|
CBS admits documents are "inconclusive"..
|
View this Thread in Original format
| speedracer_mec |
So how they portrayed them as 100% true and accurate???
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...14/152648.shtml
Matley has been dissolving as the expert of record for Dan Rather and CBS: “There’s no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them,” Marcel Matley said.
The main reason is that they are “copies” that are “far removed” from the originals.
CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: “In the end, the gist is that it’s inconclusive. People are coming down on both sides, which is to be expected when you’re dealing with copies of documents.”
What a joke.. they use unreliable documents to slander a sitting president durring a war.. what a bunch of a-holes..
When 60 mins ran the original story did they use the terms "inconclusive" "non-authenticatable" or ANY terms that showed doubt over the documents???
Thank you Dan Rather for being a complete moron and trying to shove your political agenda up people's ass
THIS IS RATHERGATE ON NATIONAL PUBLIC TV
http://www.nationalreview.com/comme...00409150552.asp
BTW CBS is expected to make a complete announcement in a press conference any moment now.You know they're in big trouble when they call a press conference for 1 p.m. and 2 hours later they still haven't made a peep.lol
They are completely withdrawing from the story as all their "experts" can not authenticate the memos.
another link if u doubt newsmax
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com...media_watch.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132409,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...emos/index.html
 |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| thats convenient isn't it. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
If this blows up anymore....Say goodbye to the Kerry Campaign since the average JOE BLOW American will tie this with the Rathergate scandal. Mark my words folks.....I know theres no proof...but all the GOP has to do is provide hints and cheap talk and its over.
 |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
If this blows up anymore....Say goodbye to the Kerry Campaign since the average JOE BLOW American will tie this with the Rathergate scandal. Mark my words folks.....I know theres no proof...but all the GOP has to do is provide hints and cheap talk and its over.
|
Dude, you've been saying this since the Veterans for Truth first started to do caca talking! |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Dude, you've been saying this since the Veterans for Truth first started to do caca talking! |
Yea and its about to boil over.
Trust me...something is cooking at CBS and it isnt chili. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Yea and its about to boil over.
Trust me...something is cooking at CBS and it isnt chili. |
Why do you insist on attempting to tie Kerry's campaign to the veracity of the documents in question by CBS? That implies that the documents in question are somehow linked to Kerry's campaign.
Do you have evidence of this link? If not, why do you insist on believing that his campaign is tied to the veracity of the documents?
What really should be in question, is not the documents, sir, but exactly where Bush was during that time in question:
1. A new document released today also shows that Bush failed to fulfill his commitments:
http://www.glcq.com/new_document.htm
2. One of Bush's old professor's has come forth to reveal that Bush bragged to him about receiving special favors:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...bush.professor/
3. The September 7 Associated Press story, based on new records the White House had long maintained didn't exist, debunked a Bush assertion that he'd skipped his flight physical because the jet he was trained on was becoming obsolete. According to AP, Bush's unit continued to fly the same jets for two years after the missed physical.
4. The September 8 Boston Globe expose concluded that Bush failed in his military obligations by missing months of duty in Alabama and in Boston. As the Globe revealed, Bush had signed contracts on two separate occasions swearing to meet minimum Guard requirements on penalty of being called up to active duty. According to the military experts consulted by the Globe, Bush's Guard attendance was so bad "his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974."
5. U.S News & World Report (9/20/04) reviewed National Guard regulations and reported that the White House has been using "an inappropriate-- and less stringent-- Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty." The magazine noted that Bush committed to attend at least "44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year" when he signed up for the Guard, but that Bush's own records "show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period." The magazine explains that even by using the White House's preferred methodology for measuring Bush's service, he still fell short of those minimum requirements.
6. An NBC Nightly News segment (9/9/04) played a clip of Bush being interviewed in 1988, acknowledging that favoritism sometimes played a part in getting into the National Guard. While he had said that he didn't think that happened in his case, he did voice his approval of the practice: "If you want to go in the National Guard, I guess sometimes people made calls. I don't see anything wrong with it." (He continued with a remark that could be taken as an insult to the men and women who did face combat during the war: ''They probably should have called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we'd have done better in Vietnam.")
Even CBS's September 8 broadcasts, the subject of so much scrutiny, included important information beyond what is contained in the disputed memos. On the CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes II that night, CBS featured Ben Barnes, the former speaker of the Texas legislature, describing how he used his political influence to help a young George W. Bush bypass a waiting list and secure a coveted position in the Guard. In addition, the CBS stories also featured an interview with Robert Strong, a former colleague of Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the purported author of the disputed documents. Strong described the pressure Bush's commander was working under: "He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, dealing with the son of an ambassador and a former congressman.... And I just saw him in an impossible situation. I felt very, very sorry because he was between a rock and a hard place."
Instead of asking the White House tough questions about the well-documented information contained in these reports, media have focused almost exclusively on the claims and counter-claims made about the Killian memos-- as if the discrepancies over Bush's service record stand or fall based on this one set of disputed documents. It's the equivalent of covering the sideshow and ignoring the center ring.
Source: fair.org
So what REALLY should be the focus is not these ridiculous memos, but the questions that have been raised about the thruthfulness of Bush and the White House regarding his past.
But you want to continue to get riled up about this side issue instead of focus on the actual issues at present, be my guest. Bush and his cronies brought this on himself with their smear attempts at Kerry's record. If these questions that I mentioned above about Bush's past aren't quite into focus yet, rest assured they will continue to plague Bush, Rove, and their bitch 527's for choosing smears over issues.
As Rather states:
| quote: | The questions raised by his reporting, he said, have remained unanswered by the Bush administration: Did Mr. Bush get preferential treatment for the Texas Air National Guard? Was then-Lieutenant Bush suspended for failing to perform up to Texas and Air Guard standards? Did then-Lieutenant Bush refuse a direct order from his military superior to take a required examination?
"It’s never been fully, completely denied by the Bush-Cheney campaign or even the White House that he was suspended for meeting the standards of the Air Force or that he didn’t show up for a physical," he said. "The longer we go without a denial of such things—this story is true."
http://observer.com/pages/nytv.asp |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Dumb ass:
| quote: | http://www.salon.com
To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Unwitting Drudge indicts Bush
A 1968 document from the president's military file, posted on the Internet, merely reminds us of how far short he fell in fulfilling his service commitments.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Sept. 14, 2004 | Attempting to bolster President Bush as he continues to stonewall questions about his Texas Air National Guard service, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted a 1968 document from Bush's military personnel file Monday afternoon that purports to buttress a long-ago claim by Bush that he served not only in the Texas Air National Guard but in the Air Force as well. Although this "exclusive" Drudge posting is a trivial sidebar to the larger story of Bush's absence from two years of military service, the document itself -- presumably provided to Drudge by a Republican operative -- turns out to be an incriminating piece of evidence against Bush's case.
The Air Force claim arose in 1978, when Bush ran unsuccessfully for the House of Representatives from west Texas. During the campaign he produced literature in which he said he had served in the Air Force as well as the Texas Air National Guard. Pressed by the Associated Press about the claim two decades later in 1999, Bush's spokeswoman, handler and biographer, Karen Hughes, insisted the assertion was accurate. Her explanation: As part of his 1968 training to become a Guard pilot, Bush served 120 days of active duty; therefore he served in the Air Force.
The signed document Drudge posted is titled "Statement of Understanding" and dated May 27, 1968, the day Bush joined the Guard. Among the stipulations Bush agreed to was entering "active duty for training for 120 days," bolstering Bush's later assertion about the Air Force. But a Pentagon spokesperson told the A.P. in 1999 that despite their four-month training, Air National Guard members are not counted as members of the active-duty Air Force.
Bush's 1978 assertion that he served in the Air Force is "an embellishment, but not a lie," one former Air Force pilot says. Yet the story soon disappeared from Bush's official biography -- perhaps the best indication of his camp's recognition that the Air Force claim stretched credulity. (Not that the story of his military life then grew more accurate: During the 2000 campaign, Bush's official bio, scrubbed and rewritten by Hughes, said he flew F-102 planes in the Guard until 1973. Of course, that's untrue: Bush walked away from flying in 1972 never to return, an event he has yet to explain.)
Like the White House aides who in February released a portion of Bush's military payroll records under media pressure without fully understanding the incriminating evidence embedded in their military coding -- information that has come back to haunt Bush -- Drudge, by posting Bush's 1968 signed statement, merely reminds people how far short of fulfilling his military requirement the president fell.
For example, in his 1968 statement, Bush pledged to maintain "satisfactory participation" with his Guard unit, which meant fulfilling "satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training period days and 15 days filed training annually." Failure to do so meant being transferred to active duty, and the possibility of being sent to Vietnam. But in both 1972 and 1973, Bush failed to meet that participation standard.
White House aides have pointed out that while Bush may have missed some mandatory drill dates, he made them up later, earning enough annual points for a satisfactory rating. But the makeup points he earned -- some of which appear to be highly dubious -- counted only toward his retirement benefits, not his participation ratings.
What's more, those points were based on a calendar year, from January to December, while the "satisfactory participation" requirement was based on the military's fiscal year, from July to June. And according to the Bush records released by the White House, he failed to meet the required "48 scheduled inactive duty training period days" in both 1972 and 1973. Bush showed up for duty so infrequently during those two years that his commanders couldn't complete mandatory annual ratings of his service. Yet the son of a prominent political father faced no disciplinary action.
Also interesting is that on the same day Bush enlisted, May 27, 1968, he also signed a statement listing the penalties for poor attendance and unsatisfactory participation, such as "subject to active duty for a period not to exceed a total of 24 months." His commitment, however, did not stop Bush from failing to attend months of required drills in 1972 and 1973. The document is publicly available. Republicans just haven't given it to Drudge to post.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...vice/index.html |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Couldn't be, could it?:rolleyes:
| quote: | http://www.salon.com
To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Swift Boat flacks attack CBS
As the controversy over Bush's military record builds, a right-wing firm that works for the RNC pitches in.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Sept. 10, 2004 | Upset by renewed attention to President Bush's disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard, White House communications director Dan Bartlett insists the new revelations about how strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard, as well as to get him out, are part of "a coordinated attack by John Kerry and his surrogates on the president." There is no evidence to support that claim. But there is clear evidence confirming that the same conservative operatives who have been busily promoting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smears of Kerry are now engaged in pushing the story that CBS's "60 Minutes Weeknight Edition" aired forged documents in its Wednesday night report on Bush and the National Guard.
Creative Response Concepts, the Arlington, Va., Republican public relations firm run by former Pat Buchanan communications director Greg Mueller, with help from former Pat Robertson communications director Mike Russell, sent out a media advisory Thursday to hawk a right-wing news dispatch: "60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake." Creative Response Concepts has played a crucial role in hyping the inaccurate, secondhand Swift Boat allegations, with Russell serving as the group's official spokesman. A company spokesman could not be reached for comment.
Throughout the Swift Boat smear campaign, the veterans involved asserted they had no political agenda and were unaffiliated with any political party. But Creative Response Concepts, which was obviously paid some undisclosed amount for its Swift Boat work, has many links to the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Among its clients are the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee. Its client list also includes the Christian Coalition, National Taxpayers Union, Media Research Council and Regnery Publishing. Regnery is the firm that published "Unfit for Command," the SBVT screed against Kerry's military record.
Now Creative Response is working the case against CBS's "60 Minutes" report on Bush's questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. The program included the first-ever interview with former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes on how he secured preferential treatment for the young George Bush in entering the Texas Air National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam. It also featured never-before-seen personal memos written by one of Bush's immediate commanders at the time, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who expressed concern and frustration over Bush's refusal to obey a direct order and fulfill his military commitment.
Bartlett attacked Barnes as politically motivated, but did not challenge the veracity of his account. Conservative operatives immediately alleged that Killian's memos were forged, posting their charges on the Internet while the CBS broadcast was still in progress. They claim that the memos were faked using modern word-processing equipment, and were not produced with typewriters common from the Vietnam era.
By Thursday, the online Drudge Report and the Weekly Standard were also trumpeting the accusations. And Creative Response Concepts sent out a press release to major news organizations stating that the "documents on Bush might be fake."
In the release, Creative Response promoted a Web site called Cybercast News Service, one of several groups directed by Brent Bozell, a longtime right-wing activist who has devoted years to attacking the "liberal bias" of the mainstream press. His Media Research Center and other similar efforts have been heavily funded by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.
The CNS News.com story, echoed by other conservative outlets, helped sparked a debate over proportional spacing, fonts, electric typewriters and superscripts as independent typographical experts weighed in with their own doubts. Some experts contacted by the Washington Post, New York Times and Salon suggested that the raised, or superscripted, "th" in one of Killian's memos was a telltale sign that the documents were created well after 1972. Yet independent researcher Marty Heldt notes that he had received an undisputed Bush military document in 2000 from the Vietnam era that clearly contains a superscripted "th." He also notes that when Killian's Aug. 14, 1973, memo is enlarged and the word "interference" is examined, it's clear the two middle e's rest higher on the page than the other two e's; that is not something a modern-day word processor would likely do.
CBS, for its part, stands by its story, saying its "report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking ... Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned." CBS News vice president Betsy West said, "We are continuing to pursue the story and will report tonight on the "'CBS Evening News.'"
As for the memos in which Killian complained about the pressure he was getting from his superiors to "sugarcoat" Bush's spotty service record, Killian's superior told CBS producers that Killian had made similar contemporaneous statements to him in the early 1970s, according to the Washington Post.
The forgery flap has created a firestorm among mainstream media, but it is merely a sideshow in the larger National Guard controversy. The disputed Killian documents represent just a fraction of what is known about Bush's Guard duty. To date, the voluminous information about the issue comes from Bush's own Texas Guard file, none of which has been called into question. And in fact, the veracity of the contents of the Killian memos remains undisputed. For instance, one memo dated May 4, 1972, ordered Bush to obtain a physical exam. There has been no controversy whatsoever about the fact that Bush was required to take a physical that year and failed to do so.
In April 1972, with 770 days left in his military commitment, and unwilling to have his physical, Bush was suspended from flying and walked away from his required duties. Though he says he subsequently served in the Guard in Alabama, Salon reported last week that according to an eyewitness, Linda Allison, a Bush family friend whose husband was in charge of overseeing Bush's activities in Alabama, Bush never gave any evidence of having done any Guard duty. This week, the Boston Globe reported that after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School, Bush again shirked his responsibility by failing to serve the remaining nine months of his commitment with a Massachusetts Guard unit. And to this day, not one member of Bush's Alabama unit has come forward with a credible recollection of having served with the future president. Whether or not the Killian memos turn out to be forgeries, those facts are irrefutable.
In the meantime, Creative Response has to flack a new Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear commercial.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...gery/index.html |
Edit:
Also a very interesting article at The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040927&s=baker |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
You are a smart guy misteropus...but lets snap back into reality.
Do you honestly believe that John Kerry dwelling on 35yrs ago will have any effect on Bush's campaign?
Do you think that the average American will be swayed by the details of where he was at?
Whats more interesting for the media to cover:
1) Kerry's msg?
2) CBS scandal?
Which one has recieved more coverage? and which is more impacting on the public?
Who are the secret sources CBS recieved those memos from?
IF and when they put up the details on who gave those "suspected" memos then we can have a clear idea on who is behind this.
I mean CBS should know better than that. They are squirming like a dieing fish and the more time goes by on the sources /authencity of the memos, the more one begins to believe this was a partisan attack.
Quite frankly, GORE banged Bush's past service to death in the last election....the people know Bush's faults....WHO CARES?
They need to know who KERRY is.....oh well let the ship keep sinking. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
Below, is one of the SeeBS memos, dated May 4, 1972, followed by a memo signed by Rufus Martin on May 24th, 1972. It is obvious the second memo was written on a standard manual typewriter of that era.
So you guys are saying that these two memos were written 20days apart...on the same typewriter? LOL |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Now even I didn't want to bite at the possible conspiracy theory that Rove is somehow involved with these memos, as some lefty bloggers have suggested. Buzzflash points to some background info. on this piece of Rove:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributo...9/con04385.html
Well, perhaps it is a pattern, but it's still fairly farfetched, even to a conspiricist nut like myself.
But then the Observer brings up a few good points on how the whole memo questions transpired:
http://observer.com/pages/frontpage3.asp
And I unfortunately took my tin hat off and gave a little read. Notably:
| quote: | Mr. Rather’s report hadn’t been over 10 minutes when a post appeared on the right-wing Web site FreeRepublic.com from "TankerKC," saying the documents were "not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF … can we get a copy of those memos?"
Three hours and a little later, fat met fire with another FreeRepublic posting, this one from a blogger named "Buckhead." He (or she—Buckhead won’t reveal his identity outside cyberspace) wrote:
Every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts. The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90’s. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn’t used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80’s used monospaced fonts. I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old …. This should be pursued aggressively.
Here the plot starts a-thickening.
First (leaving aside how suspiciously well Buckhead puts sentences together for a righty blogger), there’s the extraordinary, yeah, boggling, knowledge of typewriting arcana. More remarkable still are the circumstances under which discernment occurred. Namely, viewing the document on a TV screen from a presumed distance of six to a dozen feet. Folks who make their living at this sort of thing rely on magnifying glasses, if not microscopes. And they don’t venture opinions unless the document’s in their puss. |
-and-
| quote: | Another timing oddity which may or may not be related to the mysterious Buckhead, depending on your choice of villain, is the Pentagon’s release of allegedly newly-discovered records of Mr. Bush’s flight hours and middling piloting abilities one day almost to the minute before Mr. Rather’s report—following four months of insisting there were no more documents to disgorge. Second coincidence: The Pentagon release came hours after the Boston Globe, poring through yet other records, reported that Mr. Bush "fell well short of meeting his military obligation" by failing to report to a Boston-area Guard unit after he enrolled in the Harvard Business School, and by earlier ducking out on required training and drills for a total of nine months. Either could have landed Mr. Bush on full-time active duty for two years, potentially in Vietnam. But he received no punishment whatsoever.
Finally, there’s a detail that appears to have escaped press notice: The Web site where Buckhead’s posting appeared also happens to be the repository for anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, anti-homosexual, anti-John Kerry rants by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. And whom, you ask, is Dr. Corsi? Co-author of the best-selling Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, that’s who. |
-finally-
| quote: | Meanwhile, things were cooking at another right-wing site, littlegreenfootballs.com, which joined the party at 11:30 p.m. eastern time with its own take. By morning, other bloggers were twittering and alarums were issuing from the established right, including (Salon reported) Cybercast News, part of veteran "liberal media" basher L. Brent Bozell’s empire; and Creative Response Concepts, an Arlington, Va., P.R. emporium whose clients include the Republican National Committee, the Christian Coalition and a lengthy list of like-minded others. Its senior staff is heavy with Pat Robertson alumni, one of whom serves as official spokesman for—you guessed right again—Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Bloggers were in a frenzy now, traffic so heavy that one site got knocked offline by the volume. But most stayed in the hunt, and at 2:41 Thursday afternoon, with the Rather story less than 19 hours old, a blogger reported consulting with a forensic expert who’d assessed the Killian documents as fishy, too. Soon thereafter, an uncharacteristically tardy Matt Drudge weighed in with his first "FLASH!" This led to Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard professing indignation at 5 p.m. An hour later, so did even huffier Fox, where Brit Hume reported that an office elf had created a Killian clone with Microsoft Word.
All that remained was for the allegedly nonpartisan mainstreammedia—"MSM," in blogspeak—to get into the act. They did so with relish, led by the A.P. and happy-to-pee-on-CBS-News ABC. The next day, the contretemps made The New York Times and The Washington Post, which played the story the same as they had the Swift Boat stuff: This guy says this, that guy says that, and even if we know who’s full of it, our job ain’t telling you.
Fresh from offering Bob Dole a platform to spread unchallenged slanders about John Kerry’s war wounds, Wolf Blitzer chipped in by posting on CNN’s Web site a 30-year old transcript of Dan Rather being unawed by Richard Nixon during a Watergate press conference. "Now," intoned Wolf, "the 72-year-old CBS News anchor finds himself in yet another confrontation with a Republican President." (For a hint of lupine motive, Google "Blitzer AIPAC").
From there it was off to the races, every furlong adding new typewriter experts offering this, that and the other opinion about Times New Roman, proportional spacing and "superscript," the gizmo that makes tiny "th’s" after numbers. Demonstrating thoroughness (or need to fill airtime and column inches), the press also served up quotes from various and sundry friends and family members of the principals involved—including the daughter of Ben Barnes, who phoned up a Dallas talk-radio station to call her father a liar.
Poor Mr. Barnes. Even if he did condemn some other mother’s son to Vietnam, you had to feel for him. On top of the Oedipal run-in with the kid (that’ll be an interesting Thanksgiving dinner), the Republican National Committee, well-prepared for this moment, disgorged an encyclopedia of bile enumerating his "ethical mishaps." |
So chuck it up as a series of coincidences if you will. But it's not only these documents that smell a little fishy to me. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Now even I didn't want to bite at the possible conspiracy theory that Rove is somehow involved with these memos, as some lefty bloggers have suggested. Buzzflash points to some background info. on this piece of Rove:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributo...9/con04385.html
Well, perhaps it is a pattern, but it's still fairly farfetched, even to a conspiricist nut like myself.
But then the Observer brings up a few good points on how the whole memo questions transpired:
http://observer.com/pages/frontpage3.asp
And I unfortunately took my tin hat off and gave a little read. Notably:
-and-
-finally-
So chuck it up as a series of coincidences if you will. But it's not only these documents that smell a little fishy to me. |
But if the fake memo was given to Rather by the right wings.....dont you think he would of given up the source already?
I mean come on we both know RATHER would of spilled the beans if the paper was handed to him by the right wings..He really wouldn't want to take heat by keeping the right wings covered...:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
