Media Mug Bill Burkett
By Mike Hersh, Oct 5, 2004

Evidence shows George W. Bush used family ties to get into the National Guard ahead of hundreds of people on a waiting list. Bush also insisted on and received special treatment while he was in the guard - and while he was AWOL from the Guard. Yes, there's evidence Bush was "not observed" by superior officers for months at a time. He was absent without leave.

One of Bush's superior officers was Lt. Colonel Killian, and Killian's former secretary Ms. Knox said, "the content [of the CBS documents which refer to Bush demanding and getting special treatment] is absolutely accurate." There's also clear confirmation Bush refused direct orders to take a medical exam which included a drug test, and he lost his pilot's wings after costing the taxpayers $100,000s to train him. An honest, reliable eye-witness tells us operatives "scrubbed" Bush's files before his 2000 run for the White House to hide these embarrassing facts.

There's evidence that people working for Bush "purged" his files to cover up as much of this information as they could. All this adds up to a Woodward-Bernstein career-making scoop. This is Watergate-level scandal: crime and cover up. Smoking guns all over the place. So why won't the media report on these known facts about Bush's refusal to serve honorably? Why have the sheep-like media commentators flogged Dan Rather, CBS, and a little-known former National Guard Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett rather than reporting on the real story? Why won't any stray from the flock to focus on the real news? Note: you can read more about this and donate money to help Bill Burkett withstand the vicious White House-led backlash at http://www.billburkett.us/blog.

Most in the media now claim Bush served honorably, even though the facts show he did not. The "so called liberal media" have ruled this case closed with a verdict contradicting the record - even the record which survived the scrubbing efforts / cover-up - conducted by Bush loyalists. What happened to all the news that's fit to print - and broadcast?

A source close to the story insists the CBS memos are real. CBS hasn't authenticated them, but they are photocopies of genuine memos not forgeries, fakes or reconstitutions, says this source. If this is the case, what explains CBS rolling over? That's a mystery, but there's no doubt about concerted attacks on Bill Burkett.

Burkett's personal knowledge about the white-washing of Bush's National Guard files and the subsequent cover-up by high-level Bush staff remains largely unreported. Of course the White House hopes to prevent anyone from trying to report this, and hopes to stop people from speaking to Bill Burkett.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast www.gregpalast.com, known for meticulous reportage, concedes "Burkett gave CBS a false name to cover for the whistleblower. Burkett should not have done that. It is inexcusable. Period." However, as Palast points out, "that does not tell us the document was fabricated." He asks the real questions about this bizarre turn of events:

[William] Safire in the [New York] Times, in charging that Burkett faked the document, demanded the military open a criminal investigation. Darn right they should. They haven't. Why not? Maybe they don't want to check into this 'fake' document because maybe it's not fake. An investigation should begin with questions for [Bush such as] 'Mr. President, did you or did you not ask your commander Lt. Col. Killian how you could shirk your duty to show up?' 'Mr. President, did you or did you not refuse a direct order to take a medical exam and pee into a jar?' [and] 'Mr. President, did Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes make any calls to get you out of 'Nam and into the Air Guard? Yes or no?'

See BBC on Bush in military: www.http://www.gregpalast.com/bff-dvd.htm. Also See Burkett Interview with BBC: http://www.gregpalast.com/documents/BurkettTranscript.pdf

Despite unrelenting attacks on his credibility, Bill Burkett remains a credible eye-witness to the "scrubbing" of Bush's National Guard files, but you'd never know that from the media reports. LTC Burkett's story holds up and holds together. The vague attacks on him do not.

I've watched in disgust as the mass media keep mugging Bill Burkett. Not only have they violated every tenant of journalism by bashing a good man without a scrap of support, but they've also blown this story by ignoring the underlying facts about Bush's failure to perform his duty in the National Guard. Why is the Bush/Cheney administration so eager to destroy Bill Burkett?

Because as a Lt. Colonel in the Texas Air National Guard, Burkett knows people went through Bush's "military file in 1997 and removed any embarrassing information, and tossed documents in the trash. They were allegedly the types of documents that might help answer many of the unanswered questions surrounding Bush’s Guard service today," according to Salon.com.

So far, most in the media are helping the White House attack Bill Burkett. Chris Matthews especially, but several other uninformed (at best) pundits keep hammering away at Burkett. They present him as an unreliable source the 60 Minutes staff should have laughed off, a sort of walking journalistic scandal. When Burkett spoke with former Clinton and current Kerry media man Joe Lockhart and former Sen. Max Cleland briefly, you'd have thought this was the Chambers/Hess case all over again. People who don't know Bill Burkett or anyone who knows him follow the White House script and attack him:

"The man CBS News touted as the 'unimpeachable source' of explosive documents about President Bush's National Guard service turns out to be a former Guard officer with a history of self-described mental problems who has denounced Bush as a liar with 'demonic personality shortcomings.'"

See: Questions Surround Man Who Provided Documents- CBS's 'Unimpeachable Source' Is Ex-Guard Officer With History of Problems and of Attacking Bush - By Michael Dobbs, September 21, 2004: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36908-2004Sep20.html)

Those who know Bill Burkett regard him as a cautious and thoughtful man. His on-air attackers refuse to report that he urged CBS to authenticate the memos, something he wasn't in any position to do. Contradicting attacks which had appeared in their pages the day before, the Washington Post reported the next day describing Bill as an honest, steady and well-respected person:

"For half a dozen years, Bill Burkett has lived a pretty uneventful life in this tiny West Texas town [a]nd like other polite locals, he drops in on the local elected officials to introduce himself. He is, by most accounts, a nice man who, in an overwhelmingly Republican-voting area, might be seen as somewhat eccentric for his Democratic bias."

The Post story indicates Bill is intelligent: "'He's very bright; he's not a hayseed, said Royse Kerr, chairman of the Taylor County Democratic Club, which last spring invited Burkett to speak to the members about the 'state of politics in America.'"

Most importantly, people who know Bill know he is honest and sensible: "David Haigler, chairman of the Taylor County Democratic Party [said] 'All I know is that I trust Bill Burkett. He's been a citizen soldier who decided to stand up and say what is on his mind, and he's got nothing but grief for it.' Haigler said Burkett had received several death threats since his name surfaced as a possible source for '60 Minutes.' 'There's just a lot of crazies out here, but Bill Burkett is not one of them. And if the issue is whether Bill Burkett concocted a bunch of records, that makes me want to throw up,' Haigler said."

The Post also quoted Kerr calling "Burkett a person of integrity who, he believed, would not fabricate information. 'I describe Colonel Burkett as a person I would trust with my life or my wife,' Kerr said. 'The people that know him would pretty much agree with that assessment. He's a very devout Christian and a preacher's son.'" See: Suspected CBS Source Is Well-Regarded Texan, Washington Post, Sep 21, 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27239-2004Sep16.html.

Bush Press wrangler Scott McClellan said: "Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact, is not an unimpeachable source, as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited in the past." This is the uniformly presented refrain about Bill, stated as a "fact" without even any slight factual basis.

Media mavens claim Burkett is "partisan" - by which they mean someone not supporting Bush - as if that were the end of the story. Of course he is "partisan." Does that mean he's wrong? Isn't McClellan partisan? Is Dan Bartlett, who knows Bill Burkett is credible yet says the opposite somehow "undecided" or "unbiased?"

McClellan - who is paid by the Bush Administration to spin facts in its favor went on: "There were media reports about Mr. Burkett speaking with senior - or having senior-level contacts with the Kerry campaign. That raises questions. What were those contacts and what was discussed with Bill Burkett?"

Oddly, and entirely unreported, Burkett has no contacts in the Kerry Campaign at all, but he does have "senior-level contacts" with the Bush Administration and the Bush/Cheney Campaign! He needed help from CBS just to get a brief phone call through to Joe Lockhart, a new Kerry advisor. He's on a first name basis with several top Bushies.

Beyond his role as an eye-witness to an apparent illegal cover-up, Bill's personal knowledge of George W. Bush and several key Bush advisors informed his predictions about Iraq a few years ago. I can go into great detail, but this much is clear: the Bush Campaign is desperate to render Burkett so "radioactive" that no one will believe him or even risk being seen with him.

This because Bill understands the Bush inner circle. He knows some of them personally and very well. If the media and / or the Kerry Campaign listened to Bill, they'd know things the Bush Team wants to keep unknown. See his article: http://www.mikehersh.com/article_69.shtml and also note these predictions he made for another article dated Sep 13, 2002:

Bush will "launch the ground effort [in Iraq] after the [2002] election" to ensure voters will not see American troops coming home in body bags. Then Bush will "declare his victory and his poll numbers will rise again." Also, "Bush will have both a Republican Senate and House to work with after November. We will lose fewer than 250 Americans in the first phase, and will kill approximately 50,000 Iraqis.

The ground campaign will take less than ten days. In the aftermath, we will occupy Iraq for years or decades. Bush will inch our forces toward the border, then squeeze Iran between our forces based in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since we will carry most of the load, the US and Britain will also control the spoils of war. (http://www.mikehersh.com/article_91.shtml).

Admittedly, some of his predictions were off, but many were 100% on target months in advance. Overall he's been far more accurate than the media or the Bush Administration. Bottom line: Bill Burkett can testify to things no one else can, and he knows more about the Bush inner circle than anyone else willing to talk. He remains a threat, and they've been working to destroy his reputation for years. Now, the media are helping the White House crush him. It reminds me of Watergate, when the media missed the story and let lies covering up a criminal operation stand until after a critically important election.

What does Burkett know that the Bush White House doesn't want told?

"[Texas National Guard official George] Conn was a very trusted individual by me and I think by most people at Camp Mabry. I really trusted the guy. I relied on him. He mothered me once in a while.... George came to my desk this one day, approximately 10 days after the second occurrence [of hearing the 'Make sure there is nothing embarrassing' comment], and he came to my desk and said, 'C'mon and get your hat.'

We took a walk and ended up at the state museum, which is an old Korean War-era structure.... George and I entered the building and George and this individual who had previously received a directive from General James to assemble that paperwork. This individual was there, a General Scribner, and they [he and Conn] obviously knew each other. And they acknowledged each other and it was very friendly, very social.

I happened to be standing right next to that trash can. If I had been standing one step away from that trash can what happened would not have happened. Because I would have had to take a step [toward the trash can] and I wouldn't have done it. On the table there was some work being done. I didn't see any of those files.

We talked quickly. George said to General Scribner, and I'm paraphrasing, 'General, how's it going. What are you finding?' The general said, 'Well, over time a lot of people have gone through this thing and it's not as much as I would have thought. Most of what we have is P.R.-type stuff, like P.R. photos they use in recruiting drives. And it's just not as much as I thought.'

Then they gravitated back toward the corner office. And I was standing right next to the garbage can. I looked down in the trash can. The trash can at the bottom I could see was filled with some cardboard packing material, including the kind of nylon-type straps and maybe some bubble packing.

On top of that was a page or two of standard white, low-grade packing-type paper. And on top of that is this little, loosely thrown or tossed group of pages, standard 8-1/2-by-11-size pages and I guess what struck, what got my interest, was on the top page at the top of it was a handwritten entry in a standard form with the name 'Bush,' comma, 'George W,' comma, 'On Lt.'

That was in pen ink entry. That intrigued me. It concerned me, looking back at it, I knew initially that it bothered me that was in the trash can. It struck me pretty hard initially. The total number of pages I've estimated were between 20 and 40 pages. I did thumb through the top six or eight pages of that. And they were all standard forms that were filled out that included performance documents and payroll-type documents.

I did not go beyond the top six or eight pages. I was very troubled with my actions and my conscience grabbed hold of me. A jolt hit me very hard. Then we left there. The total of our time of stay, very informal, very friendly, was minimum five minutes, maximum eight minutes.

I know looking at it I was extremely concerned and was really bothered by what I'd seen and I needed to talk. My personal reflection was that activities were ongoing to in some way put a positive image on the governor's files, whether it existed or not."

As Salon reports, "Bill Burkett, went public with his charges in 1998. But with renewed interest in Bush's Guard service, and specifically the contents of his personal military file, Burkett's story about tampering has taken on greater urgency, and attracted national notice. 'I don’t like the attention,' he said from his home near Abilene, Texas, during an interview with Salon. 'If you think 15 minutes of fame is worth it, that's damn sure no motivation for this kind of crap,' referring to the constant press inquiries. (Burkett’s story is also detailed it in the upcoming book by James Moore, Bush's War for Re-Election.)"

See: "Bad news doesn't get better with age" - The retired officer who saw Bush National Guard files in a trash can talks back as the White House tries to discredit him, and urges the president to finally come clean. Eric Boehlert, Salon.com Feb. 14, 2004: http://tinyurl.com/62tvo.

Those working with Bush who contradicted Burkett's account could face criminal prosecution - establishing a strong motivation to deny or "forget" inconvenient facts - but they cannot get their stories to jibe. One claimed he didn't even know who Burkett was, another says he wasn't there - although others place him there at the time and place in question. The third critic contradicts sworn testimony. Here's what the record shows:

Lt. Col. Burkett's former colleague in the Texas National Guard George Conn's sworn testimony puts him with General Scribner at the time and place in distpute. However, Scribner says he wasn't even there. Conn only refutes two parts of Burkett's account: 1) that Scribner said he was going through the records and 2) that they discussed specifically that Burkett overheard the conversation between Joe Allbaugh and General James.

Allbaugh served as Chief of Staff to then-Governor George W. Bush [and] as the National Campaign Manager for Bush-Cheney 2000 with responsibility and oversight for all activities related to the Bush election campaign. He had previously served as Campaign Manager for President Bush's first run for Texas governor. (See: http://www.fema.gov/about/allbaugh/index.shtm) Why would he lead and then "forget" a purge to remove embarrassing material from his boss' files? Why wouldn't he?

Conn is on record saying, "LTC Burkett is an honorable man. He does not Lie," and also, "He calls them as he sees them." There's more. According to lawyers who took his testimony, Conn testified under oath to the Dept. of Defense Inspector General that Burkett's account was true. His sworn testimony places Burkett in the Museum with Scribner - which contradicts Scribner's tale. General Scribner tries to totally separate himself from the deal, Allbaugh tries to separate himself, James has tried to separate himself, but by denying known facts they put their stories into question. Burkett's account fits the facts.

Files and records don't just go missing, but time and again the White House tells us "oops, the dog ate the critical pages out of Bush's National Guard folders." That just doesn't pass the laugh test.

Scribner and the others have every motivation to distance themselves from the  purging of Bush's records and knowledge of what was going on. General James, Karen Hughes, Joe Allbaugh, Dan Bartlett, General Scribner all deny this story, but of course they would. They've all been caught lying to help Bush. For Hughes and Bartlett, that's their job. What is Burkett's reason to lie, risk and receive harsh retaliation, and stick with his account unless it's the plain honest truth?

From Salon.com: "Burkett says when the incident occurred in 1997 he discussed it several times with his friend and fellow officer George Conn. In 2002, Conn confirmed to USA Today that Burkett talked to him about the conversation he overheard regarding Bush's file, and did so within days of its happening. This week Conn told the New York Times via e-mail, "I know LTC Bill Burkett and served with him several years ago in the Texas Army National Guard. I believe him to be honest and forthright. He calls things like he sees them.'"

The Boston Globe reported: "Conn, now a civilian government employee [read appointed Bush official] working with the U.S. Army in Germany, denied Burkett ever told him about the conversation Burkett overheard concerning Bush's military file. Burkett dismisses Conn's new version of the story. 'The truth hasn't changed,' said Burkett. 'The only thing that has changed is George Conn's statement.'" See: "Bad news doesn't get better with age," Eric Boehlert, Salon.com Feb. 14, 2004: http://tinyurl.com/62tvo.

In this "he said / they denied" discussion of the Bush AWOL cover-up, George Conn corroborated Burkett's testimony and veracity for years, but his recent recantation under fire only underscores the Bush/Cheney campaign's desperation to make this go away. As Burkett told Salon, "You don't understand the level of pressure [Conn is] under. He has a contract position with the Department of Defense. I had an e-mail sent to him. I told him, George, I know you're underground, I know you're being beat up. You do what you have to do. I'll still respect you. And I respect him. This guy's an honorable man. I love the man. But you can't ask a man to give up his life."

Burkett explains, "From Day One this was poorly handled. And Day One to me was the early spring of '97. And I'm still disappointed in how they've handled it. There are really good people in the Bush administration and some supertalented people that I believe initially started out with great intentions to do the right thing. But I think this has been bungled from Day One and they continue to make it worse every day. [And asks, if Bush had nothing to hide] Why wouldn't you just release the whole file? Bad news doesn't get better with age." See: Salon.com Feb. 14, 2004: http://tinyurl.com/62tvo.

That's the clincher. Bush could end all the speculation immediately, but he won't. Why not just release all the records? Why the highly suspicious denials, apparent illegal record purging, brutal attacks on critics and arm twisting of witnesses and the rest of the dubious statements and actions? This is not how innocent people act.

Like Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and Joseph Wilson - and anyone else who dares to question the Bush/Cheney regime - Bill Burkett faced the right wing personal destruction machine. Like these others, attacks on Lt. Col. Burkett's reputation may obscure but cannot expunge evidence of evil doing by Bush and his operatives.

It's not the crime - going AWOL - it's the cover-up. We know Bush went AWOL in Alabama. That's well established. Now we have to learn who did what to cover that up, and act accordingly before we run smack into another Watergate - another Constitutional Crisis with another "Cancer on the Presidency." If Bush refuses to come clean, we should refuse to entrust him as Commander in Chief. Let the impeachment begin.

© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.