Home
Burkett: Lockhart wanted Documents

Burkett: Lockhart wanted Documents

September 23, 2004 Politics 10 Comments

This is interesting:

CONTROVERSIAL TEXAS RANCHER SAYS LOCKHART WANTED DOCUMENTS // The source of a disputed CBSNEWS report claimed Thursday that Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart tried to “convince me as to why I should give them the documents.” Texas Army National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett tells the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM that he has suffered four seizures since being identified as CBS’ source and dogged by the media… Developing…

Now we all know CBS will report on this tomorrow… This source is “unimpeachable.” Right? Right?

I guess CBS is going to say he is unimpeachable when he bashes Bush but not when it looks bad for the Kerry camp. But you understand there is no bias at CBS. Nope… None. Nana. Zilch. Zero. Wouldn’t think of it. We do news here… we’re not like those bloggers.

Very Odd Update Below Fold

]]>< ![CDATA[

And before any of you kool-aid drinking liberals say that Rather NOW knows he is indeed impeachable, just remember, Rather is on the record as saying that he still thinks the docs legit and the source only lied about one thing. If he’s still credible when he bashs Bush then he’s credible when it works against Kerry.

If anything, Burkett has MORE credibility here because he is going against the long held axe he had to grind with Bush.

Odd Update I don’t know what to make of this.

If you read the story, (written by Jack Douglas Jr.)
in the Star Telegram you won’t see any mention of it….

BUT if you go to the Mercury News you see the damning quote in a story written by the same guy and picked up in the Knight Ridder wire. Why would the guy write a longer, much better story for the wire than for his home paper??? Odd.

He said, however, that during the meeting in which he gave the memos to CBS, he was also told by a producer that his phone number would be passed on to Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart.

“I was absolutely and clearly told that that was as far as anyone could go without crossing the line of (journalistic) ethics,” Burkett said.

During a single phone conversation with Lockhart, Burkett said he suggested a “couple of concepts on what I thought (Kerry) had to do” to beat Bush. In return, he said, Lockhart tried to “convince me as to why I should give them the documents.”

The only logical explaination is that he is writing another, longer, version for his paper… but if that were the case, why not run the wire version on the website until you finish your masterpiece… odd.

UPDATE 2: There was, in the end, a second possible explaination. The Merc News retracted their version.

T.V News website tells kids how to make a bomb
The 10 Spot - Comeback Edition

Related Posts

About The Author

Paul

10 Comments

  1. The Zero Boss September 23, 2004

    Dude, he has NO credibility whatsoever. All that’s changed are his goals. Previously, he lied to bring down Bush; now, he may well be lying either to save his reputation or to ensure that, if he goes down, the DNC’s going with him.

    It may be true, of course – but you’ll need to corroborate that via someone (or something) other than Burkett.

  2. Blacknimbus September 23, 2004

    CBS has yet to retract the story or burn their source…Burkett. So they are stuck…they say he’s a good source, but now the good source says Lockhart is a liar and wanted the docs. Do they keep the source and the story or save Lockhart?

    Excellent

  3. Joe R. September 23, 2004

    Yeah, I don’t believe a word out of Burkett’s mouth at this point. Why would Lockhart pressure Burkett to give the DNC the docs instead of CBS? The story looks more legit to the public if it came from CBS instead of DNC (talking from a pre-scandal perspective, of course).

    Lockhart probably wanted copies, and might have gotten them, but I doubt he tried to keep them away from CBS.

  4. Dan September 24, 2004

    It just so happens that I have a contemporaneously written memo from Burkett, with superscript, supporting his allegation against Lockhart. He faxed it to me over a week ago.

    There can be absolutely no doubt of the authenticity of this story.

    I have only one word for Lockhart. Courage!

  5. Vik Rubenfeld September 24, 2004

    It could be that the Star Telegram editor cut those paragraphs.

  6. Mark September 24, 2004

    The reporter could have sketched out a short version late to fill a limited column space and then rewrote the full article to send to the wire after they went to press. That isn’t unusual, there is limited space for late-breaking news and limited time to cram it in before printing.

  7. KBiel September 24, 2004

    Um…Let’s just say that the Dallas Morning News is the closest thing we have to a non-liberal rag around these parts.

  8. detrik September 24, 2004

    They might have got by with this before the internet.
    If it wasnt for the greed of ratings they might have done the job right…
    people on the internet just want the correct information..First CNN woke the networks up back in 1991 with the gulf war…now the INTERNET is watching…EXCELLENT…

  9. Bill K September 25, 2004

    This is wrong, the paper retracted this story. When Burkett said “they tried to convince me…” he meant CBS and he did not talk to Lockhart about the Killian Memos.

    Check Olbermann’s transcript from tonight when it comes out: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

  10. Bill K September 25, 2004

    Actually, here you go:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/9743932.htm?1c

    “In a story about Bill Burkett, the source of CBS’s discredited report on President Bush’s National Guard service, Knight Ridder Newspapers incorrectly reported that he had discussed the documents with Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign. In fact, Burkett was referring to conversations with CBS when he told Knight Ridder Newspapers, “They tried to convince me as to why I should give them the documents.”

    There is the actual retraction