Maybe we should all be "remembering" how the Clinton staff (as evidenced in Clinton's words himself) used specific words that could throw everyone off. What is said that you THINK you hear is not actually what is said with these folk. For example, to say "We did not talk about the memos" MIGHT mean "We did not talk about those pieces of paper in that conversation; h-o-w-e-v-e-r, I did hear all about how this little retired jerk from Texas was going to spill his guts and get us all in trouble...still, they are not asking if we talked about what we were going to do when our names were thrown up to the wind...they are asking if we talked about the MEMOS. Therefore, I can say we did NOT talk about the memos, and this would be an "accurate" statement--technically."
All that to say that one should analyze all statements from any Clinton people with the same scrutiny that we learned was needed in Clinton's speech during the Monica Lewinski timeframe.
Is this a possibility? (Just letting my mind wonder here.) Perhaps Kerry's camp, (ie Joe) knew all along about the papers--that Joe had those fake papers all along--knew about them--that these papers went FROM the Kerry camp (mayber Joe) TO one of their contacts in Texas (alias Lucy Ramirez) to THEN be passed on to a knowingly willing retired Texan who could be "encouraged" to pass this info on to CBS?
When the mud was about to fly, and this ole little-guy Texan began to realize he had been 'used' and that he was going to have a pretty hard and public battle, could he possibly have called a DNC or Kerry individual (maybe Joe) to vent his frustration and/or anger...maybe just to let them know the curtain was about to drop. Joe Lockhart would CERTAINLY want to take THAT conversation himself, should that be the case. That short conversation would have detailed the trouble about to come and suggestions on what to do next. No need to talk about any memos. Beyond that! (Now, what WERE Joe's words there?)
Just thinking...but DO remember to pull apart everything said to find what is REALLY said.
I think the DNC has had these docs since 2000 and you're right, probably Joe. He was brought on the Kerry campaign very recently. There was a reason.
And you're also right about the words. I'll have to look it up tomorrow. McAuliffe saying that the DNC had nothing to do with the distribution of these memos. He didn't say they had nothing to do with the creation of them.
I don't know what Drudge has got beyond the teaser. It seems to me though that Burkett, who has not backed off his obsession with destroying Bush, wouldn't sell out the Dems. With the information available now, I agree with your thoughts. If Burkett says the Dems were begging for the documents that says they didn't have them. I don't believe that's the case.