The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - Transcript of Tonight's 60 Minutes

September 15, 2004

| Transcript of Tonight's 60 Minutes

Transcript of 60 Minutes, September 15, 2004.

DAN RATHER: Last week on this broadcast, we heard for the first time the full story from a texas politician who says he helped George Bush avoid military service in vietnam. Former texas house speaker Ben Barnes said he helped Bush get a highly coveted place in the National Guard. We also presented documents for the first time, which indicated that once Bush was accepted into the guard he failed to live up to the requirements of his service. We reported that the documents were written by lieutenant Bush’s National Guard squad commander, colonel Jerry Killian, who passed away in 1984.

In the past week, those documents have been subjected to extraordinary
scrutiny and criticism tonight, another voice— a credible voice— has
entered the debate. The woman who describes herself as colonel Killian’s right hand during much of the 1970s, Marion Carr Knox, colonel Killian’s secretary, flew to new york this afternoon to tell us she believes the documents we obtained are not authentic. But there’s yet another confusing twist to this story: She told us she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported. Marion carr knox is 86 years old and completely comfortable in the eye of a storm. She spent more than two decades keeping pilots and officers in line at elseon air field in houston.

Now she wants to set the record straight about the memos cbs obtained.
There’s a twist. You’ve seen the memos that we broadcast, these memos that we got.

MARION CARR KNOX: I did not type those memos.

RATHER: You didn’t type these memos?

KNOX: No. And it’s not the form that i would have used. And there are words in there that belong to the army, not to the air guard. We never used those terms.

RATHER: So with these memos, you know that you didn’t type them.

KNOX: I know that i didn’t type them. However, the information in those is correct.

RATHER: Few, if any, things that I ask you about will be more important than this point: You say you definitely didn’t type these memos.

KNOX: Not these particular ones.

RATHER: Did you type ones like this?

KNOX: Yes.

RATHER: Containing the same or identical information?

KNOX: The same information, yes.

RATHER: Mrs. Knox says the information in the four memos cbs obtained is very familiar, but she doesn’t believe the memos are authentic. She does remember her boss, colonel Jerry Killian, being upset over mr. Bush’s failure to follow orders to take a physical. Did or did not lieutenant Bush take a physical as ordered by colonel Killian?

KNOX: That last time no he didn’T.

RATHER: To your norjs was he ordered to do so?

KNOX: Yes.

RATHER: This is important: I think you’ll agree, that then-lieutenant Bush was in the military, lieutenant colonel Killian was his immediate military commander, correct, his squadron command center

KNOX: Right. Yeah.

RATHER: The country was at war. It’s very unusual for a military officer, particularly a flying officer, not to obey a direct order from his superior, or if not, tell me.

KNOX: It was a big no-no. To not follow orders. I can’t remember anyone refusing now, for instance, with the physical, every officer knew that at his birthday he was supposed to have that flying physical. Once in a while they might be late, but there would be a good excuse for it and let the commander know and try to set up a date for make-up. If they did not take that physical, they were off of flying status until they did.

RATHER: Did you ever hear lieutenant colonel Killian talk about this or did he write memos about this? What was his feeling if lieutenant Bush did not take the physical as ordered?

KNOX: He was upset about it. That was one of the reasons why he… well, he wrote a memo directing him to go take the physical.

RATHER: I don’t understand it.

KNOX: I’m going to say this: It seems to me that Bush felt that he was above reproof.

RATHER: Marion carr knox remembers lieutenant Bush well, seeing him often as he showed up for training in 1971 and ‘7 2,

KNOX: He was always gentlemanly. He called me by the name of his father’s secretary. He was always apologizing about that. He couldn’t remember my name. He was very gentlemanly. I felt that his parents must have been wonderful to have produced somebody as nice as that.

RATHER: Among the contentions one of the questions raised, one, did or did not George W. Bush get into the National Guard on the basis of preferential treatment.

KNOX: I’m going to say that he did. I feel that he did because there were a lot of other boys in there the same way.

RATHER: Accurate or inaccurate to say that this unit was filled with people who had republican and democratic connections who got in on the basis of preference?

KNOX: At that time, yes.

RATHER: Now, you observed lieutenant Bush yourself.

KNOX: Uh-huh.

RATHER: Tell me about him. What kind of officer was he?

KNOX: Bush seemed to be having a good time. He didn’t seem to be having any problem with the other pilots, let me say that. But his time there, it seemed that the other fellas were, I’m going to say this, sort of resentful for his attitude.

RATHER: What was his attitude?

KNOX: Well, that he really didn’t have to go by the rules.

RATHER: He didn’t really have to go by the rules?

KNOX: It seemed that way to me.

RATHER: Knox says her boss, colonel Jerry Killian, started what she calls a cover-your-back file, a personal file where she stored the memos about the problems with mr. Bush’s performance and his failure to take a physical and the pressure Killian felt from upstairs. She addressed this memo and a reference to retired general stout pushing for a positive officer training report on lieutenant Bush. And stout is pushing to sugar coat it. Does that sound like colonel Killian? Is that the way he felt?

KNOX: That’s absolutely the way he felt about that.

RATHER: And she talked about this mental moment. She doesn’t believe the memo is authentic, but she says the facts behind it are very real. He did write a memo like this?

KNOX: Yes.

RATHER: So he did write a memo like this, not this one is your contention, but one like it?

KNOX: It’s just like a personal journal. You write things.

RATHER: Is that what he was keeping, more or laeses personal journal?

KNOX: It was more or less, that yes.

RATHER: These memos were not memos that you tipd and you don’t think they came directly out of his files?

KNOX: The information, yes. It seems that somebody did see those memos, and then tried to reproduce and maybe changed them enough so that he wouldn’t get in trouble over it.

RATHER: I understand.

KNOX: Could deny it.

RATHER: I understand.

KNOX: That’s all just supposition.

RATHER: I understand.

(voiceover) Mrs. Knox says the fact that then-lieutenant Bush was repeatedly missing drills was not lost on his fellow pilots.

Was it common knowledge or not that lieutenant Bush had not attend some drills?

KNOX: Well, they missed him. It was sort of gossip around there, and they’d snicker and so forth about what he was getting away with.

RATHER: What lieutenant Bush was getting away with?

KNOX: Yeah.

RATHER: They were snickering about that?

KNOX: Well, the other officers, and I guess there was even a resentment.

>> RATHER (voiceover): She told us again and again she believed
then-lieutenant Bush refused a direct order to take take a physical.

Colonel Killian’s son, with whom I have no argument and i respect the
Killian family tremendously for the sacrifice that they made when their husband and father was serving in the military, colonel Killian’s son says that this this isn’t true.

KNOX: He has no way of knowing whether it’s true or noT.

>> RATHER (voiceover): Mrs. Knox says for young George Bush in 1972, working in a senate campaign became more important than flying for the guard.

Back off for a moment. Take a breath. Think a little and have you tell me what you believe the story here is.

KNOX: I think it’s plain and simple. Bush didn’t think that he had to go by the rules that others did. He had this campaign to take care of, and that’s what he was going to do, and that’s what he did do.

RATHER: A few personal thoughts on the story we have reported tonight. We shall continue to aggressively investigate the story of President Bush’s service in the National Guard, and the story of the documents and memos in Colonel Killian’s file. Are those documents authentic, as experts consulted by cbs news continue to maintain?

Or were they forgeries or recreations, as marion carr knox and many other believe? We will keep an open mind, and we will continue to report credible evidence and responsible points of view as we try to answer the questions raised about the authenticity of the documents.

Having said that, we do feel that it’s important to underscore this point: Those who have criticized aspects of our story have never criticized the heart of it, the major thrust of our report: That George Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard, and, once accepted, failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

If we uncover any information to the contrary, rest assured we shall report that also.

****

We report, you decide. Feel free to discuss.

Posted by Michele at September 15, 2004 09:49 PM | TrackBack

Comments

How sad that Dan Rather hides behind an 86 year old woman when all he has to do is provide the originals and name his source.

What’s the big deal about naming the source? Even Mrs. Knox says those documents are fraudulent.

Just name the source Dan!!

Posted by: TexasGal at September 15, 2004 10:16 PM

Did my eyes just deceive me, or did Dan Rather just excuse forgery with heresay from an 86 year old woman? Wtf is going on over there?

Posted by: mark buehner at September 15, 2004 10:21 PM

KNOX: I’m going to say that he did. I feel that he did because there were a lot of other boys in there the same way.

Ooooh, logic.

See? I told ya: welcome to the new reality. Mental moment indeed. They are going to get away with this, they are going to get away with it completely.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at September 15, 2004 10:21 PM

We will keep an open mind, and we will continue to report credible evidence and responsible points of view as we try to answer the questions raised about the authenticity of the documents.

How he can say that with a straight face is beyond me. The only explanation I can find is that the man is borderline psychotic.

Posted by: gus3 at September 15, 2004 10:49 PM

There’s a great deal most of us much younger than 86 can’t recall from 30 yrs ago. Utterly feeble try, Rather; your bias is on public display and you don’t get it.

So what if Bush got ‘favorable’ treatment? Hardly an easy or safe thing, flying F-102As….approx 30% of the 875 produced went down, and 70 pilots died. Kerry didn’t get ‘favorable’ treatment for band-aid Purple Hearts?

Blame those who granted or pushed for favors; point a finger at Barnes, who claims to have done the same for many others, just like Kerry claimed he himself was guilty of war crimes. They admit this stuff and it’s OK?

Posted by: TomTom at September 15, 2004 11:08 PM

Sen. Joe McCarthy used forged documents and faked pictures
*************************************
Just to clarify what company Baghdad Dan Rather is in.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at September 15, 2004 11:13 PM

Oh I don’t see the Republican Party letting go of this, much less the Texas Republicans, especially Tom DeLay and John Cornyn.

And if Rather thinks that Bob Perry is the link between SBVT and the Bush family, he hasn’t seen anything yet!

Posted by: TexasGal at September 15, 2004 11:22 PM

TexasLady What do you know about Abilene?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 15, 2004 11:38 PM

Wow!

All 6 of Weakling’s supporters right here. coWard’s past is catching up to him. Check out this story in which commie ex-NSA head goes native

wait, wait what about the kerning?

How sad that Novak hides behind his kid’s skirts when all he has to do is name his source for the felonious Plame outing.

Just name the source Novak!!

So what if Weakling got preferential treatment? Why didn’t he just come out like a man and say so instead of saying otherwise. The man can’t be trusted.

Posted by: dubyus at September 15, 2004 11:41 PM

They are not backing off at all. Still stonewalling…I say its time to release the dogs on these liars. Smear out president and we’ll take you down. Dan and an 86 year old woman with some type of ax to grind. Part of it is probably true, but it is put forth as if its a ‘terminal’ revelation. Sic the dogs on these guys…. me thinks old Dan and the geratric crowd at CBS don’t know when they are out on the limb.

Posted by: dickmr at September 15, 2004 11:50 PM

Digging for straws, eh, Dubyus?

Posted by: Connolly at September 15, 2004 11:58 PM

so now we are supposed to believe this woman? why didnt they interview her when they came out with this story.

Posted by: DietCheese at September 16, 2004 12:21 AM

Let me get this straight… the documents that CBS and Dan Rather maintained as a major element in thier story and fought to defend as being true turn out to be fakes, right?

But a source that they just now interview (and who could have vouched as the memos being fakes before hand had CBS being doing its job objectively) is being touted as justification as to the “heart” of the story being true all along, even though the documents to support the story are fakes. Oh, and it just so happens that the 86 year old former secretary is a die-hard partisan Democrat, too.

Does this all make sense? Seems to be me that CBS is supporting a story based upon hearsay, partisan motives and fake documents while ignoring or dismissing any claims by bona fide experts to the contrary as “partisan conservative” hacks.

I also notice how Dan led Mrs. Knox along with questions presented to get the “right” response while demeaning all those who disagreed with him.

This is sick journalism at its worst… everyone sees it for what it is except for Dan and his cohorts at CBS and the die-hard Bush bashers.

Meanwhile, the polls are showing Bush pulling away while Kerry is knocked off the front pages and evening news by CBS’s attempts to influence an election in his favor. This is classic!

Kerry must be beating his head against a wall somewhere in one of his million dollar mansions.

Posted by: steve at September 16, 2004 12:52 AM

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am fiercly independent and have voted probably as often for one party as the other going all the way back to Goldwater/Johnson in 1964 (I went for BG).

I am not a vet, I was declared 4F and never had to even entertain thoughts of going to Nam. I do not denigrate anyone who served in any capacity. My friends and relatives were draftees, enlistees and guardsmen. Their service is all the same to me.

For several years now, my wife and I have refused to watch Dan Rather EVER. What he’s doing now is nothing new. It’s only that this time he’s been caught with his pants down. His bias is well known. My wife, being very much a liberal, simply dislikes his delivery, but it’s an intense dislike. Me, I find his bias reprehensible.

The accusations against Bush are not the story now. Since the memos are proven to be fakes, their contents can no longer be the topic of discussion. It’s like saying a counterfiet $100 bill is still worth $100 because that’s what it says on the paper.

What I want to know now is WHO created these fake memos? WHAT is their connection to the Democrats, if any? WHEN were they fabricated? WHERE did CBS get them? And WHY, WHY Dan, WHY?

Posted by: old_timer at September 16, 2004 07:05 AM

Here’s an analogy that may help the Rather apologists put this in context, via James Lileks (LINK)

Imagine if the GOP had spent three election cycles trying to impugn Kerry’s service, and finally came up with a Swift Boat Vet guy who said he saw Kerry shoot himself in the foot – and within a day it was revealed that the source spent the entire war in a supply depot in San Diego. End of the entire Magic-Hat / Xmas in Cambodia / V-for-valor/ rice-shrapnel story.

Or more aptly, imagine the Swifties produced an after action report proving that John Kerry sped off when a mine exploded under the #3 boat, abandoning Rassman in the water, only to slink back much later when it was clear there was no hostile small arms fire. Imagine further that the after action report was later shown to have been written using word processor software.

Would Dan Rather characterize it as fake but accurate if a clerk at the Swift HQ gave a statement 30 years later that he remembered something along those lines being discussed in the chow hall?

Posted by: ter0 at September 16, 2004 09:17 AM

Thank you C-P. Reading the comments here is more fun than any comedy show. I’d be surprised if Jon Stewart isn’t behind this.

CONonly digging for straws? Hah! I feel hurt and chastised.

old timer “The accusations against Bush are not the story now. Since the memos are proven to be fakes, their contents can no longer be the topic of discussion. It’s like saying a counterfiet $100 bill is still worth $100 because that’s what it says on the paper.” Hah! Not hardly. Pee poor analogy. It’s more like saying that a counterfeit $100 bill is worth $100 because the person who gave it to you exchanges it for 10 real Hamiltons. The woman says they’re fake. She says that she typed letters that said similar things and that she observed Weakling doing/not doing the things referred to in the memos. Instead of a dubyus memo, you’ve got an eyewitness. Oh wait…she’s old, she’s a woman (and not Ann Coulter or Michele Mal Kin), she probably was doing Bill in Arkansas, her son is a gay pederast, she drives a rice-burner, contributed to Sierra Club and was a welfare mother…QED, lying sack of crap!!!

If any news comes out that leaves Bush or Cheney in anything but the glowing lights of their haloes, then reveal the sources. If any reporters of Murdoch-owned rags are party to a federal crime of revealing CIA agents names, then invoke FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Brought to you by the Champion of the Constitution, Johann AschenKraft. You have the right to bear arms; you do not have the right to assemble peaceably.

Would Rush or Sean characterize it as fake but accurate if someone misled about being on the same boat as Kerry? Would they take the word of someone who was actually there over the word of someone whose tender feelings were hurt because Kerry’s testimony demonized and indicted them personally? Someone who has had a burr in their saddle since Tricky Dicky Days over Kerry. And their racist co-author.

Hey folks this is easy. Memos fake or not is the wrong tree to be barking at. Lapdog McClellan said that the content was authentic. Why did he say that? Why doesn’t coWard just say what it was that he was doing in the missing months? Don’t you support this manly man because he is such a straight shooter? Couldn’t he just do this one little thing to help us get back to something substantial—like the IraQuagmire—instead of Selectric vs MSWord?

Posted by: dubyus at September 16, 2004 11:43 AM

What a waste of key strokes you are, dubyus…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 16, 2004 01:01 PM

TexasLady What do you know about Abilene?

Cap’n,

I’d say that following a path to Abilene was too easy for a CBS protected source. Almost like someone left bread crumbs. And I’d say that as a former Guard member Burkett surely would know the right terminology to be used in a memo. I’d say he’s not an impeccable source. Oh the other hand, it does serve the purpose of moving the issue off the name of the source back to the content of the forged documents.

I also say that since Burkett has been known to be pushing this issue since the 1997 Texas Governor campaign, this is an attempt to divert the bloodhounds off the scent.

But that’s just my gut instinct talking.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 16, 2004 02:00 PM

TexasLady Thanks!

They don’t engage in the practice of Salting MotherLodes in the State of Texas, do they???

LOL.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 16, 2004 02:37 PM

Doc You’re entitled to your opinion. Widely shared hereabouts, no doubt. BTW clever rebuttal to the matters raised.

When I hear one coherent voice raised for Novak, Hannity, Limbaugh or O’Reilly to practice decent jounalism, I’ll join the chorus on Rather. Until then…partisan whining and thuggery.

tWirp used family influence to get out of VN and lied about it. He didn’t serve as promised. He lied on his payroll records. His performance then was a harbinger of smirking, irresponsible things to come. coWard doesn’t come clean on diddley. Since he was reborn in a 5 minute flash, he has become as infallible as Jesus. To use one of Doc’s metaphors…he’s got you hooked, baby. In a rational world, anybody who claimed to be directed by the words of God in his head would be locked up. Here the charlatan has been anointed .

Weakling and Lyin’ Crook Cheney - we demand 4 more years…we have a secret plan…it will all work out…the tax cuts will work…Iraq will work…it just will take another 4 years for y’all to see. We are talking with God. We are able to see things that you lowlies can’t. God said, “Thou shalt have 4 more years.”

Give it up…you’re being buffooned.

Posted by: dubyus at September 16, 2004 03:11 PM

duby

Now, listen carefully. What is your answer to people who believe “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”? Obviously it is a fraudulent document, but some would say even if it was, it speaks to a “bigger truth.”

I suppose, too, you had no problem with the Boston Globe running pornsite pics and telling everyone they were evidence of US GI’s raping Iraqis. Yeah, they were fake, but should we let the Boston Globe run them because some editor thought they were speaking to a “greater truth?”

And I guess you have no problem with the police planting evidence or making false reports about some person, as long as it spoke to the “bigger truth” that the police believed of the person.

This “proof by accusation” is no longer funny. It is downright dangerous because it strips away the protections offerred citizens by rule of law and its concurrent protocols concerning evidence.

But for puerile Leftists who are only interested in themselves, absolutely nothing, including fraud is wrong as long as it serves the cause of “the bigger truth.”

duby, let us know when you grow up and join the adults.

Posted by: Darleen at September 16, 2004 03:32 PM

Oh, duby…you again have shown projection

It is Kerry that is running around the country talking of his “secret plans”.

I’m also enjoying the delicious irony of Marion Knox playing Rosemary Woods to Dan Rather’s Dick Nixon.

I know that probably went over your head, duby, but do a google when your mommy has finished changing your diapers and you might learn some history.

Posted by: Darleen at September 16, 2004 03:36 PM

I see over on this tread we have Act #2 of the comedic stylings of dubyus.

If it wasn’t so sad, it’d be even funnier.

Posted by: DevilDoc at September 16, 2004 03:51 PM

Hah!
This is rich. Content free insults. And no sense of humor. Thuggery is serious bidness.

Darleen, as an uppity Socialist, I don’t respond well to orders such as “listen carefully.” Feel free to write whatever you want, I prolly won’t comply.

For you to construe my opinions as “bigger truths” and then characterize them by comparison with that trash is lame. Weak. Transparent trickery. It allows you (in your own mind) to disregard tWirp’s ability to lay this whole thing to rest by coming clean. McClellan said that the content of the memos is authentic. From Mr. Deflection, that is significant.

You can suppose and guess all you want. I have no control over your hyperventilation. Protocols is yet another attempt to slime Jews when we ought to be thanking them for giving us Jesus. Abu Ghraib is bad enough without Boston frostin…my only question is — when are we going to out one of the higher-ups who, explicitly or tacitly, supported this (Bush, Rummy)? Yammer, yammer about the cops. They’ve been doing that for forever. Your civics lesson is boring and trite. Deal with the facts that have been brought to light from Weakling himself, ignoring the dubyus memos. He was a slimeball then, and he’s a liar now. If he was a man instead of a coWard, he would come clean.

The gratuitous insults of your post could be used to denigrate any of a dozen C-Posters from the Right. I wouldn’t say that your insults are childish, but rather ad hominem. You have no idea how old I am or what my mother is doing. They have as much sticking power as black paint thrown against air.

Projection is a defense mechanism by which one’s own traits and emotions are attributed to someone else. I have no secret plans, and know nothing of what Kerry might have said on the matter. Please demonstrate—with a single reputable link—that Weakling and Lying Crook Cheney have a plan for Iraq. You can’t, because they don’t. Instead you pretend to have some psychological insights, when you have no idea what you’re talking about. They didn’t have a plan to start…they don’t have a plan now…unfortunately tWirp doesn’t have any more highly placed friends-of-Poppy to bail him out on this one. Boy George and his Great Iraq Mission is the Privileged Class Peter Principle taken to its tragic conclusion.

As regards the draft, my birth date was lottery #287, so I didn’t go. I gave money to draft-resisters and attended several draft-related trials in the Twin Cities. I thought then and still think that the VN war was a travesty, paid for by innocents. See that’s not so hard. Even a coWard ought to be able to come clean. But it might make him look like a Wussy.

Iraq is resembles VN - no honorable way out. A major difference is that some people pushing VN honestly believed that stopping Communism was worth the falsehoods and deaths.

Cheney’s support of Iraq and Iran as Halliburton CEO, along with his lying about it, are criminal. I have a hard time understanding how any law and order, police-supporting citizen would support these crooks.

I’m well aware of Tricky Dicky and his secretary. It’s surprising that you would invoke that memory of other ReThugLicken scumbaggery…what with Rover, Weakling, Cheaty and the FL Son Of a Bush doing a reprise. And the Kook-Aid drinkers trembling at the thought of any flaw in Wholly King George.

There are C-P rules about civil and respectful manner. Your posts don’t comply. The penalty ironically is that your insults demonstrate the level of your thinking.

Posted by: dubyus at September 16, 2004 05:34 PM

They don’t engage in the practice of Salting MotherLodes in the State of Texas, do they???

Only the Texas Democrats Cap’n,

Maybe somebody ought to turn over that salt-lick that somebody left in front of the Kinko’s in Abilene and see if it’s stamped with a CBS Logo! I’d swab it for Texas Democrat DNA.

;-)

Take a look at the list of GOVERNORS OF TEXAS. How many Republicans do you see on this list?

Posted by: TexasGal at September 16, 2004 06:40 PM

McClellan said that the content of the memos is authentic.

Link Please?

Posted by: TexasGal at September 16, 2004 06:44 PM

dubyus~

You don’t do much for your cause when someone like Darleen actually takes the time to engage you with an argument and you ignore her points regarding evidence and knowledge completely.

And although I understand that all of your self-righteous sneering and name-calling is what passes for discourse in leftie circles these days, still, I personally can barely understand anything your saying. If you’ve been mistaken for a fourteen year-old, it’s because you write like one.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at September 16, 2004 06:53 PM

TexasGal don’t remember where I saw it. For now, please recall that Scott passed along the memos that CBS had provided to the WH with no comment and no objection to content at the time. There was a beginning of a brouhaha because it looked like the WH had the memos and hadn’t released them. Much water has gone under the bridge on this subject. If I find the link, I’ll post it.

Zed Can’t help you. I suppose that anything that you can’t decipher would get thrown into the 14-year-old-writing-level bucket. You must be one smart guy. Your post is merely additional insult couched in grown-up language. Gotta give you high marks for stickin up for the ladies though. Lordy knows that the weaker sex can’t handle the tough stuff.

If there’s something in any of my posts that you would sincerely like to understand better, please let me know. Just so you know that tWirp’s NCLB education breakthrough is working (and I kinda think this was a little test that you threw down)… in your phrase I personally can barely understand anything your saying, “your” should be a contraction, that is “you’re”, which is short for “you are”. “Your” is a possessive pronoun.

My English teacher tells me that sometimes I’m a little snotty. What do you think? But she doesn’t care, because I always help raise our class average score. I’m even better in math.

Posted by: dubyus at September 16, 2004 07:17 PM

in your phrase I personally can barely understand anything your saying, “your” should be a contraction, that is “you’re”, which is short for “you are”. “Your” is a possessive pronoun.

Sorry, it’s one of my habits. I throw down a grammar usage error or malapropism every time I engage a leftist for the first time. It’s fun watching them scurry after it.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at September 16, 2004 07:45 PM

LOL. ROFLMAO!

Wooow. You better dig up a link or two, or actually find yourself smothered with your own words, dubyus. You may even find yourself masticating them…

We’ll start with this: “For now, please recall that Scott passed along the memos that CBS had provided to the WH with no comment and no objection to content at the time.”

The WH made NO COMMENT on these supposed documents. WHY SHOULD THEY?

They have proven to be FORGERIES. If the documents themselves are forgeries, what does that say about their content? If Rather believed that the Moon was made of GreenCheese, and that’s what the documents said, would you believe him ON HIS WORD?

Well, maybe you would. I don’t.

“There was a beginning of a brouhaha because it looked like the WH had the memos and hadn’t released them. Much water has gone under the bridge on this subject.”

The controversy over the President’s time in Alabama was raised long ago. MOF, the ORIGINAL accusation was that he was AWOL. Having no military experience whatsover (or so you say), do you have even a clue what AWOL IS?

You don’t. But none-the-less, many partisans on the Left took up the cry coming from none other than Terry McAuliff that the President had indeed been AWOL. After all, if ‘our’ Leader says it’s true, it must be true, right?

WRONG.

“If I find the link, I’ll post it.”

Don’t waste your time. It’s been debunked and shredded a long time ago. Prolly for the same reason that the WH MADE NO COMMENT.

“Zed - Can’t help you. I suppose that anything that you can’t decipher would get thrown into the 14-year-old-writing-level bucket. You must be one smart guy. Your post is merely additional insult couched in grown-up language. Gotta give you high marks for stickin up for the ladies though. Lordy knows that the weaker sex can’t handle the tough stuff.”

LOL! The TexasLady has held her own with a hellofalot better than your kind, dubyus.

“If there’s something in any of my posts that you would sincerely like to understand better, please let me know. Just so you know that tWirp’s NCLB education breakthrough is working (and I kinda think this was a little test that you threw down)… in your phrase I personally can barely understand anything your saying, “your” should be a contraction, that is “you’re”, which is short for “you are”. “Your” is a possessive pronoun.”

Another LOL!

“My English teacher tells me that sometimes I’m a little snotty. What do you think? But she doesn’t care, because I always help raise our class average score. I’m even better in math.”

You know… I could give a rip about your education. Your words are a shining example of our educational system gone bad. Maybe you are one of the young people the President had in mind when he lent impetus to the “No Child LEFT Behind” program…

The italicized portion Posted by: dubyus at September 16, 2004 07:17 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 16, 2004 08:20 PM

Du .. by .. us.

This is what you said:
McClellan said that the content of the memos is authentic

And when I asked for your documentation, you said this:
TexasGal don’t remember where I saw it. For now, please recall that Scott passed along the memos that CBS had provided to the WH with no comment and no objection to content at the time. There was a beginning of a brouhaha because it looked like the WH had the memos and hadn’t released them. Much water has gone under the bridge on this subject. If I find the link, I’ll post it

Since you can’t provide the link that quotes Scott McClelland as stating that the content of the fraudulent memos was authentic, I will expect that you will discontinue in your accusation. And the leap that you make between no comment, no objection at the time to the memos being authentic is dishonest on your part.

Gotta give you high marks for stickin up for the ladies though. Lordy knows that the weaker sex can’t handle the tough stuff

Fortunately, we all know that this refers to women being physically weaker than men, and it doesn’t really take much effort for me to push the keys on this keyboard. However, we also know that this does not refer to the intellectual capacity of women and in this instance, you have definitely demonstrated who is the weaker sex.

BTW Dubyus, what is Kerry position on Iraq .. TODAY? .. TOMORROW? .. NEXT WEEK? .. how many positions does Kerry have planned for OCTOBER?

ROFLMAO!

Posted by: TexasGal at September 16, 2004 10:29 PM

Hey y’all…

Ignore dubyus. He or she or it will go away eventually as any child would that is ignored. The mere lack of intelligent or factual-based discourse from this person is the surest sign that responding is not worth our bother.

I have had the pleasure of exchanging opinions and facts with some very thoughtful and research-based liberal/Dems in this blog. There have been times when we both agree on one or the other’s points and so acknowledge. The exchange was and still is pleasant and intelligent.

Dubyus is not one of these occasions, so don’t bother responding to the immature postings.

There are more important issues of interest out there.

Posted by: steve at September 17, 2004 12:06 AM

Well, that was an illustrative demonstration … duby writes:

I’m well aware of Tricky Dicky and his secretary. It’s surprising that you would invoke that memory of other ReThugLicken scumbaggery…what with Rover, Weakling, Cheaty and the FL Son Of a Bush doing a reprise. And the Kook-Aid drinkers trembling at the thought of any flaw in Wholly King George.
There are C-P rules about civil and respectful manner. Your posts don’t comply. The penalty ironically is that your insults demonstrate the level of your thinking.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you projection.

And obfuscation, too, since he never addresses the major point of my argument, and that is the dangerous precedence set by CBS’s Orwellian “Fake but Accurate” defense … that of “proof by accusation.”

But for Socialists (a Leftist by any other name), “the cause” is all, no matter the shredded society and the bloody bodies it leaves in its wake.

Duby, sweetie, go home. Your hackneyed insults are remonstrative of sniggering little bully boys scribbling obscenities on the fence of the retired couple of the neighborhood. In addition, engaging things like bragging about your classroom standing is embarrassing. Leave the real arguments to the adults.

Posted by: Darleen at September 17, 2004 12:34 AM

It seems likely that the old lady is telling the truth. We knew long ago that W had been a spoiled rich brat, just like his kids are today, and we elected him anyway. But it doesn’t matter what he was in 1972. We don’t care. What matters now is what kind of president he is. People can change their lives.

The forgery issue is also settled. It was settled, in my opinion about 3 hours after the broadcast. Dan Rather is now fighting for his job, and this is a pretty impressive effort. I don’t think it will work, but he’s not done yet. Personally, I haven’t liked him since he announced that Nixon was leaving office with a “touch of class” as the old crook got on the helicopter. In a couple of months he’s going to be covering the grange fair in Trotwood for WKRP.

Posted by: jj at September 17, 2004 08:36 AM

jj - “It seems likely that the old lady is telling the truth.”

Could you possibly explain that statement?

I’m not sure what ‘truth’ she would or could tell that would ‘seem likely’ to you?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 17, 2004 11:13 AM

I agree with jj myself. W was a Texas irresponsible playboy folks,why would it be surprising that he acted like it at this age?

He’s not one now,I don’t think anyone really gives a frick about this issue. I care about what is going to happen to my nation tomorrow.

Kerry has done things that lead me to believe his heart is NOT as attached to America as mine is,therefore I vote for Bush,warts and all.

Posted by: FireballXL5 at September 17, 2004 06:41 PM

Dubyus,

The conservatives you mentioned are OPINION givers,not newsmen. Rather is a newsman by trade.

Dan is supposed to report,not persuade. The others try to do BOTH openly.

That’s the difference. Dan has ruined the tradition developed at CBS by Murrow and Cronkite.

Posted by: FireballXL5 at September 17, 2004 06:45 PM

Mrs. Knox would be perfectly within her rights to give her personal impression of GW while he was in the TANG, but it is not within her right to state what others “thought” about him. That is just gossip, pure and simple.

It is especially wrong for Mrs. Knox to state emphatically what Killian “thought” about GW when his son and his wife have gone on record about this issue. Mrs. Knox was a clerk, in a typing pool, who performed clerical duties for a number of officers. It is highly unlikely she was Killian’s confident as she attempts to project at the behest of Dan Rather.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 17, 2004 07:52 PM