Asymmetrical Information

Are there other documents from that unit that look like these?

This is the most important question, and it is an answerable question. If there are other such documents in TANG records from that time, then all the arguments about kerning and what not are so much smoke. If there are no other such documents in the TANG records, then regardless of whether the memos could technically have been created at the time, we could be confident that these memos are fakes. So far as I can tell, no one has checked yet.

(Addendum: apparently USA Today has two other memos in a similar format, but it got those memos from a confidential source -- i.e., not official records -- and it seems probable that the source is the same as CBS's source. So that doesn't resolve the question.)

If you are cornered, just be arrogant.

When I was in Law School, I booked Evidence. (ask your lawyer friends what that means). And as I recall, the proponent of a document must offer proof of the documents admissibility before he can submit it into evidence. The Best Evidence Rule holds that the original document must be produced.

If we are shown the original document we will be able to turn it over and verify the indentations made by the typewriter, the age of the paper, that the signature is an inked signature and matters of like import.

Mr. Rather has not submitted any proof of admissibility beyond the testimony of one expert as to one signature on one copy (contrary to best evidence and his own writings on the topic) of one document. That document contains important internal inconsistincies (e.g. the refernce to a retired former superior officer). Rather has not met his burden of proof and the documents are not admissible.

I guess it was inevitable:

http://www.rathergate.com/

What I think most Kerryphiles don't get about this is that the obvious glee many of us have in following this story is not derived from Kerry-hatred or Bush-love, but "rather" from Dan getting publicly pantsed. Why anyone, cough, Kos, cough, would bother to tout irrelevant points in order to defend the veracity of the story is wasting their effort.

Rather's stonewalling and ultimately petulant refusal to take the "rumor mill" seriously is both predictable and harmful to his credibility. It seems clear that the story hasn't and won't hurt Bush (does anyone think strings weren't pulled on his behalf? does anyone care?); what we're hoping for, simply, is that Rathergate doesn't go away quietly. Thus the continued internet shouting, gesticulations, etc. CBS's, and Rather's, unprofessionalism only makes it less likely that it will all go away. The blogosphere has no news cycle other than the decentralized whims of many, many individuals. And a lot of them aren't tired of it yet. This is about the old media in general, and Dan Rather in particular, and it's a hell of a lot of fun.

I still want to know how this memo, even if proven fraudulent, clears up the OBVIOUSLY questions surrounding the service record of George W. Bush. Otherwise, these shennanigans are nothing more than a diversion from the media covering the QUAGMIRE we have in Iraq, where Americans who are UNQUESTIONABLY fulfilling their service requirements are being attacks upwards of 90 times a DAY, with injuries over 7000 and the OFFICIAL death toll (that of the battlefield, not in hospitals) is over 1007.
Those who didn't think Iraq compares to Vietnam based upon casualty counts, John McCain and many millitary experts say we'll be their for 10 to 20 years.
You do the math, my conservative hawks.

--Cobra

Cobra:
OK, I'll answer that: it doesn't change anything about those stories, except that most of our information on those stories comes from (drum roll) news organisations like CBS or newspapers, so if they've decided it's ok to outright lie about the facts (interpretation of the facts of course, is fair game) and/or use faked up proof to support their "news" stories, then I, for one, would like to know it. OK?

Sebastian

Respectfully, I don't think the "best evidence" rule is the right way to think about this issue. When the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, no one complained that the Times only had the photocopies that Daniel Ellsberg had made, and not the originals from the Pentagon.

That notwithstanding, it does seem that CBS News has some obligation to further explain where the documents came from. To extend the Pentagon Papers analogy, the New York Times said that it got the documents from a Pentagon source. That was a good reason for accepting those photocopies as reliable substitutes for the originals. Here, it's not clear where these documents were supposed to have come from: state records? Someone's own files? I don't think CBS would have to burn its source to come a little cleaner on that question.

alkali,

[I]t does seem that CBS News has some obligation to further explain where the documents came from.

Quite true, and the fact that they haven't explained their, well, bizarre confidence in this material is one of the most puzzling aspects of the whole affair. I mean, unless they are totally delusional, they have to be relying on extremely strong provenance and nothing else. And yet we hear nothing about the provenance. At this point I'm tempted to speculate that Jenna showed up with the file at CBS headquarters in the wee hours of the morning and whispered to Dan Rather that she had swiped it out of her dad's briefcase.

Cobra, I can't really improve on Sebastian's post above, but I do want to second it. If one of the major news organizations in this country — direct or indirect source of much of what Americans know about political affairs here and elsewhere — not only falls for such an obvious fraud, but is sufficiently clueless that it doesn't anticipate anyone else even questioning the material's authenticity, then we have a serious problem, and one that ought to be apparent to anyone anywhere on the political spectrum. If Fox or the WSJ had gleefully run with a bunch of purported memos by a Kerry superior contradicting some statement of his about his Vietnam service, and they were as obviously bogus as this, it would be every bit as bad.

Er, Cobra, what exactly are "OBVIOUSLY questions"?
For that matter, what are "shennanigans"?

RMc,

It's called typing fast without using spell check. But if you want to be one of those, "I'm going to try to embarrass the poster by pointing out typographical errors," people, well, let's do it.
>>Er, Cobra, what exactly are "OBVIOUSLY questions"?
For that matter, what are "shennanigans"?

"Er"

Main Entry: ER
Function: abbreviation
earned run, emergency room

Main Entry: Er
Function: abbreviation
erbium-Main Entry: er·bi·um
Pronunciation: '&r-bE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Ytterby, Sweden
Date: 1843
: a metallic element of the rare-earth group that occurs with yttrium — see ELEMENT table

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

RMc, exactly WHAT were you trying to ask me?

Michelle,

I don't know what news source you've been watching over the years, but I've seen Fox News put on every Clinton-bashing scandal author they could find during the late 90's. There were unsubstantiated and unverified accounts flying over the airwaves accusing the Clintons of everything from insider trading (cattle futures), witness intimidation, rape and murder, with no police reports whatsoever to support the allegations. Today, the Swift Boaters are placed on the air to tell THEIR personal accounts of a thirty year old incident regardless of documentation that would contradict their stories.
My question to you is this: Would you challenge the authenticity of ALL memos from the Nixon Administration era that had the same style font and type that this Bush memo has? If you do...from reports I've seen, you've got a lot of challenging to do.

--Cobra

Cobra,
Setting aside whether any of Fox's trangressions are true or not, you are saying that Bush-bashing today is completely justified by Clinton-bashing that occurred in the past. You are saying that the "lying" Swiftees are justification enough for CBS to support a lie. Your complete non sequitur about Nixon goes to a place no man has gone before as I can't tell what point you are making. Your anger level has removed your ability to make a logical argument. Calm down and try again.

"I don't think the "best evidence" rule is the right way to think about this issue. When the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, no one complained that the Times only had the photocopies that Daniel Ellsberg had made, and not the originals from the Pentagon."

IIRC, the authenticity of those documents was not in dispute. In this case, Rather has tendered documents with the intent that we will accept their contents as proof of the matters stated therein (i.e. Bush is worthless and weak).

The Best Evidence Rule (Fed R. Ev. 1002) is thereby triggered:

"To prove the content of a writing . . . the original writing . . . is required . . . "

However Rather has only tendered duplicates to date.

rule 1003 says:

"A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless . . . a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original . . ."

I submit that a guine question has been raised as to the authenticity of the original. Therefore under Rule 1002 Rather must tender the original. This entire conversation would then be cut short as we could see very quickly whether the document was typed 30 years ago or not.

Cobra, I am not especially enamored of Fox. Have barely watched their news/public affairs stuff at all (and have been kind of repulsed by it when I have).

But I have to point out that you're missing basic distinctions here. The accusations made against the Clintons were presented as accusations, not facts. If Fox (or anything comparable in stature to CBS) had said outright that HRC's miraculous $1K-to-$100K futures venture was definitely a sweetheart deal, or that Bill definitely raped Juanita Broaddrick, or anything like that, their butts would have been sued off within 24 hours.

Similarly, when the Swift Boat Vets have been on news programs (I'm not talking about their ads — though the fact that they haven't been sued for libel yet over those makes the Kerry campaign look weaker on factual grounds than you evidently think it is), they've been there as people leveling allegations, and usually if not indeed always matched with someone arguing the Kerry case. Yes, I've seen John O'Neill on network TV — on that well-known hotbed of right-wing lunacy, George Stephanopoulos' This Week.

And the problem is that there is no evidence at all surrounding these memos. No provenance, no originals, no similar-looking documents (I mean seriously similar-looking, Cobra, not something in a monospaced font that happens to use a "th" key). We really haven't got a damn thing here but the Dan Rather Says It's True evidence. That might be good enough for you. Not me.

The Washington Post kicks out a few more props from under CBS: Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers.

It's called typing fast without using spell check.

Drooling all over the keyboard doesn't help, either. (And won't Daddy be upset when he finds out you've been using your computer...?)

"I mean, unless they are totally delusional, they have to be relying on extremely strong provenance and nothing else."

So sue them. If they plead insanity then they are, by their own admission, totally delusional. If they have strong provenance they surely don't need anything else?

(I phrase this as a question because I know little of US law. But my understanding is that even in America accusing a former officer of having disobeyed a direct order has consequences.)

Robert, the Best Evidence rule if for courtrooms, not newsrooms. It simply doesn't apply here and for good reason. If we were to apply the Federal Rules of Evidence or any state code for that matter, we would drastically cut down on the amount of legitimate news that gets reported. Much of what makes the news is heresay and/or opinion offered by someone without the proper background. Many documents, not just these, would be inadmissible due to lack of authentication. While it sure looks like CBS didnt do enough due dilligence here, you are grasping at straws when you show off your precious "book" award for evidence.

I don't think anybody's citing the law as the controlling authority here, but rather making a parallel argument. The copies have been imeached so now it's time to show us the originals or eat the copies and throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

Let's not kid ourselves--Yes, Dan Rather and his producers are just arrogant enough to shrug off what amounts to incontrovertible proof of the documents' forgery. They'll do it and laugh about it over cocktails.

But a great deal of the obstinance we have seen and will continue to see is because of the source of the criticism. They simply will not yield to fact-checking from "Internet Brownshirts" and what's more, they are probably dining out on that as we speak.

In their circles, it's not What Is Right, it's Who Is Right. And they'll sacrifice credibility gladly for the acclaim of their friends and peers.

Amazing what reading this thread tells us about the readers.

Some points to remember --

Dallas Morning News ran a story in (1999?) where the Tx ANG officer in charge of recruiting pilots said that Bush got no help getting into yhr Guard because he didn't need any. While there was a waiting list for most spots, they had a number of openings for pilot candidates when Bush applied. Pilot slots required college degree, etc. Of course, the lefties don't need facts to brazenly assert that Bush got help.

NBC broadcast the Brodderick rape by Clinton story, not Fox. Who knew that Lisa Myers was an extreme right wingnut?

James Carville gave a press conference at the White House in which he admitted that Hilary had lied in making up 4 different stories trying to explain the cattle futures miracle. He said the stories had been fabricated because she had no memory of the events and would no longer discuss the story. The press promptly dropped the story. Any claim that the cattle futures scandal was fabricated by right wing press is ludicrous.

The Swiftvets have proven conclusively that Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia, that he was not seriously wounded as claimed in his authorized biography, that David Alston (who spoke at the 2004 Convention about Kerry's heroism) was not on the boat the day in question, that Kerry has given a number of very different accounts about some of his "heroic deeds", that Kerry's campaign tried to take credit for fighting that he was not involved in (Kerry's website has had to remove the info), that Kerry has lied repeatedly about his reserve status while leading VVAW and negotiating with the Viet Cong and a number of other details.

They have conclusively established that Kerry has told a number of lies and continued to do so right through the convention. The left likes to label them liars, but the only "lie" the left has pointed out is that their sworn affidavits differ from the official records or that their recollections differ from a few other witnesses. Of course, the inaccuracy of the official records is one of the major points they are trying to make, so to point out the very fact that they assert hardly proves they are lying. Same thing for differing recollections. When two people disagree with a handful of others about what they remember, it hardly proves that the handful are lying.

I agree the documents look phoney. But thats only part of the story, and until jr explains why he skipped the NG physical, why he didnt enroll in the NG while at Harvard Buisness school(not Colorado), and why nobody that served with him in the NG for the time period in question has claimed the $10,000 reward offered to anyone who proves they served with jr, the questions will remain. Its intresting the White House has not commented on the content of the alleged forgeries.

CBS has witnesses that say they never encountered jr during the period in question in the Guard. The reps have attacked ex Lt Governor Barnes claims of pulling strings for Bushs entrance into the NG by quoting a family member that has no first hand knowledge of Barnes work or pulling of strings. This is the same way they first attacked the alleged forgeries, by offering speculation from Killians family members, who have no first hand knowledge on the incident in question. It would be much more convincing if the reps came up with someone who actually worked with Killian or Barnes to speak on the records, or if they could just dig up ONE person that served with jr in the NG during the time in question.

"...(reasonable meaning, I don't have to replace typing balls...."

Every time I'm near thinking the thing is over, I read another kid who seems to think that twitching a typeball in and out of a Selectric was rarer than hitting the shift key.

But it wasn't.

I agree the documents look phoney.

You kinda have to at this point, Beg.

But thats only part of the story

Oh-oh...here it comes...

and until jr explains why he skipped the NG physical, why he didnt enroll in the NG while at Harvard Buisness school(not Colorado), and why nobody that served with him in the NG for the time period in question has claimed the $10,000 reward offered to anyone who proves they served with jr, the questions will remain.

Yes, I'm sure these and other questions (like "What about the yellowcake, huh?) will remain with "the entire nation" (previously established as "Begbee and his silly little friends).

Its intresting the White House has not commented on the content of the alleged forgeries.

It's also "intresting" just how tone-deaf you are, Beg. Why in the world would the White House say anything about this? Are you hoping Bush will tearfully break down during his next press conference and say, "It's true! Daddy helped me blow off my phystical in the National Guard thirty-two years ago! I'm not fit to be president! Oh, the humanity...!"

CBS has witnesses that say they never encountered jr during the period in question in the Guard.

Oh, CBS has witnesses! Well, why didn't you say so? Well played, old man! Well played!

The reps have attacked ex Lt Governor Barnes claims of pulling strings for Bushs entrance into the NG by quoting a family member that has no first hand knowledge of Barnes work or pulling of strings. This is the same way they first attacked the alleged forgeries, by offering speculation from Killians family members, who have no first hand knowledge on the incident in question.

Um, no. They began the "attacks" (why is every difference of opinion always an "attack" with you guys?) by pointing out the obvious problems with the documents themselves, which space prevents me from repeating here.

It would be much more convincing if the reps came up with someone who actually worked with Killian or Barnes to speak on the records, or if they could just dig up ONE person that served with jr in the NG during the time in question.

The burden of proof isn't on the "reps" and their evil minions, but on the people talking smack in the first place. What if I said "Begbee stole the last pecan sandie from my cookie jar last week!" Could you dig up even ONE person that could prove you didn't take it?

Let's give Begbee a big hand, people!
(Crowd cheers and whistles, theme music up and fades)

Gary,

Every time I'm near thinking the thing is over, I read another kid who seems to think that twitching a typeball in and out of a Selectric was rarer than hitting the shift key.

But it wasn't.

You mean, you'd change balls at least once per sentence typed? That's pretty remarkable.

So we're at the point in this society, where people are so desperate to re-elect Bush, that ANY veteran that isn't supporting Bush must have the extent of his or her injuries or medals questioned at BEST, dismissed as lies at worst?
We've seen it with McCain and Cleeland in 2000, and now with Kerry.
By that token, the 7,200+ wounded and counting in the Iraqi Quagmire should be prepared for the same type of scrutiny and scorn if they have the TEMERITY to not support the President in November. We do know that approximately 1010 US soldiers won't be able to vote for Bush this time around because they're dead...or maybe they're not really dead. Maybe that's just a DNC talking point to bash the President. I'm sure the death certificates will be vetted for forgeries by those who know that a rising death toll may look bad for Commander-in Chief.

--Cobra

"So we're at the point in this society, where people are so desperate to re-elect Bush, that ANY veteran that isn't supporting Bush must have the extent of his or her injuries or medals questioned at BEST, dismissed as lies at worst?"

The best that I can say about Cobra's statement above is that it's disengenuous.

I seem to remember that Kerry himself based the majority of his fitness to be CinC on his 4 months in Vietnam. Looks to me like he opened that door. If he wants to claim that his truncated tour in-country makes him uniquely qualified to run the most powerful nation in human history during a time of war then people are going to take a good, hard look at what he did while there. And what he said about it after he got back.

There isn't any question that Kerry made up a story about going into Cambodia. Even his own campaign admits that. There's also no doubt that he used this fiction to try and influence American foreign policy. ("..it's seared, seared in my memory...") Proof for that is in the Congressional Record.

Okay, that's it for me. It doesn't matter if anyone claims that he does or does not deserve this or that medal. We obviously can't accept his Vietnam experiences as a qualification for the office of President. There's no telling what's fiction and what's genuine. And we can't rely on Kerry telling us which is which since it's proven that he's willing to use the made-up stuff to advance his own interests.

So now we come down to the issues. And if there's one thing that the past few months have made abundantly clear, no one can trust John Kerry to stick to a position if there's any advantage to changing. ("I voted for it before I voted against it.")

So it looks to me like most of his problems are self-inflicted, and he's not giving us anything else to go on.

Except that he's Anyone But Bush. For some people that's good enough.

James

Dan was *NOT* "taken in"! He knew/knows the docs are lies. He will stop at nothing to elect JFK.
Rod Stanton

The Best Evidence Rule is not really the best place to start when questioning the admissibility of these documents. The biggest objection is that they violate the hearsay rule. That is, they shouldn't be used to establish the truth of the contents because hearsay is usually unreliable evidence. And there would be no Business Records exception because private memos are not required nor even common in the course of military business. (A "CYA" memo that doesn't even CYA? Give me a break!)

So, even if these documents were authentic, they don't "prove" anything, except perhaps for the state of mind of the writer, for which there is plenty of contrary evidence available, i.e., Killian evidently thought highly of Bush.

Dan Rather never let facts get in the way of going on-air with a story.

I read his autobiography, "The Camera Never Blinks," around thirty years ago. (Yep, I'm that old and he was that pretentious.) The one thing I'll never forget about that book is his revelation about his coverage of the Kennedy assassination in Dallas. All three networks were on-the-air in pandemonium reporting about the shooting, but with precious little information. Dan Rather was the first reporter to pronounce the president dead, and the nation turned to CBS for the news. On what basis did Rather make this grim announcement to the nation? None. He admitted that he had no facts: he simply wanted to be first, and he gambled that the president had been killed. He got lucky and he's proud of that.

I haven't watched CBS news since, and I don't believe a word that comes out of Rather's mouth.

RMc you once again manage to successfuly quote me and use italics over and over, then do nothing but make cheesey high school girl attacks.

About the few substanitive points you attempt to cobble together. The Administration had oppurtunity to speak on the documents in question prior to anyone attacking the documents authenticity and never did. While its good politics to not comment on the documents now, it was bad politics to let the story run without any rebuttal at the first appearence of the documents. This isnt a court of law, the burden of the evidence is whatever the public decides it is. And the most damaging part of Bushs NG service is that not a single person in the NG with him for the period in question has come forward to claim what is now a $50,000 reward.

If at first you don't succeed, move the goalposts.

Now that the memoranda have been pretty much discredited as being the probable forgery of a modern word processor -- artificially aged and misaligned using copy/fax/scan techniques, and used in spite of expert reservations made known to CBS before the 60m segment erred/aired -- I suppose we should expect to see the ABBs begin to try and hammer on the dead horse of Bush's TXANG service record, using innuendo and preferential interpretations of evidence, hoping to obscure the fact that Bush isn't running for reelection on the basis of said service record.

Hmm...ABB. Rhymes with ADD. Coincidence? We think not.

Gary -- if you read my earlier post, you know that I, too, have used the selectric and other electric typewriters; I too have even changed typewriter balls.

But having changed typewriter balls, and knowing how long it took me, it simply defies my imagination that a Lieutenant Colonel, whose friends and family all say that he didn't know how to type, who was typing a memo for his own files, would have

a) known the 8-point ball existed
b) been able to find it if he did know
c) been able to figure out how to change the typewriter ball
d) gone hunting for the manual in order to figure it out
e) known how to do a superscript
f) bothered to do so for a memo that was not for anyone else's eyes
g) managed to produce absolutely clean copy with no errors on an electric typewriter

Having worked as a secretary, and in the functional equivalent of a typing pool, I am also pretty close to 100% certain that Colonel Killian did not hand over this memo to someone else to type.

Is my old memory failing me? Or is Jane's? As I remember it, the trick to changing an IBM golfball was to flip up the tab at the top and lift it off. The way to type a superscript was to press down a key (the shift key? I'm not sure) which caused the golfball to rise up slightly and tilt forward to a very acute angle. Then hit whichever key has the superscript character on it. Highly skilled work? Nah. People were more versatile in those days. Self-reliance; this generation doesn't have it.

Which of the memos was "absolutely clean copy with no errors"? Even the best one looked a bit sloppy to me.

But maybe Texas in the early seventies was lagging way behind my native Ireland (though we thought it was the other way round, what with Americans goin' to the moon an' all); and maybe a Lieutenant Colonel in TexANG was likely to be pretty clueless with high technology like golfball typewriters.

I mean it's not as if he knew about rocket science is it? He wasn't in the real air force.

At the end of the day though, who cares? Bush admits he was a bit of a waster in his once-born days. The only aspect with any contemporary relevance is that he may have lied about a few things. Is that so startling?

How can reps argue that the likely forged documents completely rebutt the entire CBS allegation that has components beyond the documents, yet still continue to back the Swiftys, who have many new statements on Kerry, that completely contradict previous statements by the same member?

Good lord.

Reading comments here and at Kevin Drum's site (well done, Kevin) from the in-denial lefties here is simply stunning. 1) Gang, a couple of the IBMs had the capacity - barely, and not realistically - to do the sorts of things that were done to make the memos, and had a similar typeface, but could not have made the documents come out looking the way they did. Which is why noone has been able to reproduce the document using one of the IBM machines. 2) IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Have you been watching on TV? The story is about CBS. It's called Rathergate, get it?

See my earlier post. See Jane's latest post. We're enjoying this at Rather's expense.

Just for the record, I despise Bush and will not vote for him. I'm sure he got favors, though it seems he did pretty much what he needed to do (and if you think the NG wasn't a haven for all sorts of cushy draft-avoiding activities, you're nuts).

Just. Move. On.

The Administration had oppurtunity to speak on the documents in question prior to anyone attacking the documents authenticity and never did. While its good politics to not comment on the documents now, it was bad politics to let the story run without any rebuttal at the first appearence of the documents.

Again, what should the White House say? "Them documents is phony, nyah-nyah-nyah!"

This isnt a court of law, the burden of the evidence is whatever the public decides it is.

You really want you use that standard, Beg? OK. Hardly anyone, except for standard-issue hardcore lefties, believes these docs are real -- hell, even you don't anymore, remember?

And the most damaging part of Bushs NG service is that not a single person in the NG with him for the period in question has come forward to claim what is now a $50,000 reward.

Oh, grow up. I'll put up $100,000 right now for anyone who can prove that Begbee attended kindergarten, by stating they were in that class with him way back when. (Oh, and I get to determine what "proof" is. The fact that I don't like Beg much and want to see him embarassed will not prejudice me, I swear.)

What, no takers? Guess that makes you a damn liar, Begbee. That's life.

Oh, and if you ever call me a "cheesey high school girl" again, I'll smack you around with my pom-poms.

Hand me a box of tissues please, I just nearly exploded.

cbs fire dan rather i stop watching cbs

cbs fire dan rather maybe i watch cbs again one day

RMc if your going to quote me in purrty italics, THE COMMENTS YOU FOLLOW WITH SHOULD RELATE TO THE QUOTE.

First, if the contents of the document are false, a quick "The memo and contents are false" plainly states jrs position, after all, you were just called a liar and a cheat. Will the White House remain silent now that Killians secretary has stated the contents of the likely forgeries are an accurate reflection of Killians thoughts on Bush? Or more bs from his rep son that has no knowledge of Killians on the job thoughts?

There is "no burden of proof" for anything thats not legally in question.

And dude, if I were President there would be 30 or 40 people at least confirming my Kindnegarten attendence if there were $10K on the line. What a freaking softball...

Btw, noone has even tried to claim the money, so dont try to make an issue out of 'proof' until theres a claim denied. Once your done with your 'pom poms', I heard you give great megaphone...

Anonymouse the tissues are in your nightstand, on top of the porn collection...

First, if the contents of the document are false, blah blah blah blah...

OK, Beg, I'm all done playing with you.

You're not just a moron, but a very determined, illogical, arrogant moron. Every one of your "charges" has been refuted time and again, by myself and by several others, but you continue to waste everyone's time bleating the same old "Bushitler must die" crap. Whatever. Maybe you can get a job fellating Dan Rather when he's out to pasture, doing his "courage" schtick for adoring crowds of lefty idiotarians like yourself.

Time to ban Beg's IP, Jane. Now.

Anonymouse the tissues are in your nightstand, on top of the porn collection...

That's a stack of National Geographic magazines. I read them for the articles.

If you use them for a purpose that caused you to mistake them for pr0n, that's beyond my power to address.

Comments are Closed.