I confess. I did it.

by Prometheus 6
March 30, 2005 - 5:56am.
on Politics

Doubts Raised On Schiavo Memo
Web Critics Question Authenticity Of 'Talking Points' Aimed at GOP

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 30, 2005; Page C01

Bloggers are swarming around a new target: the Terri Schiavo "talking points."

Fresh from declaring victory over CBS News and its discredited National Guard memos about President Bush, some of the same bloggers are raising questions about a strategy memo, first reported by ABC News and The Washington Post, that cast the Schiavo right-to-die case as a partisan opportunity for Republicans to stick it to Democrats.

"Fake but Accurate Again?" says the Weekly Standard headline on an article by John Hinderaker, an attorney and conservative blogger who had challenged the CBS documents.

While there is no hard evidence that the memo is fake, there are several strange things about it, including the basic fact that no one seems to know who wrote it and that the noncontroversial part of it is lifted from a Republican senator's press release.

ABC and The Post say their reports on the Schiavo memo were accurate and carefully worded. The document caused a stir because it described the Schiavo controversy as "a great political issue" that would excite "the pro-life base" and be "a tough issue for Democrats," singling out Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson. Two days after the memo was reported, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a bill, signed by Bush, to transfer jurisdiction of Schiavo's case from Florida courts to the federal judiciary in an effort to restore the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube.

"There's nothing on the face of the document to identify a source -- not only is it unsigned, there's no letterhead, no nothing," Hinderaker said yesterday. "This is literally a piece of paper with stuff typed on it that could have been written by anyone."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by fullnelson on March 30, 2005 - 4:11pm.

Am I the only one getting SICK AND TIRED of Republicans/Rove trying to lie, confuse, and hide from the truth every time they get BUSTED? Yeah, they got away with it (to a great extent) with the Dan Rather flap, but this time, too? Truth is, Republicans/Rove are now having to deal with their horribly-off-the-mark miscalculation that the Schiavo case would "excite" their base. Instead of coming clean and admitting they were WRONG in politicizing a family's personal tragedy for their own political gain, Republicans/Rove are attempting to dodge responsibility by saying they've been framed by the liberal media. If their followers actually fall for this (again), they're more gullible suckers than we ever imagined.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on March 30, 2005 - 4:37pm.

That's why I'm confessing. So we can get it over with.

Submitted by dwshelf on March 30, 2005 - 4:47pm.

In the Rathergate situation, GW Bush was framed by the liberal media. It was Rather & cronies, not Republicans who managed to take the spotlight off of Bush's less than heroic military record.

We're not sure, yet, whether this is a repeat or not, but it sure has some signs of being a similar case, a case where some media person accepted flimsy evidence on wishful thinking, went live with it, and others, following the same wishful thinking, spread the story. If that happened, it is a story in its own right, and will indeed have the effect of diluting the anti-Republican feeling most people have regarding the Schiavo situation. If you don't like that, blame the media hit man, not his victim.

It just doesn't work to say "well, that's what they were thinking, so it's ok to pretend that they wrote it down, so that we can have some quotes. Heavy on the crass, please, for more fun".

Submitted by fullnelson on March 30, 2005 - 8:02pm.

I beg to differ, dwshelf! My recollection is that in the "Rathergate" situation, the very documents discovered subsequently to be fraudulent were submitted FIRST to the White House for authentication, and their content was never disputed. Rather had no reason to suspect the documents themselves were forgeries. It is entirely conceivable that the White House attempted to blunt the effect of the revelations about Bush's AWOL status (which either was never directly denied by the WH, or was responded to with "Bush completed his National Guard commitment", which is not a direct answer) by releasing FORGED COPIES of REAL DOCUMENTS. Recall that, despite several direct requests of Bush and the military, documents from Bush's military records were released periodically, each time assuring the public that all records had been released. Bush knew the truth, but never bothered to admit what Rather told the world was true.

The mainstream media, which practically IGNORED the TRUTH of Rather's documents, will likely ignore the TRUTH about the motives of the Republican Party in adopting Terri Schiavo as a perfect symbol of their "culture of life" crusade if the "talking points" are revealed to be a forgery. But the "damage" has already been done; Americans overwhelmingly disagree with the craven politicization of the Schiavo case by the "party of compassion." Whether the American people will be taken in by this ploy to rehabilitate the GOP after this fiasco remains to be seen.

Submitted by ptcruiser on March 30, 2005 - 10:35pm.

See James C. Goodale's essay entitled "The Flawed Report On Dan Rather".

[P6: linkified later]

Submitted by dwshelf on March 31, 2005 - 6:52am.

The bottom line: the memos were clearly established as forgeries within three days of their publication. Not only forgeries, but crude forgeries. Forgeries which couldn't have been produced on equipment of the day, but which rolled straight out of default MS Word.

A less than objective investigation can't change that.

Criticism of the less than objective investigation can't change that.

Cricisism of the criticism of the less than objective investigation can't change that.

Submitted by dwshelf on March 31, 2005 - 6:59am.

were submitted FIRST to the White House for authentication, and their content was never disputed.

Let me ask you, FN. I come to you with a document showing that you're a deadbeat. You decline to respond. Or maybe you tell me to fuck off. Would that confirm that the document is real?