Posted on 09/14/2004 3:50:57 PM PDT by ambrose
How long until CBS uses the word "reconstructions"?
If she retired in 1979, I'd say she's elderly. The RATs have probably threatened her with Bush taking away her medicare if she doesn't cooperate. (just kidding, but only a little)
What really bugs me about her comments is that indicated that the forger HAD the real ones, talked to an army guy and then rather inexplicably decided that instead of using the REAL memos, they'd create forgeries. And that makes sense how???
She is a liar with the talking points directly from the DNC - they know the forgeries won't stand scrutiny so they got her to come out to prempt the fallout from that and to try to make the underlying lies stick. Sorry won't work - too transparent even for my 3rd grader.
To stir up interest.
Had they trotted out this old lady without the memo's NO ONE would care... I mean, this crap has been going on for what? 12 years?
This way, you cause a flap about the memos and BANG, here's the lady who would know, right? The end result is that the subject of the story (what Dan referred to on Thursday as the "unanswered questions" raised by the story itself, not the documents) is subconsciously accepted as fact and the memos are just a little detail that will go away in time.
I'm telling you, this is just a little too convenient. The lady is saying just enough to keep the LIE alive and give CBS a "ok, we were wrong about the memos but the story is still true" moment.
Bingo.
This is a set up.
"Then they must exist somewhere, dont they? Why aren't THOSE originals being produced"
one might indeed wonder . . .
"any possibility that Knox forwarded the memos and is now feeling some heat?"
no, she would have known how to type them in the proper format, etc.
"Staudt must have put pressure on Killian in 1972 -- the year he retired."
yes, your point is well taken. The date the forger accused Staudt was about the pressure of "sugarcoating the evaluation". The evaluation would only have needed sugarcoating if it were the one for 72-73, which was due after May 73.
That was the one which was non-rated due to non-observation. I.E. it was NOT sugarcoated, pressure or non pressure.
SO if he did not pressure for sugarcoating in 73, and there was no sugarcoating in 73, then the allegations re his pressure from the memos fall into ashes . . .
What would said pressure have even been about in 72? ? They aren't even alleging what it was.
I'm sure her testimony can be examined, etc. But IMO, the questions about Bush's NG service have been answered by the standing O at the NG convention. HE SERVED HONORABLY. If the National Guard is happy, and chants 4 more years, who else should be questioning his qualifications for serving as President on the basis of his 'Lying' about his NG service.
How far down this hole do we intend to go? How many little old ladies in tennis shoes and assorted others will we spend time analyzing, when it means nothing, anyway.
IOW if she were MORE credible than the memos, she would have come up at once, instead.
Dear AMDG&BVMH,
It appears that the physical in question was due July, 1972.
Nonetheless, Col. Staudt retired in March.
This secretary is just another Dem liar.
sitetest
If I understand what she is saying correctly, Staudt put pressure on Killian, but before he retired (18 months before the memo was supposedly written). In the chronology of the events, what would be the evidence of pressure that had been exerted 18 months earlier? In fact, who would receive pressure from a short-timer? It must have been exerted even earlier. So when was the pressure supposedly exerted, and what benefits accrued to Bush for it?
Something in her story just smells bad. I think her politics are informing her memory.
Nah, they would have aired her anyway. Heck, they've regurgitated all the rest of the minutia on this.
Now, I do think a Rat has gotten to her recently, which is why she's spewing the talking points. But that doesn't mean what you're suggesting.
So what it comes down to is the only "proof" CBS and the DNC have is the word of an 85 year old lady about something that happened 30 years ago, and who believes that Bush is unqualified to be President and who won't vote for him. No credible documentation or other witnesses. In addition, the family members contradict her. Is this the basis for a CBS news report?
There is still the issue of who did the forgeries and committed a felony. Also, what part did CBS play in the forgeries - did they just accept them, with the knowledge that they were probably fake, or did they actually have a part in constructing them? And who else was involved in this affair?
When Rats type something it is seared, seared in their memory!
good one!
They KNOW this is killing them, but now they have even bigger problems, namely the Kerry campaign staff is in free-fall. The Clintonistas are (heheheh) sabotaging the efforts.
I've predicted here that if you start to see DNC money being moved TO THE SENATE CANDIDATES to save some seats or bolster others (like Murray, Reid) you know it's over. That's the next telltale signal.
I'll note that she lists number of young men whom she denigrates, them with their families, with the Guard. Four are named in that litany. There is a order to it -- I say, I am a close reader of people's words and dead on in many cases -- but not all, not all.
What is that order? It is a wrapping, the piggies that bother her are found wrapped in her own blanket, I say.
She says
" "Bush was not the only person of privilege who had a spot in the Guard. Senator [Lloyd] Bensen's nephew was in headquarters. There was a big jewelery store, Gordons. Their son was in the Guard. The owner of Batelstein's, a posh department store in the area, his son was in. The other kids couldn't get in like that. Hugh Roy Cullen's grandson was also in. He was a big oil man." "Let's read her innards, okay? She leads with Bush, an oilman's son and ends with Cullen's grandkid -- another oilman's son. She has problems with oilmen. And with the rich. She mentions Senator Bentsen's son right after Bush -- she hates politicians too. Who does't, to some extent. But she has her hate ready to go all done up in ordered lists! She loves her hate! So ready is she to list, to smear, to be disloyal by running-on-at-the-mouth to her professional ethos, to her employer, to her state.
And she loves her dislikes, her hates. Who does she dislike the MOST? Why JEWS!
Her piggies of hate are wrapped deep in that blanket -- "There was a big jewelery store, Gordons. Their son was in the Guard. The owner of Batelstein's, a posh department store in the area, his son was in. The other kids couldn't get in like that. ". Pushy mercantile Jew boys -- how she dispises them! (Posh = pushy).
I bet George Bush liked the jew boys, was pals with them! There's HER problems -- Dubya got on her wrong side so many ways. He was a rich oilman's son and he cozied up to the despised pushy rich jew boys. Nothing to do with his services, his service -- just HER spite, hatred, grudge-bearing and well-groomed prejudice.
(Just to note that I posted this prior at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1215427/replies?c=117)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.