Vodkapundit - That's Gotta Hurt

That's Gotta Hurt

Posted by Stephen Green · 13 September 2004

From Tuesday's WaPo:

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

With that strong a lead-in, you might expect the story to taper off. Instead, writers Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz land hammer blow after hammer blow on CBS's, Dan Rather's, and the forged memo's credibility.

Meanwhile, the talk on left-leaning sites continues to boggle the mind.

Kevin Drum hasn't said anything since Sunday, in a post best summarized by Kevin himself: "I really don't know what it all means."

All Atrios had to say today on the matter was that CBS shouldn't have to reveal their sources. Actually, he didn't even say that much, he just posted a transcript from CNN's Capital Gang.

Kos just keeps hitting the "Bush Was AWOL" theme, even though nobody seems to care. Other than that, there was nothing there I could find since at least Sunday morning.

So -- where are the conspiracy theories, guys? Where are the "Rove did it to make Kerry look bad" memes?

I'll tell you where they are. The same place they want the whole forgery story: Down the memory hole, as quickly as possible. They don't want to know who slipped Dan the memos, because it was probably someone from Team Kerry, or at least a Kerry partisan.

But let's pretend it was Karl Rove or one of his Evil Minions who pulled a fast one on Rather & Co. Anyone who would fall for such a blatant ploy so easily, so readily, and with such unwarranted confidence, deserves to get egg on their face. And not just egg, but a Denver Omelette with a big splash of hot salsa.

Caveat emptor, suckers.

Comments

Now that we've established that the documents are fake, has there been an actionable crime committed here?

Can we make a case for anything civil or criminal, that can be filed against CBS?

I guess Bush would be the only injured party. Could Bush file a slander suit against CBS, and if so, could he hire that nice John Edwards boy to get his money for him?

Also, is anybody watching Viacom stock? When Rather resigns, Viacom's gonna crash harder than a NASA space probe.

I can't wait.

Posted by: Michael Duff at September 13, 2004 11:59 PM

The other possibility is a suit from Killian's family. If the memos are authentic (fat chance), then there are copyright issues for supposedly private documents. OTOH, if they are forgeries (why am I even saying "if"), then there may be slander or defamation of character issues - after all, CBS is maintaining Killian kept private memos in violation of military practice, and the CYA memo is an admission of falsifying records under pressure.

Posted by: jd watson at September 14, 2004 02:10 AM

I suspect Bush has no intention of bringing himself down to the level of CBS. Watch for him above the water, surfing to an electoral victory while Dan Rather tries to take the entire CBS ship down with him . . .

Not sure my grand metaphor worked. But you get the idea.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 14, 2004 03:12 AM

Hmmm...is knowingly using a forged document to commit slander a criminal offense?

I use the word "knowingly" since it isn't hard to tell, both in type and form, that it's bogus.

Posted by: Tom at September 14, 2004 03:45 AM

Duff, if Rather leaves the stock should go up.

Posted by: aaron at September 14, 2004 03:49 AM

Regarding slander or crime, Eugene Volohk (under Gin & Tonic section) has answered with a no.

What's interesting is that in Yahoo's News section, courtesy of AP news, this story has disappeared. Even in the Presidential election section. Same thing even switching to Reuters, or (naturally) AFP. Only way to hear about this story is under the USA Today selection.

Posted by: Robert at September 14, 2004 07:28 AM

Can we all agree that if Karl Rove is as brilliant and devious as the Democrats all think he is, he really ought to be more involved in making policy? I mean, if the man can get Dan Rather to defend forged documents, think what he could do with paranoid mullahs and dictators ("Dear Leader, I have here documentary proof that the Chinese are planning to invade . . . ").

Posted by: Crank at September 14, 2004 09:14 AM

Can we all agree that if Karl Rove is as brilliant and devious as the Democrats all think he is, he really ought to be more involved in making policy?

Head of CIA, IMO, or maybe that Intel Czar the 9/11 commission thinks would be a good thing.

Even if Rove isn't behind it, IMO people who would fall for such a thing have no business being anywhere near the White House.

Posted by: rosignol at September 14, 2004 11:56 AM

Law in Texas is that a cause of action for defamation of character does not survive the life of the defamed person. So, spouse and son cannot maintain suit on Killian's behalf.

Posted by: Redman at September 14, 2004 12:16 PM

All these years Rather needed someone behind him in the chariot saying, "remember, thou art not a god!"

Posted by: MartiniPundit at September 14, 2004 02:30 PM