Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:51, 21 March 2006

The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate or Rathergate) involved faxed copies of unauthenticated documents that were publicized by CBS News during the 2004 US presidential campaign. The photocopied documents, obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard (TexARNG), were the basis for a 60 Minutes Wednesday segment that aired on September 8, 2004 and was presented by CBS anchor Dan Rather, who asserted the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files" and had been authenticated by document experts retained by CBS. They contained criticisms of President George W. Bush's service in the Guard during the Vietnam war of the 1970s, purportedly by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and re-opened the George W. Bush military service controversy.

CBS' claims were contested within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mainstream media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised persistent doubts about the credibility of CBS' claims, and led to a public repudiation on September 20 2004: Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question," and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

The documents have subsequently never been authenticated and are considered by many to be forgeries. No originals have been produced for examination. Several months later, a CBS-appointed independent Panel detailed several serious criticisms of both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath. The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of producer Mary Mapes; several senior News executives resigned, and CBS apologized to viewers. The Panel did not specifically consider the question of whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."

Some Republicans (and others, such as conservative bloggers) claimed CBS was attempting to influence the 2004 US Presidential election and made allegations of political bias on the part of CBS staff. Some Democrats claim the document controversy was engineered to misdirect media attention and undermine legitimate criticism of Bush's service record.

Background and timeline

The memos, supposedly written in 1972 and 1973, were obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes and Michael Smith, a freelance journalist from Texas who was collaborating with Mapes, from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former Texas Air National Guard officer, although CBS did not name him as the source until other news organizations began to speculate about Burkett's role. Burkett had received publicity in 2000, after alleging and then retracting a claim that he had been transferred to Panama for refusing "to falsify personnel records of Governor Bush,", and in February of 2004, when he claimed to have knowledge of "scrubbing" of Bush's TexANG records According to the review panel, investigations by major news outlets at the time, including CBS, "revealed inconsistencies... which led to questions regarding his credibility and whether his claims could be proven." The Review panel found that despite this coverage, "no one involved in the vetting of the September 8 segment seemed to be aware of it."

Mapes and Smith made contact with Burkett in late August, and on August 24 Burkett offered to meet with them to share the documents he possessed. Emails between Smith and Mapes document their discussion of providing assistance to Burkett (financial compensation, help negotiating a book deal, security, and Burkett's request that they facilitate his contact with the John Kerry Campaign) in exchange for the documents but found no evidence that any of these proposals "contemplated in these emails was ever consummated, except for putting Burkett in touch with the Kerry campaign," which the report characterized as, "a clear violation of CBS News' standard II-I as an 'unethical newsgathering practice." During the last week of August, Mapes contacted her immediate superior, Josh Howard, who "emphatically denied giving Mapes permission to make the call." Mapes claims that Howard authorized the contact and in any case, she was in contact with the campaign several times during the period of the end of August through September 6, when she spoke with senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart regarding the progressing story. Lockhart later told the Panel that he was "wary" of contact with Mapes at this stage, because if the story were true, his involvement might undermine its credibility, and if it were false, "he did not want to be associated with it."

Two documents were provided by Burkett to Mapes on September 2 and four others on September 5, 2004. At the time he supplied the documents, Burkett told Mapes that they were copies of originals that had been obtained from Killian's personal files via Chief Warrant Officer George Conn, another former member of the TexANG (Later, Burkett changed his story more than once about his claims regarding how he supposedly came into possession of the documents). At this time, Mapes contacted Rather to keep him up to date on the progress of the story, which was being targeted to air on September 8.

Content of the memos

The documents allegedly showed that Bush disobeyed orders while in the Guard, and had undue influence exerted on his behalf to improve his record, and included the following accusations:

1. An order directing Bush to submit to a physical examination. This order was not carried out.
2. A note that Killian had grounded Bush from flying due to "failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards," and for failure to submit to the physical examination as orderd. Killian also requested that a flight inquiry board be convened, as required by regulations, to examine the reasons for Bush's loss of flight status. Independent documents confirm Bush was grounded for failure to complete a physical.
3. A note of a telephone conversation with Bush in which Bush sought to be excused from "drill." The note records that Bush said he did not have the time to attend to his National Guard duties because of his responsibilities with the Blount campaign.
4. A note (labeled "CYA" for "cover your ass") claiming that Killian was being pressured from above to give Bush better marks in his yearly evaluation than he had earned. The note attributed to Killian says that he was being asked to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

USA Today also received copies of the four documents used by CBS and two additional memos, and identified Burkett as the source for this set of documents.

CBS investigations prior to airing the segment

Mapes and her colleagues began preparing a news segment to air on the September 8 program, interviewing people who might be able to corroborate the information in the documents while also retaining four forensic document experts (Marcel J. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will, and Linda James) to assess the validity of the memos.

On September 5, CBS interviewed Robert Strong, a friend of Killian's who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office. Among other issues covered in his interview with Rather and Mapes, Strong was asked if he thought the documents were genuine. Strong had first seen the documents 20 minutes earlier and had said he had no personal knowledge of their content, but also replied, "they are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being."

On September 6 CBS interviewed General Robert "Bobby" Hodges, a former officer at the Texas Air National Guard and Killian's immediate superior at the time. Hodges declined CBS' request for an on-camera interview, and Mapes read the documents to him over the telephone. According to Mapes, Hodges agreed with CBS's assessment that the documents were real, and CBS reported Hodges stating that details read to him over the phone were "the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

According to Hodges, when Mapes read portions of the memos to him he simply stated, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt," and he claims he never confirmed the validity of the content of the documents, further asserting to the investigatory panel that he told Mapes at the time that Killian had never to his knowledge ordered anyone to take a physical and that he had never been pressured regarding Lieutenant Bush, as the documents alleged. Hodges also claims that when CBS interviewed him, he thought the memos were handwritten, not typed, and following the September 8 broadcast, when Hodges had seen the documents and heard of claims of forgery by Killian's wife and son, he was "convinced they were not authentic" and told Rather and Mapes on September 10.

Response of the document examiners

Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:

• Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.

• Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written.

• James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. Pierce also told Mapes he could not reach a conclusion about authenticity because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.

• Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies." In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.

The Segment, September 8

The segment, entitled "For The Record," aired on 60 Minutes Wednesday on September 8. A transcript is available here. After introducing the documents, Rather said, in reference to Matley,

"We consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic,"

The segment introduced Lieutenant Robert Strong's interview, describing him as a "friend of Killian" (without noting he had not worked in the same location and without mentioning he had left the TexANG prior to the dates on the memos). The segment used the sound bite of Strong saying the documents were compatible with how business was done but did not include a disclaimer that Strong was told to assume the documents were authentic.

In Rather's narration about one of the memos, he referred to pressure being applied on Bush's behalf by General Buck Staudt, and described Staudt as "the man in charge of the Texas National Guard." Staudt had retired from the guard a year and a half prior to the dates of the memos.

Interview clips with Ben Barnes, former Speaker of the Texas House, created the impression "that there was no question but that President Bush had received Barnes' help to get into the TexANG," because Barnes had made a telephone call on Bush's behalf, when Barnes himself had acknowledged that there was no proof his call was the reason, and that "sometimes a call to General Rose did not work." Barnes' disclaimer was not included in the Segment.

Initial skepticism

Within hours of the segment, the authenticity of the documents was questioned by posters on Free Republic, a conservative Internet forum, and discussion quickly spread to various weblogs in the blogosphere:

The initial skepticism appeared in the following posts on Free Republic:

"TankerKC": " not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF...Can we get a copy of those memos?" (posted 19 minutes after the CBS broadcast began)

"Buckhead": "Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts...I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively." (this response came three hours and forty minutes later)

"Buckhead," who gained Internet notoriety, would later be identified as Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney who had worked for conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation and who had helped draft the petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court for the disbarment of President Bill Clinton. These facts, along with his rapid response and specific technical complaints about the memos, would fuel speculation on the political left that the entire document controversy was preemptively engineered by Republicans to discredit a potentially legitimate source of criticism over Bush's quality of service in the Texas Air National Guard.

The following morning, several blogs including Power Line and Little Green Footballs claimed the memos were almost certainly forgeries. At 11 am on September 9, Charles Johnson at LGF produced an animated .gif file (at right) superimposing the photocopied memo on a copy he produced using the default settings of Microsoft Word, while other writers explored in detail the typographical characterstics of the memos. Within hours, the anti-Kerry weblog defeatjohnjohn had offered detailed supporting research, ultimately offering a $50,000 prize to any individual who could recreate the Killian memos using technology available at the time.

From there, the story was picked up by The Drudge Report and broke into the mainstream media, including the Associated Press and the other major news networks, as well as getting serious attention from conservative writers such as the National Review Online's Jim Geraghty, and RatherBiased.com, a blog devoted to criticizing Dan Rather for being liberally biased in his reporting. The first article questioning the documents appeared in the Washington Post on September 10.

CBS's response

CBS News initially claimed the documents were "thoroughly vetted by independent experts" and that they were "convinced of their authenticity," having acquired them from an "unimpeachable source."

• On the CBS Evening News, on September 10, Rather dismissed critics of the story, whom he described as "partisan political operatives."
• In the broadcast, Rather stated Marcel Matley "analyzed the documents for CBS News. He believes they are real," and broadcast additional excerpts from Matley's September 6 interview showing Matley's agreement that the signatures appeared to be from the same source. Rather did not report that Matley had referred to them as "poor material" that he had only opined about the signatures, or that he had specifically not authenticated the documents.
• Rather presented footage of the Strong interview, introducing it by stating Robert Strong "is standing by his judgement that the documents are real," despite Strong's lack of standing to authenticate them and his brief exposure to the documents.
• Rather concluded by stating, "If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."

In an appearance on CNN that day, Rather asserted "I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been."

On September 10, a CBS memo reiterated the company's confidence in the authenticity of the documents, which it said were "backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content" and insisted that no internal investigation would take place. A former Vice President of CBS News dismissed the allegations of bloggers, suggesting that the "checks and balances" of a professional news organization were superior to individuals sitting at their home computers "in their pajamas." In response, some conservative bloggers started to refer to themselves as Pajamahadeen.

Left-wing blogs tended to be skeptical of their criticisms. As one poster on the liberal blog Daily Kos wrote in a preface to his rebuttal of forgery arguments:

"As everyone on the planet no doubt knows by now, the hard-right of the freeper contingent ... discovered that if you used the same typeface, you could make documents that looked almost — but not exactly — like the TANG documents discovered by CBS News."

Concurrently, USA Today reported that it had also obtained copies of some of the memos and had hired independent document examiners to review them, and other news outlets began to pursue the story aggressively.

On September 11, a CBS News Segment stated that document expert Phillip Bouffard had initially expressed doubts but then reported to CBS that the documents "could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer Typewriter, available at the time,". Bouffard had been previously quoted on the blog INDC Journal as claiming there is a very high probability that the memos were fake, but the Boston Globe cited him as a "skeptic" whose "further study" caused his views to shift. Bouffard claims that further study left him "more convinced" that the memos were forgeries and that he was quoted out of context by the Boston Globe.

CBS noted that General Hodges had changed his opinion about the authenticity of the documents he had never seen, but stated "we believed General Hodges the first time we spoke with him," and "we believe the documents to be genuine."

By September 13, Rather acknowledged that "some of these questions come from people who are not active political partisans," but reaffirmed that CBS "talked to handwriting and document analysts and other experts who strongly insist the documents could have been created in the 70s, (emphasis added)," a change from his and CBS' previous position that the material was authentic.

The analysts and experts cited by Rather pointedly did not include the original four experts consulted by CBS, who had not authenticated the documents; instead, Rather presented two additional viewpoints, from Bill Glennon and Richard Katz. As a result, independent media and blog sites accused CBS of expert shopping to produce document examiners who supported CBS' minority view that the documents were genuine. Glennon, a former typewriter repairman with no specific credentials in typesetting beyond that job, was found by CBS after posting several opinionated defenses of the memos on left wing blog sites such as Daily Kos and Kevin Drum's blog hosted at Washington Monthly. However, in the actual broadcast, neither interviewee asserted that the memos were genuine; Rather ended by stating CBS "believes the documents to be authentic."

Response statement, Carr interview

By September 15, Emily Will was publicly stating she told CBS that she had doubts about both the production of the memos and the handwriting prior to the segment, and in interviews, Linda James stated that the memos were "very poor quality" and that she did not authenticate them.

In response, 60 Minutes Wednesday released a statement suggesting that Will and James had "misrepresented" their role in the authentication of the documents and had played only a small part in the process. CBS News concurrently amended their previous claim that Matley had authenticated the documents, saying instead he had only authenticated the signatures. On CNN, Matley stated he had only verified that the signatures were "from the same source," not that they were authentically Killian's: "When I saw the documents, I could not verify the documents were authentic or inauthentic. I could only verify that the signatures came from the same source," Matley said. "I could not authenticate the documents themselves. But at the same time, there was nothing to tell me that they were not authentic."

CBS located and interviewed Marian Carr Knox, who was a secretary at Ellington Air Force from 1956 to 1979, and Colonel Killian's assistant on the dates of the memos. According to Knox, she did not type the memos and the memos were not written by Killian, though she believed they reflected the truth about Lieutenant Bush. She also stated she had no first hand knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard. Referring to the disputed memos, Knox commented "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said. "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another." CBS also hired a private investigator to look into the matter after the story aired and the controversy began.

Copies of the documents were first released to the public by the White House. Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that the memos had been provided to them by CBS in the days prior to the report and that, "We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time." Some have critically suggested that this belief of authenticity by the White House could not have existed if the memos contained information they knew to be inaccurate. Others suggest that if the White House did not release what CBS gave them (documents/photocopies of unknown provenance), there would have been complaints of 'failure to disclose'.

The Washington Post reported that at least one of the documents obtained by CBS had a fax header indicating it had been faxed from a Kinko's copy center in Abilene, Texas, leading some to trace the documents back to Burkett.

It was reported that the new Killian memos were inconsistent with his endorsement of Lt Bush's May 1971 performance review, a year prior to the date on the disputed documents. Killian endorsed the rating officer's evaluation of Bush, which in part described him as "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot".

CBS reported on September 9 that Killian's son, Gary Killian, questioned one of the memos but stated that others "appeared legitimate" and characterized the collection as "a mixture of truth and fiction".

CBS states that use of the documents was a mistake

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source." While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward did state

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."''

On November 9 2005, Mary Mapes gave an interview to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. Mapes stated that the documents have never been proved to be forgeries, Ross expressed the view that the responsibility is on the reporter to verify their authenticity. Mapes responded with, "I don't think that's the standard." in spite of the fact that the president of CBS News had said exactly that.

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person.

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda." The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation.

Review panel established

Soon after, CBS established a review panel "to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken." Dick Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney General, and Louis Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer and former executive editor of the Associated Press, made up the two-person review board.

Findings

On January 5, 2005 the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8 2004 60 Minutes Wednesday Segment "For the Record" Concerning President Bush's Air National Guard Service was released. (The complete report is available here.

The purpose of the panel was to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast, to examine the circumstances surrounding the subsequent public statements and news reports by CBS News defending the segment, and to make any recommendations it deemed appropriate. Among the Panel's conclusions were the following:

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment were:

1. The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;
2. The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;
3. The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;
4. The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’ s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;
5. The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files";
6. The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;
7. The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;
8. The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;
9. The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and
10. The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry—a clear conflict of interest—that created the appearance of a political bias.

Once questions were raised about the September 8 Segment, the reporting thereafter was mishandled and compounded the damage done. Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:

1. The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;
2. Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;
3. The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;
4. The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;
5. The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and
6. Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

Panel's view of the documents themselves

The Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the authenticity of the Killian documents, but consulted Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner and typewriter and typography expert who had been sought by CBS prior to the original airing but who did not begin analysis of the documents until September 9. Tytell informed Miller on September 10 that he did not think the documents were genuine.

The Panel report stated, "The Panel met with Peter Tytell, and found his analysis sound in terms of why he thought the documents were not authentic...The Panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects."

CBS response to the panel findings

CBS apologized to viewers, terminated Mary Mapes, and demanded the resignations of Senior Vice President Betsy West, who had been in charge of all prime time newscasts, 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard, and Howard's top deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. Murphy and West resigned on February 25, 2005, and after settling a legal dispute regarding his level of responsibility for the segment, Josh Howard resigned on March 25, 2005.

Authentication issues

Since CBS utilized only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards is likely to be impossible regardless of the provenance of the originals. Accordingly, no generally recognized document experts have positively authenticated the memos.

The authenticity of the documents as purported photocopies of valid originals has been challenged on a variety of grounds ranging from alleged anachronisms of their typography, their quick reproducibility using modern technology, and to supposed errors in their content and style. The CBS independent panel report did not specifically take up the question of whether the documents were forgeries, but retained a document expert, Peter Tytell, who concluded the documents used by CBS were most likely produced using modern technology. Thomas Phinney, an Adobe computer font expert and Joseph Newcomer, a computer typography pioneer and Windows typography expert agree that the documents are modern forgeries.

In contrast, Dr. David Hailey, who holds a doctorate in technical communication and is an associate professor and director of a media lab at Utah State University, has issued a report in which he argues that the Killian documents were produced on a typewriter.

For a detailed analysis of these issues, see Killian documents authenticity issues.

Was the story politically motivated?

Some critics of CBS and Dan Rather argued that by proceeding with the story when the documents had not been authenticated, CBS was exhibiting liberal bias and attempting to influence the outcome of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report found that producer Mary Mapes' contacting of Joe Lockhart was "highly inappropriate," and that it, "crossed the line as, at a minimum, it gave the appearance of a political bias and could have been perceived as a news organizations' assisting a campaign as opposed to reporting on a story." After interviewing Mapes, Rather and the other CBS staffers involved in the story, it was the view of the panel that the September 8 broadcast was not motivated by politics but, "primarily…a rush to air that overwhelmed the proper application of CBS News Standards."

Some liberals and Democratic critics of the president suggested that the memos were produced by the Bush campaign to discredit the media's reporting on Bush's National Guard service. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, suggested that the memos might have originated with long-time Bush strategist, Karl Rove. He told reporters on September 10, "I can tell you that nobody at the Democratic National Committee or groups associated with us were involved in any way with these documents," he said. "I'm just saying that I would ask Karl Rove the same question." Two weeks later, McAuliffe suggested that GOP consultant Roger Stone and Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie were involved, saying in a press release, "Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone's relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stone's involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?" At a community forum in Utica, New York in 2005, US representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) repeated the claim that the bogus documents originated with Karl Rove, saying "They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger…once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush's draft dodging." No proof was ever offered that the memos originated with the Bush campaign and Rove and Stone have denied any involvement.

External links

PDF copies of the CBS Killian documents

The CBS News Killian documents:

• Memorandum, May 4, 1972
• Memo to File, May 19, 1972
• Memorandum For Record, August 1, 1972
• Memo to File, August 18, 1973

The USA Today Killian documents (in .pdf format):

• USA Today Killian documents (six memos in one pdf file)

The Thornburgh-Boccardi Report

• "The Complete Independent Panel Report on CBS News" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-18. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
• "Exhibits and Appendices for report". Retrieved 2006-03-18.

News items

• "60 Minutes Documents on Bush Might Be Fake" CNSNews.com – September 09, 2004
• "Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service" ABC News – September 9, 2004
• "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush" Washington Post – September 10, 2004
• "Guard Memos Fuel Another Vietnam-Era Battle" Los Angeles Times – September 10, 2004
• "False Documentation? Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service" ABC News – September 10, 2004
• "Anatomy of a Forgery" American Spectator – September 10, 2004
• "FOX Interviews Commander's Son" FOX News – September 10, 2004
• "Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush" Washington Post – September 11, 2004
• "Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story" Los Angeles Times – September 11, 2004
• "More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic" The Seattle Times – September 11, 2004
• "Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation" The American Thinker – September 11, 2004
• "Gaps in Service Continue to Dog Bush" Washington Post – September 12, 2004
• "The X Files Of Lt. Bush: A flurry of contested memos and memories sheds more heat than light on his record" Time – September 13, 2004
• "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers" Washington Post – September 14, 2004
• Washington Post: A Pentagon memo next to one of CBS's Killian memo – September 14, 2004
• "Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags'" Washington Post – Wednesday, September 15, 2004
• "Ex-Guard Typist Recalls Memos Criticizing Bush" Los Angeles Times – September 15, 2004
• "Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says' NY Times – September 15, 2004
• "CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's" Washington Post – September 16, 2004
• "Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect" Washington Post – September 16, 2004
• "'Buckhead', who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney" Seattle Times – September 17, 2004
• The Paper Trail: A Comparison of Documents by The Washington Post print edition, September 18, 2004
• "In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries" Washington Post – September 19, 2004
• Graphic comparison of all the CBS memos with officially released Killian memos Washington Post – September 19, 2004
• "CBS Says It Can't Vouch for Bush Documents" – New York Times – September 20, 2004
• "Scoops and skepticism: How the story unfolded" – timeline from USA Today – September 21, 2004

Blog and other links

• Blog-gate Columbia Journalism Review
• Viacom press release with official CBS statement in response
• and The original blog posts which called attention to the integrity of the documents.
• Original overlay created by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, and "print to file" version of the same experiment
• Typography Expert Joseph M. Newcomer's take on the memos
• RatherBiased.com, an anti-Rather site which has been calling the anchorman liberally biased
• Powerline, one of the main blogs charging CBS with fraud – This site is referenced by several news outlets
• National Review Online's The Kerry Spot by Jim Geraghty (which linked to RatherBiased, Powerline, and LGF)
• "A Compendium of the Evidence" lists the various suspicious elements of the memos.
• Democratic National Committee "Action Alert" E-mail
• Raergate.com Anti-authenticity site
• Kos blog disputing forgery arguments
• Amygdala blog disputing claims memos could not be from 1970s
• So what IS the deal with those darn CBS Memos? A detailed analysis supporting authenticity.
• Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power, by Mary Mapes, November 2005, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 031235195X
• Mary Mapes – website for her book, including a documents section
• Transcript of online Q&A with Mary Mapes, November 11, 2005, by washingtonpost.com

Footnotes

1. ^ "Dan Rather Statement On Memos". CBS News. September 20, 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
2. ^ "CBS Names Memo Probe Panel". CBS News. September 22, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
3. "Thornburgh-Boccardi report" (PDF). CBS News. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
4. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 53.
5. Bill Burkett (March 19, 2003). "What do you say?". Online Journal. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
6. Michael Rezendesz (February 13, 2004). "Doubts raised about Bush's accuser". Boston Globe online. Retrieved 2005-12-20.
7. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 51.
8. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p. 52
9. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 60-62
10. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 64-65
11. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 90-91
12. "Memorandum, May 4, 1972" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-17.
13. "Memorandum for Record, August 1, 1972" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-17.
14. "Part 5 of Bush records released under Freedom of Information Act" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-17.
15. "Memo to File, May 19, 1972" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-17.
16. "Memo to File, August 18, 1973" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-17.
17. "Bush documents obtained by USA TODAY" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-17.
18. Dave Moniz, Kevin Johnson and Jim Drinkard (September 21, 2004). "CBS backs off Guard story". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2005-12-20.
19. "Bush Guard Memos Questioned". CBS News, Associated Press. September 10, 2004. Retrieved 2005-12-20.
20. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, p.88
21. Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen (September 09, 2004). "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush". Washington Post. Retrieved 2004-12-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
22. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg 103
23. Ralph Blumenthal and Jim Rutenberg (September 12, 2004). "An Ex-Officer Now Believes Guard Memo Isn't Genuine". New York Times. Retrieved 2005-12-20. Registration required.
24. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg 12
25. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp 84-86
26. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp 98-99
27. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg 101
28. "CBS 60 Minutes Wednesday transcript" (PDF). Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, Exhibit 1B. September 8, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
29. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pp. 128–129
30. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg. 130
31. "Live Thread: Ben Barnes and CBS Attempt Another Bush Smear (60 Minutes)". Free Republic. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
32. "Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [post 47]". Free Republic. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
33. "Nation & World: "Buckhead," who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
34. "Bush Guard Documents: Forged". Little Green Footballs (blog). Retrieved 2006-03-20.
35. "September 2004 Archives". Powerline (blog). Retrieved 2006-03-20.
36. "The Smoking Memo". Little Green Footballs (blog). Retrieved 2006-03-20.
37. "The fight continues". Defeatjohnjohn.com (blog). Retrieved 2006-03-20.
38. Jim Geraghty (September 10, 2004). "The Kerry Spot". National Review Online. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
39. "Was Rather Duped by Anti-Bush Hoax?". Ratherbiased.com (blog). September 9, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
40. "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush". The Washington Post. September 10, 2004. p. A01. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
41. ^ "CBS Evening News Transcript" (PDF). CBS News. September 10, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
42. ^ "A Look Back At The Controversy". CBS News. January 11, 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
43. "TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong". Daily Kos (blog). September 10, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
44. Newspapers that carried stories questioning the documents' authenticity on September 10 or 11 included The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Daily News (New York).
45. ^ "CBS Evening News Transcript" (PDF). CBS News. September 11, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
46. "Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake?". INDC Journal (blog). September 9. Retrieved 2006-03-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
47. "Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos / Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
48. "HOT UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe!". INDC Journal (blog). September 11, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
49. ^ "CBS Evening News Transcript" (PDF). CBS News. September 13, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
50. Kevin Drum (September 10, 2004). "Killian Memo Update". Washington Monthly. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
51. ^ "CBS' experts say they didn't authenticate Bush memos". CNN. September 15, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
52. ^ "CBS News affirms its intention to continue to report all aspects of the story" (PDF). CBS News. September 15, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
53. "CBS Defends Bush Memos". CBS News. September 15, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
54. Robert Crowe and Julie Mason (September 15, 2004). "Ex-staffer: Bush records are fake; Secretary to military officer says she never typed the memos". The Houston Chronicle. p. A7.
55. "CBS News' Boss Hired Private Eye To Source Memos". The New York Observer. February 28, 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-20. $Registration required.
56. "CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's". The Washington Post. September 15, 2004. p. A06. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
57. "Jerry B. Killian's May, 1971 performance evaluation of George W. Bush" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-20.
58. "New Scrutiny Of Bush's Service". CBS News. September 9, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
59. "CBS Statement On Bush Memos". CBS News. September 20, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
60. "CBS News Statement On Panel". CBS News. September 22, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
61. Thornburgh-Boccardi report, pg. 175
62. Jacques Steinberg (February 26, 2005). "2 Involved in Flawed Report at CBS Resign". The New York Times. p. B18.
63. "Final Figure in '60 Minutes' Scandal Resigns". The Associated Press. March 25, 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
64. "Thornburg-Boccardi Report, Appendix 4" (PDF). CBS News. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
65. "The Digital Dish: Making Headlines, Not Setting Them". Creativepro.com. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
66. Joseph Newcomer. "The "Bush Guard" Documents Forgeries". Retrieved 2006-03-20.
67. David Hailey, PhD. "The Second of Two Examinations of the "Killian Memos"". Retrieved 2006-03-20.
68. Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, pp 27 and 221
69. Noelle Straub (September 11, 2004). "CBS; Guard memos are authentic; Dems rip Bush's service". The Boston Herald. p. 10.
70. Robert Sam Anson (September 20, 2004). "Who Is Buckhead? Kerry Assaulter Seemed Prepped". New York Observer. p. 1. via Lexis/Nexis
71. Matthew Continetti (October 4, 2004). "The Case of the Phony Memos". The Weekly Standard. via Lexis/Nexis
72. Stephen Dinan and Bill Sammon (September 22, 2004). "Kerry camp rejects CBS link". The Washington Times. p. A01. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
73. "Opinon Journal Best of the Web". February 23, 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
74. "Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) claims Rove planted TANG docs". Daily Kos. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
75. "Rove rejects charges he was CBS source". The Washington Times. September 22, 2004. Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
76. "Parties lob accusations over suspect papers". USA Today. September 21, 2004. Retrieved 2005-12-21.

See also

• George W. Bush military service controversy
• Questioned document examination
• Dan Rather

• United States presidential election, 2004
• Controversies