CBS Producer on Thin Ice After Guard Story


Sep 21, 8:30 PM (ET)

By DAVID BAUDER

(NEW YORK (AP) - The fallout from CBS's doomed story about President Bush's National Guard service most endangers a woman few viewers know but who played a key role in two of the biggest television stories of the year.

Mary Mapes, a veteran producer at CBS News, reported most of the National Guard story, including obtaining the documents CBS now says it can't authenticate. She also passed on the phone number of her source, former Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, to the Kerry campaign.

Mapes, 48, was described by colleagues on Tuesday as a dogged and talented journalist who made no secret of her liberal political beliefs.

She's only a few months removed from a career-defining highlight. Mapes took a story that had received little attention - the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison - and unearthed the photos that gave the story its visceral impact.

"She pursued stories very aggressively always," said Jeff ***er, executive producer of "60 Minutes.""She definitely has an investigative sense. She was responsible for the bulk of the work on Abu Ghraib. That was her story."

The Dallas-based producer, who declined through a spokeswoman to talk with The Associated Press, also landed the first TV interviews with Strom Thurmond's biracial daughter and Hillary Rodham Clinton after her husband's impeachment. Mapes was almost jailed in 1999 for refusing a judge's order to turn over a videotape of Dan Rather's interview with a white man convicted of killing a black man by dragging him behind a pickup truck.

She worked at Seattle's KIRO-TV before coming to CBS in 1989. In the "60 Minutes" tradition, producers like Mapes wield tremendous influence on the stories and operate with a great deal of independence - a status earned after many years of proving themselves, ***er said.

John Carlson, a former commentator at KIRO-TV who is host of a conservative radio talk show in Seattle, remembers Mapes as a talented producer with whom he often argued politics in the newsroom.

Mapes was "quite liberal" and disliked the current President Bush's father, he said.

"She definitely was someone who was motivated by what she cared about and definitely went into journalism to make a difference," Carlson said. "She's not the sort of person who went into journalism to report the news and offer an array of commentary."

Carlson spoke with Mapes about the National Guard story a week ago, and said that he believes she "put so much time into it that she wanted something to come of it."

"This was a woman with a good reputation," he said. "The mistakes she made were so obvious. This was a story that was rushed because they clearly believed it was true. They wanted it to be true."

Rather acknowledged Monday that Burkett didn't come to CBS. The network approached him about the documents, knowing he had been trying for several years to discredit President Bush's military service record, he said.

In a USA Today story, Burkett said he agreed to turn documents impugning Bush's service - widely considered now to be fake - over to CBS on the condition CBS would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign. Burkett's lawyer, Gabe Quintanilla, said he could not immediately confirm that Tuesday.

CBS acknowledged Mapes passed on Burkett's number to Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart, and Lockhart called him. Spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said CBS wasn't aware that this was part of any deal, but it's one of the things that will be examined by an independent commission CBS will soon appoint to look into the incident.

"It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda," Edwards said.

It had to be tempting: get key documents you've long been seeking to nail down a story, and all you had to do was set up a phone call.

Still, it's a lapse in journalistic ethics if true, said Marvin Kalb, senior fellow at Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

"Journalists do all kinds of odd things these days to get a news story," Kalb said, "but one of the things they should not be doing is paying the price of a political contact."

It's particularly damaging when news coverage is being scrutinized by both sides of a bitter political divide, said Frank Sesno, former CNN Washington bureau chief and professor at George Mason University. Even before this story, Rather and CBS News were targets of groups concerned about an anti-Republican bias in the media.

The Lockhart contact "is going to cast more doubt on not just the practices, but the motives behind the story," Sesno said.

"She's done many, many solid stories in her career," ***er said. "How this went so horribly wrong is a mystery to many of us and I look forward to hearing the details."

This issue is not settled as Dan Rather has only admitted that the documents could not be verified, a bit different from admitting they are forged. I welcome a full independent investigation of the entire affair including the undisputed fact that the content of the documents is true. Let the facts be revealed and you all should be careful not to be crowing too loud until you are sure you aren't being spun by your hope of redemption for Chimpy Smirkster.

To live in a world of speculation and conjecture must be an interesting world LT. Kind of like Fantasy Island I suppose? But, MMoore like the world of the DNC.... Facts? We don't need facts we got imagination.

I guess if you say a lie enough people will start to believe it.

PMartin - Like, Iraq is an imminent threat against the US?????

Didn't a non-partasin already cover this? I guess you'd have to ask your man Kerry the same question...He voted for the same thing. He had the same info as everyone else..

You mean like the lie of WMD, which got us into this war and was proven to be a farce last week.

Hey all I was saying is he has not been proven anything yet little lone a lire.

The righties were wrong about WMD and they could be wrong about this.

LT was already right on WMD and is batting 100% so watch out he is on a role. Maybe LT should go look up who was so adamant there where WMD and see who was wrong.

Like Clinton and just about everyone else in the UN saying there were WMD's??? Maybe you could have told them years ago????

This conversation has nothing to do with Clinton, what Clinton believed was based on old information from 1991-1992.

Bush kicked the weapons inspectors out even though they were being given complete access. The only reason the rest of the world thought there were WMD is because Bush told them there were.


By the way you have convinced me not to vote for Clinton again :p

The whole world said that there where WMD in Iraq. What they did with them is worse than not finding them. If you want to hold GW to the WMD issue you them have to hold Kerry and 95% of congress and the rest of the NATO countries to the same standard. they all agreed based off the same evidence.

Based from Bush's account of the situation :p

This reply requires no response and is down right laughable. Pure speculation on your part

The buck stops with Bush as he presented the information to them :p

LT. Here is a little education for you. I guess this would be breaking news for you also. You only see what you want to.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

PM

If you will notice, all the intelligence referenced by everyone in your post is from 10 or more years before the Iraq war. The UN had authorized the weapons inspectors in 2001, they were busy doing their jobs, and Bush told them to leave because he was preparing to attack, ready or not. Since then, all evidence says the inspections and sanctions were working, Saddam was not a threat. Bush went to war with Iraq against UN authorization in a rush to put our country at risk, against the opinion of the entire world. If that is the kind of judgment that you think makes us safer, then go ahead and support the Bush administration.

What are you smoking? I am going to assume you didn't even read the post or you are real terrible at math... Then again you are in the union right :p

------------------------------------------------------------

I'll second that--WOW!

LT,

There are so many holes in your logic (or lack there of) and the statements you purport to be facts--I have to ask if you did read all the posts above-- Are you on any 'special' medication we should know about?

LT,

The whole world believed it prior to Bush making the case. What they disagreed on was "Imminent threat" only.

The dates of your quotes may not be ten years old but they were based on very old intelligence.

And yes I read your post

We could argue this all day and still be in the same place so I am done. This article I will cut and paste sums up how I feel on this issue.


The war, illegal and founded on a vast lie, has produced two tragedies of equal magnitude: an embryonic civil war in the world's oldest country, and a triumph for those in the Bush administration who, without a trace of shame, act as if the truth does not matter. Lying until the lie became true, the administration pursued a course of action that guaranteed large sections of Iraq would become havens for jihadis and radical Islamists. That is the logic promoted by people who take for themselves divine infallibility -- a righteousness that blinds and destroys. Like credulous Weimar Germans who were so delighted by rigged wrestling matches, millions of Americans have accepted Bush's assertions that the war in Iraq has made the United States and the rest of the world a safer place to live. Of course, this is false.

But it is a useful fiction because it is a happy one. All we need to know, according to the administration, is that America is a good country, full of good people and therefore cannot make bloody mistakes when it comes to its own security. The bitter consequence of succumbing to such happy talk is that the government of the most powerful nation in the world now operates unchecked and unmoored from reality; leaving us teetering on the brink of another presidential term where abuse of authority has been recast as virtue.

The logic the administration uses to promote its actions -- preemptive war, indefinite detention, torture of prisoners, the abandonment of the Geneva Convention abroad and the Bill of Rights at home -- is simple, faith-based and therefore empty of reason. The worsening war is the creation of the Bush administration, which is simultaneously holding Americans and Iraqis hostage to a bloody conflict that cannot be won, only stalemated.

Over the last three years, practicing a philosophy of deliberate deception, fear-mongering and abuse of authority, the Bush administration has done more to undermine the republic of Lincoln and Jefferson than the cells of al-Qaida. It has willfully ignored our fundamental laws and squandered the nation's wealth in bloody, open-ended pursuits. Corporations like Halliburton, with close ties to government officials, are profiting greatly from the war while thousands of American soldiers undertake the dangerous work of patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities. We have arrived at a moment of national crisis.

At home, the United States, under the Bush administration, is rapidly drifting toward a security state whose principal currency is fear. Abroad, it has used fear to justify the invasion of Iraq -- fear of weapons of mass destruction, of terrorist attacks, of Iraq itself. The administration, under false premises, invaded a country that it barely understood. We entered a country in shambles, a population divided against itself. The U.S. invasion was a catalyst of violence and religious hatred, and the continuing presence of American troops has only made matters worse. Iraq today bears no resemblance to the president's vision of a fledgling democracy. On its way to national elections in January, Iraq has already slipped into chaos.

Ok Rory & PMartin - so, where are the WMD's??? Enquiring minds want to know...

There was lots of tough rhetoric and assumptions about WMD on both sides towards Saddham, to keep our eye on the ball, as there should have been. But when your weapons inspectors can't find anything and you don't have concrete intelligence demonstrating that it is being stockpiled, why loosten the noose in Afganistan and start this grand, expensive neocon experiment....??? We'll see if Mr Bush has had enough time to figure out his real position by now and finally explain this during the debates.

Jeff'ed,

The debates are so controled you will hear nothing new. Kerry cannot go there because he saw the same things and voted soley based on WMD. If he does GW will wear him out like the old french Whore he is.

Ah heck King you would be hard pressed to find anyone GW could wear out in a debate