Bernard Goldberg,m on the Hannity show, predicted the CBS response to memogate:
“They will grudgingly admit that the documents are fake, and that they foudn out about it on their own, rather than through anyone else. But, and here comes the but, they won’t retract any part of the story.”
Hannity refused to believe they would do that, and Goldberg responded:
“Oh yes they will. That is why my first book was called Bias and my second book was called Arrogance.”
GWM
I’ve read both of them and they are great.
Dan and CBS are living up to Bernie’s opinion of them.
Clang
“They will grudgingly admit that the documents are fake, […] but they won’t retract any part of the story.”
And voila, turns out that the facts support exactly this stance – that even though the docs themselves are fake, the story itself is true. Just ask Killian’s secretary.
So if this is what CBS and/or Dan Rather would do, what does that have to do with arrogance?
Flagwaver
Clang,
Well, one COULD adopt that interpretation of the “facts.” However, since the secretary you are citing indicated that there were supposedly documents that she typed containing similar information to the forged memos, those documents would be in GWB’s TANG files, would they not? Where are they? Since said secretary publicly stated that she didn’t like Bush, and that he was “selected, not elected” (Jeebus, I’m getting sick of that tired, whiny and factually inaccurate meme!! Get a new whine, wouldya??), one could reasonably doubt her credibility in that regard, couldn’t one? And, last but not least, why is said secretary’s testimony credible and to be relied upon, when the testimony of Killian’s son, widow, and chief administrative officer (all of whom confirm that Killian was a big fan of GWB) to be ignored?
Arrogance, my friend, is a trait common on your side of this election – it ain’t limited to CBS.
Keep drinkin’ the Kool Aid. It’s GOOD!
Clang
Flagwaver,
Since you seem to go by the common fallacy that if one supports a candidate, then anything one says to support that candidate is a clear and obvious lie, then we can by that same token throw out the testimony of Killian’s son etc. I don’t have to provide anything else to back that up, the fact that so-and-so has political leanings is enough to discredit them all by itself. Neat.
“since the secretary you are citing indicated that there were supposedly documents that she typed containing similar information to the forged memos, those documents would be in GWB’s TANG files, would they not? Where are they?”
I see. And if Bush claimed he showed up for duty in Alabama, those documents (flight logs etc.) would be in GWB’s files, would they not? Absence of proof equals proof of absence in your book, right?
Every time the Bush administration claimed that they had released all the documents, more were found later on. It would be so much easier if Bush just signed that form 180 already.
P.S. I’m just ever so glad the Bush/Cheney have never been arrogant; how that must fill you with the warm and comforting glow of supreme self-righteousness. Not.
Clang
Funny how Bush never denied the content of the memos, isn’t it?
Say if someone is showing off some memos that claim that you had carnal relations with a goat in the summer of ’92, wouldn’t you instantly know that they’re fake because you yourself would know for a fact that that had never happened?
Sandi
-Clang
Marian Knox says the content in the controversial memos is true but that she did not type them. She did NOT say she typed similiar memos. She may be honest in her feelings that the content is true, but she has also admitted she doesn’t like Bush and supports Kerry which is cause enough for some sceptism. You can’t say because she believes the content to be accuate removes the documents from the forged catagory. Like CBS you decide what you want to be the truth and run with it as fact.
Say if someone is showing off some memos that claim that you had carnal relations with a goat in the summer of ’92, wouldn’t you instantly know that they’re fake because you yourself would know for a fact that that had never happened?
Of course I would know, but other people might believe it, until the memos were proved to be fake.
capt joe
Yes, very interesting.
But last week (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2796630)
she said that she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush’s service.
“Last week, Knox said she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush’s time with the Texas Air National Guard, although she did recall a culture of special treatment for the sons of prominent people, such as Bush and others.”
And voila, today, she does have firsthand info. Amazing, the power of a Rather interview, it makes fake docs real, it restores memory to the old, amazing.
Clang
Sandi,
“Of course I would know, but other people might believe it, until the memos were proved to be fake.”
And if people did start to believe it, would you argue about whether the memos were forged, or would you deny their content – the underlying accusation?
Clang
capt. joe, I’d like to see what Knox did say before. Saying she “had not firsthand knowledge of Bush’s time” with the Guard doesn’t mean much and doesn’t contradict the secondhand knowledge she is citing now, such as this one:
“I know that I didn’t type them,” Knox said of the Killian memos. “However, the information in there is correct,” she said, adding that Killian and the other officers would “snicker about what [Bush] was getting away with.”
Clang
Sandi, if you knew that the underlying facts were completely and utterly false, you certainly wouldn’t come out with something like this: “I had every reason to believe that the documents were authentic.” Would you?
And yet that is the White House stance on the matter – http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040915-3.html
RW
Nice rehashing of atrios’ talking points, but it wouldn’t be prudent for anyone to state unequivocally that someone’s memo to themself was forged.
Try to put down the kool-aid and think.
This does open a whole new can o’ worms pertaining to Juanita Broadderick’s rape claims, which Bill Clinton never denied. What say ye, oh Atrios mouthpiece?
Clang
RW, you talking to me?
“it wouldn’t be prudent for anyone to state unequivocally that someone’s memo to themself was forged.”
No, but Bush could state that the accusations contained therein (and of course they weren’t all “memo to themself”) are simply not true. To go back to my earlier example, if I write a memo to myself that X had performed sexual acts with a poodle, and that memo saw the light of day, X is perfectly free to state that he never ever had sex with a poodle. It is irrelevant whether the memo itself is a forgery or contains a lie written by the original author – the person can still take a stand on the underlying accusation.
Instead we have: “We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time.” No denial of the content.
Open up the Juanita Broderick can of worms if you feel like it. I’m not going to defend Clinton on that issue.
RW
Yippie! Let’s ask if he’s kicked any dogs or beaten little kids, lately. Good lord, you guys are reduced to demanding that someone deny a negative assertion and have now assumed the position that the assertion need not be valid in any way.
I seem to recall that such actions were decried at one time…something about “at long last have you no decency”. Now, a person MUST deny any charge or else they’re probably guilty.
Add another to the “that was then, this is now” file.
Dean
RW:
Nah. Just add this to the “Please, please, please, continue to give advice like this to the Kerry campaign” file.
These folks’ advice wouldn’t get them elected high school class president, or even class secretary. Yet, they’re giving advice on how to run for POTUS?
Wow.
Sandi
a) The documents are a fakes.
b) CBS and anyone not drinking the cool-aid knows it.
c) There’s no authentic documents to date saying anything similar.
d) It’s the coverup that is destroying Rather and CBS, not the fake documents.
Alas! Emperor Dan Rather has no clothes… Clang stands naked before him trying to hide Rather’s nakedness shouting, “Don’t look; This isn’t real; It’s really Bush who has no clothes.”
jack
So, we’re supposed to accept Know’ word that the sentiments in the memos were Killian’s and ignore the statements of his wife,son, and Hodges?
The office secretary knew Killian better than his wife?
Please.
willyb
This whole episode regarding what are apparently forged documents is a case study in the aberrant behavior that defines the mainstream media Kool-Aid drinkers. They put crap on the airwaves and have the arrogance to think that it will be accepted because they believe it’s true. Kind of like jury nullification, but in this case, fact nullification. Dan Rather reminds me of someone trapped in a high rise fire that is left with the choice of having his nuts burned off or crushed when he hits the pavement. I have no sympathy for him.
The real story behind this unfortunate spectacle is that John Kerry’s best chance to win in November is premised on making people believe that he is the best candidate because George Bush MAY not have acted as responsibly as he should have some 33 years ago. Forget the fact that Bush has a 3+ year record as serving as CinC. Lets focus on John Kerry’s 4
Clang
RW,
Bush not fulfilling his duties was then, agreed.
Bush not being able to handle the truth about it is now and, I suspect, the indefinite future.
Some straight shooter, huh?
Clang
jack,
since Killian’s wife and son are Bush supporters and their testimony would be supporting Bush’s campaign, they are without doubt to be considered liars, automatically and without question. Didn’t you get the memo?
“The office secretary knew Killian better than his wife?”
I’d hazard a guess that the wife knows more about his sexual preferences, and the secretary knows more about what’s going on at work.
Clang
Sandi,
Perhaps you missed or misunderstood my posts. I think the memos are forgeries.
And Bush’s spokesman claiming that they had no reason to suspect that they were forgeries – reasons like, perhaps, Bush knowing he never disobeyed an order to show up for a physical, or Bush knowing he didn’t benefit from favoritism to obtain a spot in the Guards – Bush’s spokesman claiming that speaks volumes.
Slartibartfast
I guess it’s easy to come to that conclusion, if you always believe that silence indicates consent. I don’t, and I don’t think you’ve got a justifiable position, but at least you’re consistent.
I think. Let’s find out: Has Kerry officially denied all of the Swift Boat Veterans’ allegations?
Sandi
Clang
What “order” to show up for a physcial? To begin with the ANG weren’t usually “ordered” to take one. True their flying was dependant on taking one, but as we already know, he didn’t fly after that. We know he was leaving that base. If there was an “order”, show me where it is/was.
CadillaqJaq
Starti,
Day before yesterday Kerry, responding to a question posed by Imus regarding the NYT best seller “Unfit For Command” (or whatever it is) called the book “a pack of lies” after saying no, he hadn’t read it.
Other Dem talking heads are calling the current Swiftboat TV ads “scurrilous.” That’s interesting because the the recent Swiftboat ads I’ve seen are old film clips of Kerry doing the speaking. ergo I guess he’s “scurrilous.”
Clang
Sandi, that’s my point: if there was no order, Bush would have known that there was no order, and as a result would have known that the memos had to be either forgeries or lies. Yet: “We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time.”
Incidentally, we do know that Bush was suspended from flying because he failed to accomplish a physical.
Clang
Slartibartfast (incidentally, I briefly met Douglas Adams in NY in the 80’s), I don’t always believe that silence indicates consent.
But I do believe that “We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time.” indicates that they had every reason to believe that the memos were authentic at that time, including knowing that there was something to the underlying accusations of the memo, and that it was and is the best course not to deny any of it just in case more proof of such is about to be uncovered.
Dean
Clang:
And if he had said, “We believe these are forgeries,” based on a couple of faxes, what would have been the reaction?
Dan Rather, rearing righteously, declaiming that the very nature of the Fourth Estate had been impugned. Every media outlet in the country, screaming about what a**holes the WH is.
“Irresponsible charges” by the WH about how documents that a SENIOR news organization had vouchsafed for were in fact false.
Please, Clang.
Just look at how the SBVT are characterized. I’ve asked before for a website or two that would disprove the SBVT charges. Thus far, I’ve gotten stuff like eriposte (or somesuch website) where “Swifty X says this, but Kerry’s papers say -X.” Nowhere has anyone systematically taken apart the SBVT the way CBS’ memoes have been.
Yet, the press and others treat the SBVT charges like they ARE forgeries. In fact, they talked about it ONLY when KERRY responded.
Remind me again why staying silent is the *inferior* strategy??
RW
***Bush not fulfilling his duties was then, agreed.
Bush not being able to handle the truth about it is now and, I suspect, the indefinite future.
Some straight shooter, huh?****
At what point were those sophomoric Usenet lame responses supposed to convince me that you are in any way a legitimate interlocutor?
Goodness.
Clang
Jeez, Dean, so Bush is supposed to cower before righteous Rather when Bush himself knows for a fact that he was never ordered to take a physical, and never benefited from favoritism to get into or out of the guard?
He can’t speak up because Dan Rather and CBS are just so dang intimidating?
Maybe it makes sense to you…
Clang
RW, what Bush did back then is of secondary importance. Him still not being able to handle the truth about it to this day makes it more relevant, especially since Bush likes to portray himself as a straight shooter, telling it like it is.
Did you have a point, or are you down to just trying to expend a lot of words to call me an idiot?
(Usenet? Is that still around?)
RW
The point being that he received an honorable discharge and it appears that you’re relying on forgeries for the ‘truth’ that you think Bush cannot handle.
***Did you have a point, or are you down to just trying to expend a lot of words to call me an idiot?****
I really didn’t expend all that much energy & I don’t think you’re an idiot….an atriette partisan, yes.
Clang
Say what? How can I be relying on forgeries to make my point when I’m agreeing that they’re forgeries? My point is that the documents are far from central to the case, and there are plenty of unanswered questions about Bush’s service. Questions which Bush can’t answer; it is this truth that he can’t handle. Why did he miss the flight physical? Why did he not fulfill his obligations, even up in Boston? As long as he can’t answer those questions truthfully, they amount to a truth that he can’t handle.
And since when is the point that he received an honorable discharge, and since when is that proof of anything? If you want to use that as proof that he fulfilled his obligations, then you might as well use an honorable discharge as proof that John Muhammad Allenn was never convicted in a court martial, right? After all, the honorable discharge proves that nothing untoward ever happened, right?
Please.
RW
“As long as he can’t answer those questions truthfully, they amount to a truth that he can’t handle.”
Interesting how the definition of “truth” takes on whatever one needs it to take.
Tell you what, e-mail your local congressman & urge him to insert that phrase into his speeches. See how far it goes.
*** After all, the honorable discharge proves that nothing untoward ever happened, right?****
That would be the first notation that someone claiming that untowards happened should recognize, yes.
That is, unless it really amounts to some truth……LOL.
Dean
Clang:
Questions for you:
When did Muhammed strike the officer in question, and what was he in at the time?
When did Muhammed get his honorable discharge, and what part of the military was he in at the time?
Hint: Two different parts of the US military, for purposes of discharging.
Talk about mixing apples and pears…
dick
Flagwaver,
She said there were memos she typed up for Lt Col Killian that said the same thing. Those memos would not be in his records. They should be in the same place where the forged documents were. If so, then where are they and why hasn’t CBS put them out? At least they would have the chance of being non-forged.
Bloggerhead
Clanq:
As you can see, from two of the more capable posters at this site, you’re simply not going to get a straight answer. The rhetorical fix is in.
Take the Slime Boaters, for example, whom many at this site hold up as the paragons of truth, but whom the rest of the world recognize as lying axe-grinders participating in a well-coordinated smear. Unlike Bush’s honorable discharge, Kerry’s medals don’t somehow speak for themselves, but deserve revisionist scrutiny, for the first time, in this campaign (unlike Bush’s TANG service which has been perennially questioned). Based upon, what? The word of 250 bitter guys, only 2 or 3 of whom had any occasion to observe Kerry’s bravery. Some of the Slime Boaters even contradicted their previous praises of Kerry, but to some here that means nothing: the guys served, ergo they’re telling the truth, inconsistencies & the military record be damned.
As for Killian’s secretary, being a, um, Bush-hater renders her qualified only to dis-authenticate the memos, but not contribute any other evidence regarding the real issue: was Bush a shirker? An issue, I might add, for which there are scant military records to say one way or another, although I hear that the administration is yet again going to release all of his service records (this time under the threat of a judge’s order pursuant to the AP’s FOIA request.) In contrast, the Slime Boaters–Kerry-hatred personified–are to be given the lateral to spout off whatever shit they want.
It seems to reduce to this: engage a wingnut in a debate and his first tack is to bring up some sort of (usually contrived and tangential) contradiction, which often cuts both ways nonetheless. Then, they begin dancing around the topic like Janet and Justin at the Super Bowl. I can’t wait for the day prior to this election when Justin reaches over to Janet and exposes the boob…in the White House, that is.
Clang
RW, I see you’ve opted for the “everybody-does-it” defense. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Clang
Dean,
John Muhammad Allen received two honorable discharges, one from the Army, one from the National Guard.
No mixing of apples and pears.
Dean
Really, Clang? Please provide a citation for the honorable discharge from the LA National Guard.
I see that he received an honorable discharge from the US Army, but I’ve not seen any reference to an honorable discharge from the LA National Guard. (Note that, had he received an Article XV for his actions, it is possible that he received such a discharge from the LANG, so it’s not impossible, but your evidence would be appreciated.)
Clang
Dean, my mistake. John Muhammad Allen did receive an honorable discharge from the National Guard, but it was in Oregon, in 1995. Apples and pears it is – in that case.
To back up my original point that receiving an honorable discharge does not mean one fulfilled one’s duties, I choose to instead present the case of Richard Cohen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27178-2004Feb9¬Found=true
Slartibartfast
“We are unable to locate the page you requested.”
IOW, bad link. But immaterial; by what evidence do you claim Bush didn’t fulfill his duties to the satisfaction of the TANG?
Rick
Slart,
I believe Kerry’s pathetic rep here was trying to direct you to a real bullshit column by Cohen, were that sexual harasser claimed that during his army reserve days, he got paid for drills he skipped.
As I said: bullshit. I used to “run drills” for pay purposes for a Navy Reserve unit, and no friggin’ way to CO’s permit pay for missing drills. People can reschedule drills (which Dubya did) for pay, or be excused from drilling (which Dubya did), but Cohen was just making shit up to get with the leftie zeitgeist of February, or whenever the last obsession with the TANG was.
Bottom line is Bush accumulated quite enough drill points, and satisfied his obligation.
Another factor the chairborne rangers of the left don’t know is that a member can bump along with very few drill points in a year due to being excused (not being paidk, of course), and *still* be in good standing. What happens if the number on annual points falls below 50, though, is that that year won’t count as a year toward retirement eligibility. Bush cut things fine his last two years, but he obviously wasn’t making a career of it.
Must’ve been that wicked cocaine habit, doncha think?
Cordially…
Ricky
***RW, I see you’ve opted for the “everybody-does-it” defense.*****
I have? By pointing out that you’re redefining “truth” and suggesting that you contact your congresman & run with that notion and that you’re charging Bush with untowards when the official record says otherwise, I’m saying that everyone does it? Are you sure you didn’t misapply my handle (I’m RW, btw)?
****I guess we have to agree to disagree.***
I’m fine with that. Until another time.
Ricky
*** but whom the rest of the world recognize as lying axe-grinders participating in a well-coordinated smear***
As evidenced by the sterling performance in the polls by Kerry since their ad release.
***As for Killian’s secretary*****
Sorta sucks that you commented on that prior to Staud’s interview with ABC, huh? Man, you guys can’t take a single step without getting thwacked backwards, lately.
Clang
Slart, the link did and does work for me, so I’m not sure what’s going wrong here.
“by what evidence do you claim Bush didn’t fulfill his duties to the satisfaction of the TANG?”
Not showing up for his physical, and not showing up for anything at all for half a year, without permission to do so. Oh yeah, and not joining a unit in Boston later on as well.
Rick, yup, the link was to Richard Cohen’s column, in which he made the following points, based on his own experience at the time:
1. Cohen joined the National Guard, did some active duty, then returned to his home unit and essentially dropped from sight. Eventually, he got an honorable discharge.
2. Cohen skipped weekly drills and summer camp, but to avoid them, he moved from one state to another to establish a confusing paper trail. The administration was so chaotic at the time that he even got paid for drills he missed.
3. In some units he was assigned to, they sat around with nothing to do and even took turns delivering anti-war lectures.
Given that this was possible in the NG in the early 70’s, an honorable discharge does not automatically mean that Bush fulfilled his duties.
You want to call Cohen a liar, fine, but what are you basing that on? A complete and all-encompassing knowledge of the National Guard of the early 1970’s? Testimony from people who knew Richard Cohen who are willing to swear that he served dutifully at all times and just made all this stuff up for the purpose of this column?
“I used to “run drills” for pay purposes for a Navy Reserve unit, and no friggin’ way to CO’s permit pay for missing drills.”
In the National Guard in the late 60’s, early 70’s, in a ‘Champagne Unit’?
Bloggerhead
“…by what evidence do you claim Bush didn’t fulfill his duties to the satisfaction of the TANG?”
You see, Clanq, unless you can prove a negative, you’ve got nothing. Take heart, however, that the chance of Slarti launching a pre-emptive invasion on you is itself nil, because unlike our commander-in-chief, Slarti is actually a thoughful and intelligent guy. Stupid is as stupid does.
Slartibartfast
Actually, it’s: unless you can prove your claim, you’ve got nothing. Which is pretty much how the entire non-Bloggerhead world looks at arguments.
Slartibartfast
And the paperwork showing how the Guard decided this was unacceptable is where, exactly?
rick
“You want to call Cohen a liar, fine, but what are you basing that on? A complete and all-encompassing knowledge of the National Guard of the early 1970’s?”
I’m calling him a liar based on his preposterous claim of getting *paid* when he didn’t show up for drill. That’s bullshit, even more in the early *60s,* when Cohen served.
And little Richard wasn’t in any “champagne” unit. Strictly PBR.
I’m completely willng to believe Cohen was a reluctant, indifferent weekend warrior who avoided a lot of drills.
But he performed enough to keep his official nose officially clean. And getting paid for non-performance? That’s bullshit, or a crime at several levels of command from Cohen up to the CO.
The roll is always called (it’s “muster” in the Navy), so “moving around” and “confusing paper trail” just don’t do it for his yarn.
“3. In some units he was assigned to, they sat around with nothing to do and even took turns delivering anti-war lectures.”
I don’t know what point you think this makes in re: fraudulent payments, but it isn’t a surprising tale. Remember, Bush drilled in Alabama sometimes by way of reading aviation magazines and safety reports. It’s not always gonna be Captain America stuff.
Cordially…
Clang
Slart,
“And the paperwork showing how the Guard decided this was unacceptable is where, exactly?”
Not showing up for his physical – in his being suspended from flying for missing his physical.
Not showing up for half a year – in Guard regulations.
Not joining a unit in Boston – it was never followed up on, but Bush did make the promise and failed to meet it.
rick,
“I’m calling him a liar based on his preposterous claim of getting *paid* when he didn’t show up for drill.
So you’re calling him a liar not because of any actual knowledge of his circumstances, or of those in the National Guard in the late 60’s/early 70’s.
Richard was not in any “champagne unit”. Bush was.
“The roll is always called (it’s “muster” in the Navy), so “moving around” and “confusing paper trail” just don’t do it for his yarn.”
So then there would be paperwork to show Bush showed up in Alabama?
“I don’t know what point you think this makes in re: fraudulent payments”
It doesn’t; it is a separate point.
Rick
I’m calling Cohen a bullshitter on that issue, because otherwise, he was a criminal. It’s something he made up, like Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia mission, of searing memory.
In re: champagne, I don’t know if TANG units performing interceptor missions over the Gulf qualifies, but it’s certainly more active than most reserve functions.
There has been paperwork showing Bush’s presence in Alabama: pay, and a dental exam. To collect Gary Trudeau’s reward money, though, you have to satisfy him that you yourself witnessed his drills
Cordially…
P.S. Awfully nice of you to drop by, since the Rather disaster seems to have sent Oregonian and little Ivor into exile. Too bad, so sad.
Slartibartfast
Which was standard procedure. Note that it’s not even described as punitive.
Really? They had champagne? This is an asinine argument, that this unit was somehow composed solely of the priveleged, while others somehow weren’t.
The rest of your arguments might have some validity, if you can find some sort of disciplinary actions prescribed that weren’t carried out. The fact is, though, that Bush met his yearly drill requirements in the first six months of the year. If you can find something that says this wasn’t allowed, please do post it.
Clang
Slart,
When Bush applied to be assigned to a different unit, Air Force HQ in Denver insisted that he be assigned to an Air Reserve Squadron, not a Ready Reserve Squadron, apparently having some interest in seeing their investment in having trained Bush bear more fruit, or at the very least being a stickler about some of those silly rules.
You portray Bush missing the physical as no big deal (whereas RW above paints the National Guard as some super-strict, super-efficient organization, you see it as very lax), but to hear Air Force HQ tell it, apparently they did see some value in him, or at least in sticking to procedure.
But then getting around them turns to be super-easy; all you have to do is not show up for a physical and hey presto, no more flying! No punitive measures or nothing, simple as that.
“The rest of your arguments might have some validity, if you can find some sort of disciplinary actions prescribed that weren’t carried out. “
My general take on this is that Bush did certain things (or rather failed to do certain things) that would have gotten him in trouble if he were just Joe Shmoe. Bush not showing up for duty and not facing disciplinary action fits right into that.
“The fact is, though, that Bush met his yearly drill requirements in the first six months of the year. If you can find something that says this wasn’t allowed, please do post it.”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm
Clang
Rick,
“To collect Gary Trudeau’s reward money, though, you have to satisfy him that you yourself witnessed his drills”
I seem to recall that solid evidence was the requirement, not first-hand eyewitnesses. Not that it matters. The offer expired some time ago.
Texans for Truth is offering $50,000 now for the same thing. Offer expires September 30th. Something tells me they won’t have to pay out that money.
The Rather disaster sure is something (and will probably be the end of him), but the questions about Bush’s service are hardly confined to it.
Clang
Slart, can you tell me what code you use to make the lines grey like that?
Ricky
Clang,
Type <blockquote> at the beginning and </blockquote> at the end.
Clang
Thanks Ricky!
Rick
Something tells me they won’t have to pay out that money
NG vets have stated they drilled w/Bush. Something tells me the alleged Texans will find reasons to deadbeat, if such vets bother to approach them. You can bet on it.
Cordially…
Dean
The original BUSHAWOL (or was it AWOLBUSH) site’s offer of something like $10K was conditioned on not only having a memory of Dubya, but also providing documented evidence.
Which, of course, raised the question: What were you doing w/ Dubya’s pay stubs or equivalent?
It was a very nice Catch-22: Provide the “evidence” they demanded (a sworn affidavit was insufficient), and you’d be up on charges pretty darn quick….
Clang
Rick, wouldn’t be bad PR though for those vets to deliver sworn affidavits to Texans for Truth.