Her story seems to shift with each successive story on this angle, though she has remained quite consistent is stating that she did not type them.
I do find it intriguing that:
-She contacted the Chronicle herself last week
-Chronicle did not run her story last week
-Last week, she disclaimed any firsthand knowledge of Bush's time @ TANG
-Her story about Bush's involvement with TANG has suddenly shifted.
Knox is a dubious source at best.
This "sweet old lady" repeats MoveOn.org slogans verbatim.
bump
But in this Houston Chronicle article (and _not_ in the NYT), it asserts she had 'no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time' in the TANG.
Who _knows_ what she was asserting was correct in her quote. Whether the _fact_ that GWB missed a physical (which I believe is not a point of argument), or the _contention_ that he received special treatment.
The latter is the very point the NYT article leaves alive, and it's the leg that Dan Rather is trying desperately to stand on.
I declare "shenanigans"...
Gosh, I wonder if the Houston Chronicle is LIBERALLY biased.
True, 60 Minutes is old (I don't know how old 60 Minutes II is) but it doesn't have dignity and has lost almost everyone's respect.
Has anyone else noticed that her story keeps getting better and better the more times she tells it?
The embellishment and her memory get more vivid with each telling.
She and Kerry ought to write a book together.
Sounds like she's no fan of President Bush's
But not willing to get in trouble for lying about the documents
I think we need to be careful not to say anything negative about the old hag.
Unclear from this whether she was secretary to Killian the whole time she was there. Seems unlikely if she now claims no first-hand knowledge of Bush's service.
I'm curious ... aside from the fact this women states she didn't type the memo, therefore to her they're in all probability fake ... can she verify the address? PO Box 34567 for the Texas ANG unit address ... that has to be bogus.
BUMP!!!