Buckhead, Forged Documents and the US President
Via Michelle Malkin we are led to the Concord Monitor Online and an article by Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times reporting that a Net-izen named Buckhead brought to light the fact that the Killian papers touted as legitimate by CBS News in its TV program “60 Minutes” – allegedly proving that President George W. Bush used influence to get in the National Guard – are forgeries and just plain untrue.
There is some evidence that the first person to post to the internet about the forgeries, writing under the alias Buckhead, who has since been identified as Atlanta lawyer Harry W. MacDougald, might have been tipped off about the forgery by higher places in the GOP. After all, besides Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the alleged writer of the documents, who passed away in 1984, there is one person who would know for sure that the documents were forgeries, and that is George W. Bush.
What about the name Buckhead? A “jewel” of Atlanta is the affluent area of Buckhead, which is surely the more logical explanation for the Buckhead alias, since MacDougald is an attorney in Atlanta.
The name “Buckhead” might also by chance relate to a motto applied to the Office of the Presidency of the United States since the days of President Truman:
“the Buck stops here“, i.e. the “head of the buck”. But this appears to be a curious coincidence, much as the name of one of the figures involved, Walter “Buck” Staudt.
One source on the chain of events to the forged documents may have been identified according to this article at CNSNews, the Cybercast News Service.
The role of CBS anchorman Dan Rather in the use of the forged documents on national TV to discredit an incumbent President can only be described as inexcusably and disgustingly partisan, especially in light of his subsequent behavior in the aftermath of the forgery disclosure. The “Rather Standard” is that the non-authenticity of the documents must FIRST be proven, and not the other way around. Here is a news “reporter” who has lost complete sight of his societal responsibility and the purpose of his profession.
All of these events show why the handling of evidence in such cases is at best placed in the responsibility of legal professionals trained in the subject and not left in the hands of people who have no training in the evaluation of proof, a major problem which also exists in many of the humanities, such as Archaeology or Egyptology, where the “diggers” also want to be the ones to interpret the finds, a policy which has often led to similar disasters with misinterpretations and forgeries frequently being found in these disciplines. Unfortunately, there are not enough Buckheads around to keep these things from happening, time and again.