Could 60 Minutes documents on Bush be faked?
- Thread starter Laz
- Start date
- Status
I disagree. From what I understand, there were typewriters that could do that, but would an Air National Guard unit have them handy? When I was in the Marine Corps, active duty, in the late 70's, early 80's, it wasn't until 1981 that I was with a unit that had a typewriter that could do that. How would a National Guard unit get something more advanced than an active unit?
And, why wasn't the officer using letterhead? There were forms allowed in records without letterhead, but they would be for very specific reasons, not for memo's. Memo's would be on letterhead - all the time, not part of the time. So, the story is the unit has enough supply money to get a very expensive typewriter, but not enough to get their own letterhead? Doesn't wash.
Well gee, Willy...talk about only copying parts of a post...
If you keep reading further in that exchange:
I guess the apology wasn't accepted at the time? And that since I've continued to be uncivl and undiplomatic to you since April of 2003 (although I have no memory of doing so), you're still holding that exchange (which I apologized for) against me.
First = let me state that for me, a person's service record in the 70's is not an important item in this election. I believe that both Kerry and Bush served honorably. All that matters to me is what they have done since, especially in the past decade.
Second = I believe that if GW Bush had been named Bubba Williams, he would not have gotten that spot in the ANG at that time. This does not mean that anything illegal, or even unethical took place. It does mean that the realities of the time were such that many well-to-do young men had opportunities that those not so fortunate did not have. As a matter of fact, had John Forbes Kerry been named Bubba Williams, he would not have been in a position to go from HIS reserve status into an officer billet in the Navy. Arguing over these matters is a waste of time.
What is NOT a waste of time is arguing over what people and organizations do TODAY. A person's actions now reveal their character. A person's actions over the past decade or so are a good predictive tool for what they may do tomorrow.
Third = the question of one's military service was firmly relegated to an inconsequential basis during the '88, '92, and '96 elections. The public at large, as led by the media who parroted the Democrat positions at the time, finally decided that military service had no place at all in a presidential election. For these same Democrats, who effectively eliminated the military service aspect of a person's resume from consideration, to now claim that there is ANY importance to one person's four month service in 70s, or another person's attendance documents from the 70s strikes me as not only laughable, but hypocritical beyond belief.
NOW = having said that - What IS the significance of these newly found documents? Well, here is my take.
1) Assume they are accurate - this would tarnish Bush's integrity. It would not destroy it, nor would it even be an important item in the larger scheme of things. What has happened in the recent past is more important. The only way it would be important would be if it supported allegations of a tendancy for such behaviour. I am sure that the Democrats will try to make this case. And I will watch for their assertions and evaluate them one at a time. But for me, it would be a weak arguement. I would hate for the documents to be proven true, but it would not be a disaster if they were.
2) Assume they are fake - Now that is a different matter. That would be proof of a current felony. It would indict CBS News and Dan Rather in particular as either being radical partisans themselves, or recklessly irresponsible. There is not a good way out for either of them if these documents are fake. They are intellectually toast to any thinking American.
PLUS - if it were to be shown that the Kerry campaign was in any way involved with the fraud, then Kerry would have to withdraw as a candidate. This would be HUGE news - no decent person could remain in the race unless he fired his entire staff and started over with clean personnel. I do NOT think this is the case - no campaign is that stupid. Are they?
What do we know about CBS ?
1) they are the most politically rabid major news network - their bias for the Democrat position is obvious to anyone who has open eyes.
2) they have spotlighted every bash-bush author that pops up.
3) they have ignored every anti-kerry author that ever existed.
4) Dan Rather is the most partisan anchor on the air.
5) they have used falsified documents in the past.
6) they had ample warning that these documents were suspect
7) they did none of the usual fact checking - the only people they asked were kerry supporters
It is my belief that these documents are fake. I do not believe that CBS actually manufactured them, but I do believe they threw caution to the wind in order to once more try to rescue a Democrat candidate from political oblivion.
I believe they WANTED to believe these documents so badly that they just refused to do the proper journalism required of Freshmen in the college of journalism.
WHY do I believe they are fake?
I will not belabor the obvious problem with the fonts - they have been very accurately described by many on this board. I just believe that unless someone can show HOW one of these expensive typesetting devices could have been in the possession of an ANG Lt Col who did not even know how to type, then the font issue is front and center.
BUT - here is my primary point - one that I have not seen addressed. IF these memos were actually written by Killian, then surely there are OTHER memos on OTHER topics also.
IF CBS can produce some OTHER memos from Killian - surely their anonomous source has access to some other instances - THEN I will believe they are genuine.
In the ABSENCE of some other memos bearing the same type, signed by Killian, it is pretty obvious that these memos are fake.
If I were Kerry - I would not have made so much out of Bush's middle initial = W.
I think that Kerry's middle initial = F has a lot more baggage associated with it if these documents are fake.
Either way - CBS is toast. They should be relegated to showing nothing but re-runs of "I love Lucy" until the election is over. They certainly should be barred from broadcasting anything they call "news."
But that is just my opinion.
Second = I believe that if GW Bush had been named Bubba Williams, he would not have gotten that spot in the ANG at that time. This does not mean that anything illegal, or even unethical took place. It does mean that the realities of the time were such that many well-to-do young men had opportunities that those not so fortunate did not have. As a matter of fact, had John Forbes Kerry been named Bubba Williams, he would not have been in a position to go from HIS reserve status into an officer billet in the Navy. Arguing over these matters is a waste of time.
What is NOT a waste of time is arguing over what people and organizations do TODAY. A person's actions now reveal their character. A person's actions over the past decade or so are a good predictive tool for what they may do tomorrow.
Third = the question of one's military service was firmly relegated to an inconsequential basis during the '88, '92, and '96 elections. The public at large, as led by the media who parroted the Democrat positions at the time, finally decided that military service had no place at all in a presidential election. For these same Democrats, who effectively eliminated the military service aspect of a person's resume from consideration, to now claim that there is ANY importance to one person's four month service in 70s, or another person's attendance documents from the 70s strikes me as not only laughable, but hypocritical beyond belief.
NOW = having said that - What IS the significance of these newly found documents? Well, here is my take.
1) Assume they are accurate - this would tarnish Bush's integrity. It would not destroy it, nor would it even be an important item in the larger scheme of things. What has happened in the recent past is more important. The only way it would be important would be if it supported allegations of a tendancy for such behaviour. I am sure that the Democrats will try to make this case. And I will watch for their assertions and evaluate them one at a time. But for me, it would be a weak arguement. I would hate for the documents to be proven true, but it would not be a disaster if they were.
2) Assume they are fake - Now that is a different matter. That would be proof of a current felony. It would indict CBS News and Dan Rather in particular as either being radical partisans themselves, or recklessly irresponsible. There is not a good way out for either of them if these documents are fake. They are intellectually toast to any thinking American.
PLUS - if it were to be shown that the Kerry campaign was in any way involved with the fraud, then Kerry would have to withdraw as a candidate. This would be HUGE news - no decent person could remain in the race unless he fired his entire staff and started over with clean personnel. I do NOT think this is the case - no campaign is that stupid. Are they?
What do we know about CBS ?
1) they are the most politically rabid major news network - their bias for the Democrat position is obvious to anyone who has open eyes.
2) they have spotlighted every bash-bush author that pops up.
3) they have ignored every anti-kerry author that ever existed.
4) Dan Rather is the most partisan anchor on the air.
5) they have used falsified documents in the past.
6) they had ample warning that these documents were suspect
7) they did none of the usual fact checking - the only people they asked were kerry supporters
It is my belief that these documents are fake. I do not believe that CBS actually manufactured them, but I do believe they threw caution to the wind in order to once more try to rescue a Democrat candidate from political oblivion.
I believe they WANTED to believe these documents so badly that they just refused to do the proper journalism required of Freshmen in the college of journalism.
WHY do I believe they are fake?
I will not belabor the obvious problem with the fonts - they have been very accurately described by many on this board. I just believe that unless someone can show HOW one of these expensive typesetting devices could have been in the possession of an ANG Lt Col who did not even know how to type, then the font issue is front and center.
BUT - here is my primary point - one that I have not seen addressed. IF these memos were actually written by Killian, then surely there are OTHER memos on OTHER topics also.
IF CBS can produce some OTHER memos from Killian - surely their anonomous source has access to some other instances - THEN I will believe they are genuine.
In the ABSENCE of some other memos bearing the same type, signed by Killian, it is pretty obvious that these memos are fake.
If I were Kerry - I would not have made so much out of Bush's middle initial = W.
I think that Kerry's middle initial = F has a lot more baggage associated with it if these documents are fake.
Either way - CBS is toast. They should be relegated to showing nothing but re-runs of "I love Lucy" until the election is over. They certainly should be barred from broadcasting anything they call "news."
But that is just my opinion.
Please, no open fires. Too much straw floating around.
Anda one, anda two:
~~~I could while away the hours
Conferrin with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin
If I only had a brain ~~~
I agree with your primary point. I posted on page 8 (under AnnetteF) the same point. Where are all the other memos from this officer about all the other things going on during his command that have the same type, spacing, and anything else identical to the formatting of these memos. Surely if he was in the habit of typing memos there must be plenty of others.
Geoff_M
DIS Veteran, DVC Member, "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2000
- Messages
- 11,979
MJames41,
There were machines that could do one of the suspect features in the CBS memos, and there were other machines that could do a couple of them. But as of now, three days into CBS's "document quagmire", no one has been able to finger the "magic typewriter" that could do ALL of the features. The best way to put it that've I've read is:
Everyone, CBS included, got all jazzed when it was pointed out that other known records from Bush's ANG unit contained superscripted "th's". However, they overlooked that the "th" wasn't raised like the one in the CBS memos, PLUS the font in the example was Courier AND the typewriter didn't use proportional spacing.
The one machine that comes closest, but people have tried to duplicate the CBS memo with it and failed so far, is the IBM Composer. But as has been mentioned, it cost around $4K in 1972 and was large and designed for the publishing industry and not designed for clerical use. But even if some one suceeded in duplicating the CBS memos with a Composer, it would be about as likely that Killian would have had a linotype machine and offset press in his office.
dmadman
I have suffered their slings and arrows - sort of like nerf balls - I have decided they represent the three most radical and stupid posters on these threads. There is no sanity there.
Worry not. I am totally satisfied with my analysis, my opinions, and my decisions. I try hard to read the stuff posted and see what the author is TRYING to say - but I must admit - with those three it doesn't take long to find they are saying nothing useful - just parroting garbage from the radical left wing sites.
I went back to page 8 and yes - someone did make the point about the other memos that should be available.
My apology - I had not read every post.
I wish someone on the news would mention it.
good day all
I have suffered their slings and arrows - sort of like nerf balls - I have decided they represent the three most radical and stupid posters on these threads. There is no sanity there.
Worry not. I am totally satisfied with my analysis, my opinions, and my decisions. I try hard to read the stuff posted and see what the author is TRYING to say - but I must admit - with those three it doesn't take long to find they are saying nothing useful - just parroting garbage from the radical left wing sites.
I went back to page 8 and yes - someone did make the point about the other memos that should be available.
My apology - I had not read every post.
I wish someone on the news would mention it.
good day all
I'm actually gratified to see that two of the liberal bloggers/commentators that I read on a regular basis are not as deep into the Kerry Kool-Aid as I would have thought.
Both Josh Marshall at www.talkingpointsmemo.com and Kevin Drum at www.washingtonmonthly.com are intellectually honest enough to admit that there are serious doubts about the authenticity of these documents.
Both Josh Marshall at www.talkingpointsmemo.com and Kevin Drum at www.washingtonmonthly.com are intellectually honest enough to admit that there are serious doubts about the authenticity of these documents.
richiebaseball
Disney? I'll go!
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,670
I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on my wager. Bush vs. Kerry. I'll take Bush. Loser leaves the DIS.
Not that it needs it but that should spice it up.
Richard
faithinkarma
<font color="green">I'm not a good swimmer, but I
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,056
Stupid posters? Well, let me see. Let's look back at some recent debates.
When the debate was about WMDs, these "stupid" posters argued there were none. We all know how that turned out. yet, even as the WH acknowledged there were none and that the validation lay in the fact that SH had "the intention", the DISers refused to back down, and insisted there were indeed WMDs, but they had been hidden.
Then the debate moved to the subject of Americans being greeted with flowers in Iraq. The "stupid" ones claimed Americans would be viewed as occupiers. Now the president has used the O word, and what do the DISers say....the soldiers are being well received, but the "liberal" press is hiding it.
And no one can forget the interminable debates about the connection between SH and OBL. Those "stupid" posters must have a crystal ball to have been able to predict what the 9/11 commission would eventually say.
You have every right to believe the memos are false, despite the fact that Bush has not once said anything like " hey, that never happened, so there could not possibly be a memo about it". But I really think you might want to draw the line at accusing those who disagree with you "stupid". Particularly when their track record is so good. And even more particularly when they have the guts to stick to one user name, and not act like some innocent that just happened to wander into the debates.
When the debate was about WMDs, these "stupid" posters argued there were none. We all know how that turned out. yet, even as the WH acknowledged there were none and that the validation lay in the fact that SH had "the intention", the DISers refused to back down, and insisted there were indeed WMDs, but they had been hidden.
Then the debate moved to the subject of Americans being greeted with flowers in Iraq. The "stupid" ones claimed Americans would be viewed as occupiers. Now the president has used the O word, and what do the DISers say....the soldiers are being well received, but the "liberal" press is hiding it.
And no one can forget the interminable debates about the connection between SH and OBL. Those "stupid" posters must have a crystal ball to have been able to predict what the 9/11 commission would eventually say.
You have every right to believe the memos are false, despite the fact that Bush has not once said anything like " hey, that never happened, so there could not possibly be a memo about it". But I really think you might want to draw the line at accusing those who disagree with you "stupid". Particularly when their track record is so good. And even more particularly when they have the guts to stick to one user name, and not act like some innocent that just happened to wander into the debates.
kbeverina
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 3,106
So here you seem happy to explain that you're not a one-dimensional, issue-blind, extreme partisan, etc, etc, etc.Originally posted by WillyJ
D.madman. . Ivoted for Perot both times. . I voted for Reagan in 1980 (1st year I was eligible) because I don't believe in abortion and than realized it was a fund raising tool and not a "value" for the GOP, so I've voted 3rd Party ever since.
I registered as a Dem this winter to vote for Howard Dean but by the time the primaries were held here Dean was finished, so I voted for Kuchinich because if I was going to cast a symbolic vote anyway I decided to cast it for the one person running who actually stood up and had the guts to vote against the Iraqi invasion when it was a very unpopular thing to do.
And for the record I have in the past referred to Clinton as a "war criminal" and "The Hillbilly Caligula"- and if Kerry is elected and if he keeps us mired in the Iraq nightmare then I will be here hitting him just as hard as I'm hitting Bush now. . .
And hey, thanks for asking!
But you continue to say things like:
and
Does that seem right to you?
I voted third-party in the last 3 elections, yet a poster on this page refers to me as a "rabid Bush supporter" on Democratic Underground because I point out what doesn't seem fair to me, when it seems to me that lies are being told. It's really ridiculous that a person can't disagree with Kerry or agree with Bush without being slapped with a label. I mean, do you really think the poster thinks of Bush as a "boy King"? If someone thinks these are fakes, they are clearly a Bush worshiper? That must be it, right?
lessee
1) - were these posters saying that there were no WMD's before the war ??? I was not in here then, but I do not recall ANYONE (except Saddam) saying there were no WMD's then. In fact everyone on earth - the French, the Russians, the UN weapons inspectors, Clinton, Kerry, and the entire democrat lineup - including Teddy Kennedy - acknowledged that there WERE WMD's and that Saddam had to remove them or else "serious consequences" would ensue. The only problem is that to the democrats apparently "serious consequences" meant that we would pout a little longer. Bush thought otherwise about what "serious" meant.
So - if you were actually contending in early 2003 that there were "no WMDs" then you were unusually prescient - and lonely in your belief.
2) - I might have slept right thru the whole thing, but I don't actually recall any huge debate about being met in the streets with flowers. So again - if there was a big debate in here about that, then the Disney crew is way ahead of the game. My apologies.
3) - Connection between OBL and Saddam?? Did anyone ever say that? Perhaps I should have hooked up to this board long ago - it seems that ALL of the idiosynchrocies were predicted in here. Someone is missing their calling. The Pentagon needs you. The CIA needs you. The FBI needs you. Do the world a favor and lend you expertise where it will actually help. Don't waste your talents arguing with us ignorant Bush supporters.
Now, what I DO recall - at least in the circles where mortal men tread - is that Bush declared war on Global Terrorism and vowed to take the fight to any nation that was a terrorist regime, that harbored terrorists, or that supported terrorists. Bush vowed that we would not wait to be struck again. He vowed that we would pursue this as a war and not a police action.
I have discussed at length in other threads why I think the war on Iraq was the right thing to do at the time - I will not repeat it here. But it has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam and OBL were 'connected.' I would like to see your reference to any statement by the Bush administration that said they were connected. I keep pretty close tabs on what is said - and I just don't recall that.
I will not deny that you may have had a whale of an arguement about it in here however. I suspect you could gin up an arguement with someone about the world being flat - and if you argued for the flatness, then I would have to go measure it - you have been right so often.
My statement should NOT have been that the posters are stupid.
For that I do apoligize.
My statement SHOULD have been that there are some really bright left wing posters who happen to post the dumbest imaginable statements. In your real life I am sure you are a scholar and a gentleman and a judge of fine horses and good whiskey. But the posts you make are really really really stupid.
Did I mention stupid??
ok - good - but remember - not YOU - just your posts - really really really really stupid.
1) - were these posters saying that there were no WMD's before the war ??? I was not in here then, but I do not recall ANYONE (except Saddam) saying there were no WMD's then. In fact everyone on earth - the French, the Russians, the UN weapons inspectors, Clinton, Kerry, and the entire democrat lineup - including Teddy Kennedy - acknowledged that there WERE WMD's and that Saddam had to remove them or else "serious consequences" would ensue. The only problem is that to the democrats apparently "serious consequences" meant that we would pout a little longer. Bush thought otherwise about what "serious" meant.
So - if you were actually contending in early 2003 that there were "no WMDs" then you were unusually prescient - and lonely in your belief.
2) - I might have slept right thru the whole thing, but I don't actually recall any huge debate about being met in the streets with flowers. So again - if there was a big debate in here about that, then the Disney crew is way ahead of the game. My apologies.
3) - Connection between OBL and Saddam?? Did anyone ever say that? Perhaps I should have hooked up to this board long ago - it seems that ALL of the idiosynchrocies were predicted in here. Someone is missing their calling. The Pentagon needs you. The CIA needs you. The FBI needs you. Do the world a favor and lend you expertise where it will actually help. Don't waste your talents arguing with us ignorant Bush supporters.
Now, what I DO recall - at least in the circles where mortal men tread - is that Bush declared war on Global Terrorism and vowed to take the fight to any nation that was a terrorist regime, that harbored terrorists, or that supported terrorists. Bush vowed that we would not wait to be struck again. He vowed that we would pursue this as a war and not a police action.
I have discussed at length in other threads why I think the war on Iraq was the right thing to do at the time - I will not repeat it here. But it has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam and OBL were 'connected.' I would like to see your reference to any statement by the Bush administration that said they were connected. I keep pretty close tabs on what is said - and I just don't recall that.
I will not deny that you may have had a whale of an arguement about it in here however. I suspect you could gin up an arguement with someone about the world being flat - and if you argued for the flatness, then I would have to go measure it - you have been right so often.
My statement should NOT have been that the posters are stupid.
For that I do apoligize.
My statement SHOULD have been that there are some really bright left wing posters who happen to post the dumbest imaginable statements. In your real life I am sure you are a scholar and a gentleman and a judge of fine horses and good whiskey. But the posts you make are really really really stupid.
Did I mention stupid??
ok - good - but remember - not YOU - just your posts - really really really really stupid.
Geoff_M
DIS Veteran, DVC Member, "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2000
- Messages
- 11,979
When reading CBS's latest defense against the memo critics (Link), all I can think about is "Occam's Razor". In case you haven't heard about it before, here's the definition:
1) The documents are fake. They contain features that weren't known to have existed within the same typewriter in 1972. Identical copies of them can be made using WS-Word with its default settings with minimal effort.
2) The documents are real. They were probably made on a very expense (~$20K, adjusted for inflation) and large piece of equipment that was made for the publishing industry and just happened to be in use as a simple clerical typewriter at an ANG office in 1972... even though attempts to reproduce the memos on this piece of equipment don't result in examples that match nearly as closely as ones easily made with Word. It's also just a coincidence that the document doesn't resemble any other document known to have come from that unit during that era (and I'm not talking about the <sup>th</sup>).
CBS wants us to believe that the government set the tree on fire.
As more liberals begin to believe the docs are frauds, the idea of "CBS was set up!... I smell Karl Rove!" is starting to pop up. OK, let's assume that this was a GOP trojan horse designed to blow up in CBS' face. Don't you think that the supposed GOP operatives would have put a little more effort into the forgery in order to get CBS to take the bait? I mean, how hard would it have been to find a Selectric with a Courier ball that would pass for something made in the early 70's? We've got a couple in our office for use on carbonless multipart forms. They aren't hard to find. Also, it would be easy to look at any of the Bush ANG documents released to be able to at least mimic the "look-n-feel" of a real document. Some one looking to do this wouldn't risk assuming that CBS would do minimal vetting of the authenticity before showing the documents on TV.
While not always true, Occam's Razor has a pretty good track record. So, we have two explainations set forth so far:
1) The documents are fake. They contain features that weren't known to have existed within the same typewriter in 1972. Identical copies of them can be made using WS-Word with its default settings with minimal effort.
2) The documents are real. They were probably made on a very expense (~$20K, adjusted for inflation) and large piece of equipment that was made for the publishing industry and just happened to be in use as a simple clerical typewriter at an ANG office in 1972... even though attempts to reproduce the memos on this piece of equipment don't result in examples that match nearly as closely as ones easily made with Word. It's also just a coincidence that the document doesn't resemble any other document known to have come from that unit during that era (and I'm not talking about the <sup>th</sup>).
CBS wants us to believe that the government set the tree on fire.
As more liberals begin to believe the docs are frauds, the idea of "CBS was set up!... I smell Karl Rove!" is starting to pop up. OK, let's assume that this was a GOP trojan horse designed to blow up in CBS' face. Don't you think that the supposed GOP operatives would have put a little more effort into the forgery in order to get CBS to take the bait? I mean, how hard would it have been to find a Selectric with a Courier ball that would pass for something made in the early 70's? We've got a couple in our office for use on carbonless multipart forms. They aren't hard to find. Also, it would be easy to look at any of the Bush ANG documents released to be able to at least mimic the "look-n-feel" of a real document. Some one looking to do this wouldn't risk assuming that CBS would do minimal vetting of the authenticity before showing the documents on TV.
Congratulations!!!!
I wish I had thought of that first - Occam has been my idol all my life and how I managed to not set him on this little fraud immediately is beyond me.
OF COURSE Occam has it right - the simplest interpretation that meets all the facts is almost ALWAYS the right explanation.
And you are right about Karl Rove - had he actually tried to set this up - he would have been more careful - he would have expected SOME sort of examination of the provenance.
Whoever did this KNEW that CBS would not vet it properly - they have probably been feeding Rather this sort of crap for years and he has swallowed it without checking. In fact, if it had come from Rove, then Rather WOULD have looked at it with undue caution.
I smell Carville in this one. I would be willing to bet that Carville hired the Clinton private dectective (who put the strong arm on all the bimbos) to be the operative who actually made the forgery. He ain't too bright - and he will do anything without conscience.
If WillyJ, or Peach, or one of the other left wingers in here are really moonlighting as a Carville operative - then I apologize - you are just acting in a not-too-bright fashion. You know - sort of pretending to be without reason.
I wish I had thought of that first - Occam has been my idol all my life and how I managed to not set him on this little fraud immediately is beyond me.
OF COURSE Occam has it right - the simplest interpretation that meets all the facts is almost ALWAYS the right explanation.
And you are right about Karl Rove - had he actually tried to set this up - he would have been more careful - he would have expected SOME sort of examination of the provenance.
Whoever did this KNEW that CBS would not vet it properly - they have probably been feeding Rather this sort of crap for years and he has swallowed it without checking. In fact, if it had come from Rove, then Rather WOULD have looked at it with undue caution.
I smell Carville in this one. I would be willing to bet that Carville hired the Clinton private dectective (who put the strong arm on all the bimbos) to be the operative who actually made the forgery. He ain't too bright - and he will do anything without conscience.
If WillyJ, or Peach, or one of the other left wingers in here are really moonlighting as a Carville operative - then I apologize - you are just acting in a not-too-bright fashion. You know - sort of pretending to be without reason.
- Status
-
Check Out These NEW Photo Ops at the EPCOT Food & Wine Festival
-
New World Princess Week Merch & Fun For Fans at Home
-
The Little Mermaid - A Musical Adventure: My Take on Disney World's New Stage Show
-
See the World by Private Jet in 2027 with New and Returning NatGeo Expeditions
-
What Disney World Rides are CLOSED in September 2025?
-
Silver Castaway Club Members Can Book Disney Cruises For Late 2026 and Early 2027
-
New Mickey & Minnie Holiday Figures by Department 56
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
