"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they
were
comfortable shopping for consultants.

What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
that these same memos once existed, and were lost
or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
from memory?

Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
Killian's secretary.



Again, what do you mean by recreated?



To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it from
memory) and typing it into a word processor.

There are obvious problems with this.

If the source had the original, why recreate it?

Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
memorized it or took notes.



If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the copy
for this particular purposes. Your senses have
left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
straight while trying to win an election.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an
over-reaction
if it
gores my ox.

ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but
the
content reflected what they were thinking back then.


The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was
not
what Killian was thinking

Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was
thinking.
She
also says she didn't type them.


She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
he might have thought.

He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.

I repeat.........

I don't think you need to be so literal.

I say that cause others close to Killian say that was not his
expression of his thoughts.
So, in the abscenec of a live Killian, we don't know for sure,
all we have is the speculatiuon upon the preponderance of
evidence.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article 0Z82d.92850$yh.60065@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article SV62d.92734$yh.83717@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a
drum
since the Clinton years.

Who's playing the DNC like a drum with their incredibly stupid
internet
ad
which uses 60 minutes footage and the phony docs? It's also
interesting
to
note that both NBC and CBS have asked they pull the ad for
unauthorized
use
of copyrighted material. The democratic party leadership appears to
have
departed the planet for destination unknown.

Okay, that's a week. Good balance for the right-wing decade?

You sound like a raider fan... always living in the past.

In the past? The Raiders are still playing.

So is Kerry.

You seem to be saying that Bush's corruption, irrational and erratic
behavior, religious fervor, ineptitude at foreign policy, and
surrounding himself with thieves and war profiteers is just fine.

I see nothing wrong with any of that. At least he always looks neat.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they
were
comfortable shopping for consultants.

What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
that these same memos once existed, and were lost
or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
from memory?

Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
Killian's secretary.



Again, what do you mean by recreated?



To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it from
memory) and typing it into a word processor.

There are obvious problems with this.

If the source had the original, why recreate it?

Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
memorized it or took notes.



If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the copy
for this particular purposes. Your senses have
left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
straight while trying to win an election.

My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
that you mentioned any of them.

In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations. If
you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your problem.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Kevin Drum a reliable source?

LOL!

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Kevin Drum a reliable source?

LOL!

Predictable...

Kevin Drum is not, note, the source.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep15.html

Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.

CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing
all
his
military records.

He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.

Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on subjective
assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
Obviously
differences of opinion can exist.

In the
meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.

Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned up'
the way Bush's was?


And you know this because....................?

Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.


IOW you have nothing but unfounded specualtion.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an
over-reaction
if it
gores my ox.

ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
content reflected what they were thinking back then.


The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
what Killian was thinking

Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was thinking. She
also says she didn't type them.


She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
he might have thought.

He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.

Still hearsay and the rambling of an old woman from 35 years ago who WAS NOT
his personal secretary.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.

And not just to her... also to whoever (probably) created the
documents,
either back then or recently.


Hehe, I thought Killian created it.
he 'signed' it!

You seem to be saying that its just fine to document
one's allegations by creating a forgery that contains
the information one believes is correct.
that contains information you be


You seem to be saying that Bush's corruption, irrational and erratic
behavior, religious fervor, ineptitude at foreign policy, and
surrounding himself with thieves and war profiteers is just fine.



You seem to be saying that since you believe this to be true, it is.


Usual assertions without facts.

In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing
all
his
military records.

He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.

Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on subjective
assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
Obviously
differences of opinion can exist.

In the
meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.

Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned up'
the way Bush's was?


And you know this because....................?

Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.

Hey, you and Clyde are on the same page! What's next, are you going to
call me "angry"?

In article uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep15.html

Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.

How about the White House releasing more documents? Didn't they say
they'd released them all already?

CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.

One of those neck-and-neck freefalls.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net
"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file
'cleaned up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding
my breath.


IOW you have nothing but unfounded specualtion.

Exactly. But, it rocks Stephen's cradle so it's Revealed Truth.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep15.html

Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.

How about the White House releasing more documents? Didn't they say
they'd released them all already?

CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.

One of those neck-and-neck freefalls.

So why are Kerry's numbers still falling and Bush's rising?

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by
releasing
all
his
military records.

He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.

Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
subjective
assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
Obviously
differences of opinion can exist.

In the
meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.

Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up'
the way Bush's was?


And you know this because....................?

Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.

Hey, you and Clyde are on the same page! What's next, are you going to
call me "angry"?

No need to point out the obvious.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:40 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate that
any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
body to take the lead on this.

This is a Karl Rove masterpiece: he'll be crowing about it
in his memoirs.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:04:27 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:


Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.


Rove definitely pulled a beauty with this.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep15.html

Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.

How about the White House releasing more documents? Didn't they say
they'd released them all already?

CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.

One of those neck-and-neck freefalls.

So why are Kerry's numbers still falling and Bush's rising?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pres...cking_Poll.htm

According to Rasmussen, Kerry's steady for the week, but still behind
Bush, who had a slight rise but basically is where he started, too.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file
'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding
my
breath.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep15.html

Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.

How about the White House releasing more documents? Didn't they say
they'd released them all already?

CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.

One of those neck-and-neck freefalls.

So why are Kerry's numbers still falling and Bush's rising?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pres...cking_Poll.htm

According to Rasmussen, Kerry's steady for the week, but still behind
Bush, who had a slight rise but basically is where he started, too.

Not completely unexpected. I'm still betting Bush wins in Nov. It's also
nice to hear that Daschle is behind 3 points in his re-election bid.

"GregP" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:04:27 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:


Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.


Rove definitely pulled a beauty with this.

Unsubstantiated allegation noted.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.

And not just to her... also to whoever (probably) created the
documents,
either back then or recently.


Hehe, I thought Killian created it.
he 'signed' it!

You seem to be saying that its just fine to document
one's allegations by creating a forgery that contains
the information one believes is correct.
that contains information you be


You seem to be saying that Bush's corruption, irrational and erratic
behavior, religious fervor, ineptitude at foreign policy, and
surrounding himself with thieves and war profiteers is just fine.




you seem to be not listening.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos,
they
were
comfortable shopping for consultants.

What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
that these same memos once existed, and were lost
or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
from memory?

Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview
with
Killian's secretary.



Again, what do you mean by recreated?



To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it
from
memory) and typing it into a word processor.

There are obvious problems with this.

If the source had the original, why recreate it?

Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
memorized it or took notes.



If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the copy
for this particular purposes. Your senses have
left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
straight while trying to win an election.

My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
that you mentioned any of them.

In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations. If
you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your problem.

you are the one that brought up the euphanism of "recreation" of documents.
By any other name, a forgery stinks so much.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep15.html

Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.

CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.


Now, let us get itno the preexixting relationship
between Rather and Burkett. Danny Boy got into
a controversy when he gave a speech at a local Democratic
fundraiser. This is a no-no for a journalist. Oh, that
fundraiser happened to be in or around Abeline, where Burkett is
from. Burkett happens to be a local Democratic
Party officer and operative. Rajther's daughter
lives there, too. She is supposedly the one who
invited him.Rather said, at the time, that he didn't
know it was a fundraiser till he got there, but
he went ahead and spoke, anyway.

The forgeries were faxed from a Kinko's in or around Abeline.
I think that Rather knows Burkett from the
event he attended, I would bet he knew
him even before that.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing
all
his
military records.

He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.

Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
subjective
assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
Obviously
differences of opinion can exist.

In the
meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.

Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned up'
the way Bush's was?


And you know this because....................?

Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.


Not only that, his hatred actually subverts his own goal, electing Kerry.

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos,
they
were
comfortable shopping for consultants.

What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
that these same memos once existed, and were lost
or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
from memory?

Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview
with
Killian's secretary.



Again, what do you mean by recreated?



To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it
from
memory) and typing it into a word processor.

There are obvious problems with this.

If the source had the original, why recreate it?

Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
memorized it or took notes.



If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the copy
for this particular purposes. Your senses have
left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
straight while trying to win an election.

My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
that you mentioned any of them.

In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations. If
you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your problem.

you are the one that brought up the euphanism of "recreation" of documents.
By any other name, a forgery stinks so much.

It wasn't a 'forgery' until it was represented as an original.

You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
of humor, so, bye!

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:40 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the
source
for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
that
any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no
other
body to take the lead on this.

This is a Karl Rove masterpiece: he'll be crowing about it
in his memoirs.



And your evidence?
What? You haven't "recreated" it yet?

"GregP" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:04:27 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:


Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.


Rove definitely pulled a beauty with this.


you really need a scapegoat, don't you?
You had one for 2000, now you are fishing for one for 2004.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos,
they
were
comfortable shopping for consultants.

What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
that these same memos once existed, and were lost
or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
from memory?

Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an
interview
with
Killian's secretary.



Again, what do you mean by recreated?



To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling
it
from
memory) and typing it into a word processor.

There are obvious problems with this.

If the source had the original, why recreate it?

Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it
but
memorized it or took notes.



If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the
copy
for this particular purposes. Your senses have
left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
straight while trying to win an election.

My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
that you mentioned any of them.

In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations.
If
you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your
problem.

you are the one that brought up the euphanism of "recreation" of
documents.
By any other name, a forgery stinks so much.

It wasn't a 'forgery' until it was represented as an original.

You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
of humor, so, bye!

I think this whole mess is quite funny.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:06:53 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:


Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all his
military records.


Why he should answer to a goose-stepper like
you is beyond me. Then again, all of you
brown/black shirts/white hoods have a long
history of being arrogant, aren't you ?

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:11:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


Still hearsay and the rambling of an old woman from 35 years ago who WAS NOT
his personal secretary.


She came across as much saner, logical, and with it than
the persona that you have displayed here over a number
of years.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:40 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
that
any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
body to take the lead on this.

This is a Karl Rove masterpiece: he'll be crowing about it
in his memoirs.

What color is the sky in your world?

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos,
they
were
comfortable shopping for consultants.

What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
that these same memos once existed, and were lost
or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
from memory?

Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview
with
Killian's secretary.



Again, what do you mean by recreated?



To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it
from
memory) and typing it into a word processor.

There are obvious problems with this.

If the source had the original, why recreate it?

Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it
but
memorized it or took notes.



If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the
copy
for this particular purposes. Your senses have
left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
straight while trying to win an election.

My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
that you mentioned any of them.

In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations. If
you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your
problem.

you are the one that brought up the euphanism of "recreation" of
documents.
By any other name, a forgery stinks so much.

It wasn't a 'forgery' until it was represented as an original.

It was a forgery because it was made up from whole cloth, the signatures are
forged and the documents were never seen by CBS.

You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
of humor, so, bye!

What's funny about using forgery to try and discredit the President?
What's funny about your blind hatred Of George W. Bush?

There's lots of YUCKS, but no humor.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by
releasing
all
his
military records.

He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.

Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
subjective
assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
Obviously
differences of opinion can exist.

In the
meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.

Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up'
the way Bush's was?


And you know this because....................?

Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.


Not only that, his hatred actually subverts his own goal, electing Kerry.

I may have missed your comment on the first Pres. Bush bitch slapping Rather
in an interview, did you see it? I really did LOL.

"GregP" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:06:53 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:


Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all
his
military records.


Why he should answer to a goose-stepper like
you is beyond me. Then again, all of you
brown/black shirts/white hoods have a long
history of being arrogant, aren't you ?

Ah yes the old call your antagonist a Nazi ploy.

You do know this means you've lost the argument, don't you?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by
releasing
all
his
military records.

He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.

Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
subjective
assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
Obviously
differences of opinion can exist.

In the
meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed
the
release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.

Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
up'
the way Bush's was?


And you know this because....................?

Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.


Not only that, his hatred actually subverts his own goal, electing
Kerry.

I may have missed your comment on the first Pres. Bush bitch slapping
Rather
in an interview, did you see it? I really did LOL.



I don't think I commented on that.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:11:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


Still hearsay and the rambling of an old woman from 35 years ago who WAS
NOT
his personal secretary.


She came across as much saner, logical, and with it than
the persona that you have displayed here over a number
of years.

She's 86 years old and said she never typed the memos. I never implied she
was anything but sane. But trying to claim she remembers that this is how
Killian really felt about Bush is hearsay and contradicted by his son and
widow.