update: Sure enough, Burkett is so loony and hard to understand, that the source for the story about Lockhart begging for the memos, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, realized only after several reviews of its interview with him that he was referring to CBS. Showing once again how implausible it was that CBS honestly believed this guy was an unimpeachable source - the guy seemingly makes crap up, is indecipherable, and like Kerry is willing to say anything to hurt Bush.

update: We already know that Burkett is probably batshit and we can't put much stock in anything he says, but watch as Legacy Media launches a Kerry-esque flip-flop and begins smearing their once unimpeachable and well regarded Texan. INDC Journal feels we are rapidly approaching the end game on this.

update: Drudge is reporting the following, no links yet, says the story is developing:

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...

The tireless Allah adds some thoughts and speculation on Burketts motives for this statement.

original post:
Burkett claims to have given the bogus documents to Max Cleland. How long until the really big other shoe drops and we find out that the Kerry Campaign and CBS orchestrated this attack? Isn't it obvious? How did the Fortuanate Son campaign ad, which not so coincidentally aired the day after the 60 II minutes piece, have footage from the Dan Rather smear in it? Are we honestly supposed to believe that Joe Lockhart talked to Bill Burkett and the subject of these memos never came up? Burkett has been trying like hell to get ahold of the campaign and he didn't mention it? Of course he did - that is why he wanted to talk to them. Are we then expected to believe that while Kerry was getting battered in the polls, Lockhart and Cleland ignored this explosive new "evidence" that Bush didn't meet his obligations to the TANG? This from the people who so desperately want to believe that the SBVT guys, all 200+ of them, are Bush puppets.

It will be fun to watch all the Kerry supporters squirm as they desperately try to change the subject now. They are almost as big of flip floppers as their candidate. Kerry brought up Vietnam to make up for not having a record and to show he would be tough in the war on terror. Along come the swifties, and we are told that Vietnam isn't the issue. The Kerry-ites change their tune almost immediately when the forged documents surface - now Vietnam is an issue and Bush should explain what he was doing while Kerry was off being a war hero. Oops, the docs are forgeries, and there are links between the source and the Kerry campaign. Time to spout the new old party line - we need to talk about issues, not Vietnam (but Bush should still answer these serious questions!). Kerry supporters got the candidate they deserve - too bad the rest of us have him has one of two choices on such an important ballot.

update: Jim Geraghty of the Kerry Spot at NRO noticed this bombshell in the making being reported by the RNC:

9 HOURS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'" (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)

There is a complete timeline of events at the GOP site with interesting questions that seem to answer the question in the title of this article. RTWT.
(hat tip to Allah)

update: Geraghty is retracting portions of the claim above. A DNC spokesman explains this particular "coincidence" but I would submit that the evidence is still pretty strong that somebody in the campaign new something, as evidenced by all the other "coincidences" in the timeline link and based on the fact that it strains credulity to believe that Lockhart and Burkett didn't discuss these memos.