You have to love lawyers

Zhukov

VIP Member
Dec 21, 2003
3,492
302
83
Everywhere, simultaneously.
...one person at CBS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed a report in Newsweek that Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer who has charged that senior aides to then-Governor Bush had ordered Guard officials to remove damaging information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files, had been a source of the report.....

Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, [his lawyer] Mr. Van Os said: "If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done'' - then, he continued, "what difference would it make?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?pagewanted=2

And the man who wants to be the next VP is one of 'em.
 
'whats the difference' has been used by a variety of people, including our president when asked about our intelligence being wrong about WMD's in Iraq.
 
DKSuddeth said:
'whats the difference' has been used by a variety of people, including our president when asked about our intelligence being wrong about WMD's in Iraq.
you keep coming back to that...WMD thing - wow. :)

I haven't heard you chastize John Kerry - or others about not finding the actual weapons; it was the world's consensous Saddam possessed mass quantities.
 
-=d=- said:
you keep coming back to that...WMD thing - wow. :)

I haven't heard you chastize John Kerry - or others about not finding the actual weapons; it was the world's consensous Saddam possessed mass quantities.
you gotta keep up d, I said they were wrong also.
 
Excerpt from "Alice's Adventure in Wonderland"....as I read it, I couldn't help but see a strong parallel to the present situation!

There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; `this paper has just been picked up.'
`What's in it?' said the Queen.
`I haven't opened it yet, said the White Rabbit, `but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to--to somebody.'
`It must have been that,' said the King, `unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'
`Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.
`It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; `in fact, there's nothing written on the OUTSIDE.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added `It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'
`Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.
`No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, `and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)
`He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
`Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, `I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'
`If you didn't sign it,' said the King, `that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'
There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.
`That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.
…
`Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
`No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'
`Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!'
`Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
`I won't!' said Alice.
`Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
`Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) `You're nothing but a pack of cards!'
 

Forum List

Back
Top