr investigated the medal thing publically, in an ongoing
fashion -- unnecessary; and, the one benefit he got out of making
the investigation public was catching Bush in a lie about where
the medal came from. However, Walt was too honorable to use this
statement against * so it died. Had the ribbon investigation remained
private until all the facts were in, everyone else would have been
spared alot of teeth-gnashing over it. Same thing applies to here.

The most well-connected people on these blog need to look into this --
PRIVATELY, ASAP -- before Stone starts covering tracks and see if some kind of connection can be established. Blast-faxing is not the way to go, doing some detective work is what needs to be done by someone with discretion.

Investigate PRIVATELY, amongst the bloggers and interview this guy Burkett Dem on Dem, if necessary. Don't go out and do a campaign on Stone FIRST and then find out nobody supports the story and have it bounce back to Burkett and hurt Kerry.

OK? Please?

[deckerd]

37. I take it back. Let Burkett learn he's been decieved thru the media

by Lucy Ramirez of Houston, TX or was that Florida??

Now that DNC has come out in front of the story (BALLSY!) we just KNOW that they were counting on a firestorm of yellow journalism thanks to Stone's checkered history and sex scandal. We don't need anyone from Texas any more. All that matters now is the ultimate source, and the RNC / Stone just walked into a trap thanks to the DNC's bold move! They expected DNC to do this in response to the original story -- instead they waited -- catlike!

I am impressed.

If Burkett hears enough about this, he can come to his senses and corroborate with VERIFIABLE phone records from BellSouth (or whoever).
But it's hardly necessary now.

Thanks to DNC press release and telling response by GOP, the story
is now that "we all know" that the Dems know, that the Pubs know, that it's Stone! And screw Ryan, there's enough dirt on Stone to turn this into the next Laci Peterson trial.

If GOP responds by trying to drag issue back to CBS and their unreliable source, all DNC has to say is:

"DO YOU REALLY THINK we'd be having this conversation if these documents were not forged in a misguided, poorly thought attempt to whitewash the President's Guard records??"

Hell, most Americans don't know what the Docs SAY!!! Think of it:

"BUSH AIDE FALSIFIED ALLEGED BUSH GUARD MEMOS"

We have met the other shoe, folks.... and it has a STONE in it.

[sendero]

24. Once again...

.... Dems are supposed to be concerned with "proof" and the "evidence". Where the fuck do these ideas come from? How has Bush* managed to avoid the "proof" and the "evidence" for so long and do just fine thank you?

We don't need "proof" and we don't need "evidence". What we need is for talking heads on TV to mention ad infinitum that we "think" Stone is involved.

Wake up people.

[deckerd]

30. I said the same to Walt Starr, but this is different.

In this case there is a real way the unsuipported allegations could
bounce back and hurt Kerry UNLESS you start by coming up with some
MINIMAL connection between Stone and Burkett.

Simply saying Stone must have been the culprit "because it would be soo juicy if true" will result in, AT BEST, RW talking heads in the media declaring that this is a desperation move by Kerry operatives who are trying to cover up an "obvious" Democratic forgery. That just keeps the forgery story alive without proving anything, distracts from Iraq and makes Kerry look bad and makes you look like some kind of defense lawyer crafting an alibi for Burkett! Bad, bad move.

Come up with a plausible connection between Burkett <--> Stone first.

At minimum, investigate privately until you prove Burkett's source was NOT a Democrat or Dim wingnut like Marty Heldt.

THEN distract the media with tabloid allegations about Stone's sex life.

Otherwise you're in for a world of hurt even if the allegations are true. Don't think Rove's not reading this right now, fer heavens' sake!

[deckerd]

36. Hmm, on second thought...

I posted this before the McAuliffe press release.

I wasn't counting on the DNC to get out in front of the investigation -- this may force the media to assume Stone as the primary suspect, given the sex angle as a big ratings prize for the first one to get the story.

WHOOSH. What a breath of fresh air.

Well, we know it wasn't Burkett or some similar contra-Bush nutcase, thank God.

And even if we don't know, the MEDIA "knows" because they are cynical,
and would never attribute this Ballsy move by the DNC unless they had
the goods.

I bet the DNC are bluffing. Smart move! And Repubs fell for it. Now we KNOW Stone is the source. Woo-hoo!

So it looks like a private Internet investigation of ties between Burkett and Stone aren't necessary. In fact we may be able to take a quantum leap into Florida by focusing on Stone and the very same "Lucy Ramirez" (was it not?) that leaked planted info to the Gore camp 4 years ago!! If so, Go from Gore and let Burkett simply corroborate the combinnation dirty tricks / vote mob / sex scandal that is Stone.

B.B. is a minor figure, a patsy in the TANG-gate.

[deckerd]

25. What a silly statement

First of all, if the documents were NOT a GOP plant, then the evidence points to them being real.

If that is the case, it doesn't matter because we will never know since
(a) Burkett, an incompetent asshole and a mentally disabled patsy, burned the originals and (b) Dem activists are by and large too credulous, incapable of thinking like their cynical opponents and accepting the media line wholeheartedly that the docs were fake simply because of association w/Burkett, who "lied to CBS" (most people I've talked to, think he lied about them being REAL -- as if he'd have known one way or another -- and has since admitted they were fake). All credulous would-be whistleblowers and tinfoil hat-types who think everything in the media is a Rove plant. With friends like these...

Second of all, given that the docs were not MS Word docs, there's no chance Burkett would have had the skills to forge them.

Third and last, this sort of paranoia and credulity is exactly what makes it easy for RW infiltrators and disruptors to do their thing by using the enemies' weakness (in this case, close-lipped paranoia) against them.

What I want to know is, when did Burkett reveal his source?

This isn't outdated info from 6 months ago, is it? Why not just have a Dem activist call this guy to calm him down to get him to think rationally and stop assuming this woman is some kind of persecuted Deep Throat? I have plenty of activist friends who let their paranoia talk them into apathy and counterproductive actions similar to Burkett.

On Edit: To clarify, I think there's a better than good chance the docs were forged -- on a typewriter or possibly Photoshop to look like a typewriter -- by the GOP. But saying so and feeling good about knowing doesn't make it true... Nor thinking we shouldn't investigate because the RW somehow "got their bases covered and the whole things a trap." That's bullshit. We need to PROVE something first, however, or we're just broadcasting to the perpetrator/source of these documents that we're onto them, which will cause them to cover their tracks eventually.

I recommend that the DU Moderator stop educating us about Stone's
misdeeds in hopes that the MEDIA prove a connection at some future date -- after Stone's covered his tracks --

And start proving a connection or ask someone like Walt to look into it
in hopes that IF there is a connection, then the MEDIA will fill in the
gory, sensationalistic backstory that is irrelevant to proving that the
connection to Stone exists!!!

[DavidDvorkin]

7. We don't know that they're forged

[deckerd]

32. That doesn't matter now

I live in a VERY liberal municipality - one of the most liberal in the
country. Nobody I know except me thinks the docs could have been made
on a typewriter.

What matters is the source.

Someone on DU or some Democratic activist, needs to PRIVATELY ASCERTAIN the source, before the RW media gets there first, IN CASE:

1. The docs are real and the source has the originals.

2. The docs are fake and the source was someone other than Burkett,
some wingnut like Heldt or Van Os which would reflect poorly on
Kerry campaign.

3. The docs were forged by Stone, who is busy covering his tracks
(Lisa Ramirez) while we sit around and argue.

In any of these events, it would be good if a DUer found out first.

In any event, I don't think this will be solved by standing on a
DU soapbox and telling the whole world where we THINK the memos came from.

[deckerd]

38. My above post is moot now that DNC has come out against Stone.

This proves that SOMEBODY has the goods on the GOP.

DNC's actual statement was more of a bluff, but GOP response to bluff
proves it, I think.

That means we no longer have to worry about another generation of possibly elderly or unstable witnesses to the originals having to discuss whether or not some disgruntled Texan forged them.

Thanks to quick, dare I say Buckeaded response to the Stone story by the DNC, we now have proof of one of two things:

1. They are real, possibly falsified, and Rove is the source.
He gave them to Stone who gave them to "Ramirez" who gave
them to Burkett, the designated patsy.

2. They are complete forgeries created by Stone at Rove's behest.

If number 1 is true, you have the smoking gun because Stone
would have no other way of knowing what the original memos said.

[Mr_Spock]

10. Deb Whoreville is a friggin freeper from what I've seen of her useless ass

We need more evidence of the connection anyway - where did the rumor start and who is that Cuban chick Lucy Ramirez (or whatever her name is). We need an investigator full time on this.

[librechik]

11. Olberman had the Roger Stone story

no Enquirer pix tho

[spanone]

12. Of Course They Are.

[dmr]

15. Norville wants CBS viewers to come to her show!

:puke:

For all those honest discussions ...

:puke:

I sent CBS an email earlier today letting them know I am supportive, and still believe they are a credible news source.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catt03]

23. As honest and ethical that we like to be

it doesn't matter at this point.

They have lied; they have misled; they have practiced character assasination since this administration came into office. If there is even a hint of a Roger Stone being involved or Rove...put it out there. Let them deny or defend.

[kimchi]

33. Let THEM deny or defend, amen to that.

I say fight fire with fire. Although I understand the concerns some have on this thread...we KNOW that playing dirty WORKS. We remember the lies told about Gore. We know the media is cowed.

I understand that we need to be smart about this. But the DNC wants to fight; so lets fight.

[deckerd]

35. There needs to be a hint first

I agree. Show me a hint first.

All it takes is enough of a connection to point the finger in the direction of Florida, so the media do not simply turn to someone and say, "the more likely explanation is DNC trying to cover for Bill Burkett" -- and resurrecting the forgery angle as part of a "vast left-wing conspiracy to discredit Bob Dole".

We don't have time to deal with that kind of shit with 6 weeks left and all the killing in Iraq.

Give the media something to go on, and the tabloid aspects of the story will follow. Some connection, some proof that Lucy Ramirez exists. What did Burkett say about her. You'll have to get someone to go all Walt Starr on this guy Burkett's ass. Cross examine him about what he remembers of this woman, get a redacted copy of his phone records with all but her number blacked out. If they are one and the same -- That number's all you need to give the media and Bush is toast. Otherwise, do not report your findings, as they'll be little more than a distraction.

Explain that to Burkett if necessary -- all you need is the woman's phone number, if it's a RW plant bush is toast; otherwise it's strictly background info. Nobody else will put it in those terms, except someone from the Democratic blogosphere, because the media wants to blame Kerry and the DNC will never talk to Burkett again.

In short. The forgery story hurts Kerry from hereon out if we keep it alive UNLESS the media thinks a RW sleazeball did it!

Which is a stretch without some plausible connection.
Remember most Americans -- most liberal Americans I know are not
predisposed to think in those terms, the ones who do, tend to be
so paranoid as to think investigation of the story is useless.

You don't need a smoking gun, but you do need smoke.