DAN RATHER: TASED AND CONFUSED

[Gregorian]

The Still-Unreported Story of "Top Gun" George Bush

Monday September 24, 2007

New York- Newly unearthed records reveal that, in 2004, when Americans were in the midst of a brutal electoral battle over whether to reelect a president posing as a war hero, a commanding US reporter, Dan Rather, went AWOL.

Just three months before the election, Rather had a story that might have changed the outcome of that razor-close race. We now know that Dan cut a back-room deal to shut his mouth, grab his ankles, and let his network retract a story he knew to be absolutely true.

In September 2004 when Rather cowered, Bush was riding high in the polls. Now, with Bush's approval ratings are below smallpox, Rather has come out of hiding to shoot at the lame duck. Thanks, Dan.

It began on September 8, 2004, when Rather, on CBS, ran a story that Daddy Bush Senior had, in 1968, put in the fix to get his baby George out of the Vietnam War and into the Texas Air National Guard. Little George then rode out the war defending Houston from Viet Cong attack.

The story is stone-cold solid. I know, because we ran it on BBC Television a year before CBS (see that broadcast here http://mailings.gregpalast.com//lt/t_go.php?i=47&e=NDIyNDU=&l=-http--youtube.com/watch--Q-v--E-gyFdZqWDn3c ). BBC has never retracted a word of it.

But CBS caved. So did Dan.

That's according to Rather's written confession, his law suit, which is as much a shameful set of admissions as it is a legal complaint. In the suit filed Thursday, Rather tells us that Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, owner of CBS, was "enraged that the Broadcast had hurt CBS in the eyes of the Bush administration." Viacom then set out to, "divert public attention from the accurate facts reported in the Broadcast concerning President Bush's service (and lack thereof) in the TexANG during the Vietnam War; and enable CBS and Viacom to curry favor with the White House…."

Redstone roared and Dan, hearing his Dark Lord's voice, admits he then "refrained from defending" the truths in the Broadcast. Dan shut his mouth, he confesses, in return for 30 pieces of Viacom silver: a promise that "his contract would be extended."

Had Rather stood up to the Viacommunist thugs and defended his story, President Kerry and our nation could today express gratitude for his public service. Instead, Dan traded the public interest for airtime on 60 Minutes. Yuck.

Now Dan is shocked to find that the network snakes didn't live up to their slimey bargain with him. Well, Dan, that's what happens with snakes. Get in bed with them and wake up slimed.


The Story Still Not Reported

By contrast, BBC never backed down from the story of the fix that got Little George out of 'Nam. We had a smoking hot document > and an interview with the crucial source: the man who confessed to making the call for Bush to the head of the Air Guard.

No, I won't give you his name. I don't expose sources - unlike Dan and CBS. That's another thing that makes me just FURIOUS. Rather revealed, then blamed, a source, retired Air Guard officer Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. Burkett, an Abilene rancher, is a courageous, stand-up guy. http://mailings.gregpalast.com//lt/t_go.php?i=47&e=NDIyNDU=&l=-http--www.gregpalast.com/the-real-lt-col-burkettin-his-own-words-to-bbc-television/ >. But after standing up with Dan, he was ruined, ostracized from the cattle business. No one would sell him feed. Dan got a multi-million dollar kiss-off from Viacom. Burkett got dead cows and bankruptcy.

And there's more. More that Dan didn't report. As I said, Dan picked up an old story, one that I reported, as did others, in 1999. But we added our discovery of a confidential document which had walked its way out of the files of the US Department of Justice. It was a whistleblower statement that explained why the Lt. Governor of Texas, Ben Barnes, who arranged for George W. to get into the Air Guard, kept silent about it for 35 years. It states that, in 1997, Governor George W. Bush overruled his state's Lottery director and gave a billion-dollar contract to a company tied to Barnes. Barnes received a cool fee of $23 million from the contractor.

This is a devastating accusation. And one that's more serious than the scandal of a draft-dodging rich kid's vile use of daddy's connections three decades ago. Here was evidence of gross abuse of public office by Governor Bush to pay off a crony who kept silent while Bush ran for the presidency.


US Reporting: Don't Ask, Don't Tell

But how could I expect Rather to take on the tough story when he wouldn't stand by the easy one? In June 2002, two years before his media lynching, Rather explained his Fear of Reporting in an interview on BBC Television http://mailings.gregpalast.com//lt/t_go.php?i=47&e=NDIyNDU=&l=-http--news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/1991885.stm (cautiously, to a European audience only):

“It’s an obscene comparison but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people’s necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. It’s that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often. Again, I’m humbled to say I do not except myself from this criticism.”

This is what's so frustrating about Dan Rather. He's two people: a real journalist locked inside a television news-actor begging for air-time. Indeed, disgustingly, in his law suit, he conceals his inner reporter by claiming he only "narrated" the draft dodge story. For shame.

But what about all those other preening birds on the chicken ranch known as US television news? Rather tells us he wasn't alone in failing to ask tough questions. Not one damn US reporter asked Bush at a press conference, "Yes or no, Mr. President: Did your daddy call Ben Barnes to get you out of the war in Vietnam?"



The same week Dan confessed that he agreed to shut up, a journalism student, Andrew Meyer of Florida, insisted on asking tough questions of the man Bush defeated, John Kerry. For Andrew's impertinence, he was hit with 50,000 volts from a taser.

Andrew is just a student and still needs a couple of lessons in posing questions properly. (Lesson One: "Wear a grounding wire.") But Andrew has the next lesson down pat: ask the question they don't want to hear when they don't want to hear it. Rather could use a few lessons in journalism himself - from Andrew - about taking the heat for the story.

Seeing Andrew's arrest and Dan's complaint, I was thinking that perhaps, instead of tase-ing those reporters who ask questions, we might tase those who don't.

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Oh who wrote this horseshit?

Comparing that obnoxious dangerous asshole at Kerry's speech to Rather's actual REPORTING being stifled completely trivializes the significance of what Rather has done. That asshole didn't get tased "for asking tough questions" - whoever wrote this piece is a liar, and a bad one at that, because any HONEST person watching the tape can see CLEARLY that the kid was NOT quietly asking "tough questions" - he was screaming, potentially violent, would not shut up and let Kerry respond, and had already come crashing into the room chased by police, butted in line and disrupted the entire event.

To compare an actual hero like Dan Rather to this attention seeking whore is a disgrace.

[paulk]

2. Greg Palast

'nuff said.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. Go figure

He's every bit as dishonest and divisive as Michelle Malkin or Sean Hannity. There, I said it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. I think he's just frustrated that more people didn't throw themselves on their

swords to get the truth out about George. Frankly, Rather was successfully painted in the corner by the press as a Liberal with a vendetta against George. I don't think he would have had much cross-over appeal into the moderate-right leaning groups, without support from his network.

[Vektor]

3. Your writings...

have given me an "organism."

Especially the last sentence.

Delicious.

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. I am always happy to provide you with my services

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[cui bono]

5. How about not jumping on a minor detail and grasping the point of the whole piece?

The story never resonated yet it should have. Rather allowed it to get squashed without protest.

Again... IT'S NOT ABOUT THE KID!!! :eyes:

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. Palast MAKES it about the kid by lying

When he lies about one "minor detail" he invalidates everything else he has to say. There are plenty of brilliant, incisive commentators out there; I don't need to read a polemical liar like Palast just because I might agree with some of his points.

[saracat]

20. Amen Wild. Palast is has no credibility. He appeals

to conspiracy theorists and couldn't get work in the USA so he had to stay abroad. He himself admits that. He isn't a real journalist and now is going after Rather with his jealousy. Nice. It would have been very like him to have set the kid up. Why else give a "professional heckler" as the kid describes himself , a job? Unless you owe him something and have no journalistic credibility?

[cui bono]

23. Yeah, because the M$M media won't touch his stories since they speak the truth

that they don't want us to know.

So you don't believe that voter caging happened in Florida?

Do you really think Rather is a hero just because he brought this lawsuit against CBS? Rather doesn't think so. Rather is sorry for his inaction regarding that story and his behavior as part of the media in general.

You think that kid was just a heckler? Hecklers don't ask important questions that need to be answered.

You completely miss the point and throw out baseless accusations and false statements.

[saracat]

24. The kid said , on his own website, that he was a "professional heckler"

That is the kids description not mine.And it appears this was his first "politcal event"He usually managed to get thrown out of sports events. And he did not ask important questions.Skull and Bones? Please.As for vote caging/ Sure it happened as well as butterfly ballots and a lot of things.But Palast writes a lot of conspiracy crap that denigrates anything good he writes. And hiring this kid really makes him look ridiculous. But each to his own.I do think Rather is a hero. And for many things not just this lawsuit.

[cui bono]

25. That's what you have to say about vote caging?

Sure it happened? It was a huge factor in giving Bush the election!

Please tell me all the conspiracy "crap" you are talking about. Palast is an investigative journalist and I believe he has facts to back up his claims. There's plenty of conspiracies out there.

Omg... okay, I'll bite... why is Rather a hero?

[karynnj]

33. Hecklers often ask important questions - and intelligent ones have the

sense to shut up if the person is willing to answer. If he were looking for answers, he would have taken the opportunity, given to him by Senator Kerry that few politicians would extend when the police were originally seeking to eject him , to intelligently ask the question and then listen to his answer.

Tell me how he was able to get edited video out on his web site before anyone else and get it linked to by the Miami Herald. Their sympathetic coverage and that video set the tone of the initial coverage. All when I think he was still in jail. There are plenty of consiracy theorists here - they should be able to figure out this was planned and he was not the sole person involved. All he succeeded in doing was helping some who want to quiet Kerry, one of the best people we have on Iraq and foreign policy.

[cui bono]

38. What is it with everybody obsessing on this kid?

That's not the point of the OP. That wasn't what was wrong with what happened that day either.

I give up. This is too sad that people on this board don't get that our freedoms are being squashed, that the media is not doing its job and is complicit in the crimes of this administration and that police are out of control with brutality and we are headed for a police state. How do you not see that that is what this is about?

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE KID FFS!

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. What you're not getting is that by LYING about the kid and the incident, Palast makes it ABOUT him

If Palast was really concerned with police brutality, that's all he had to say - something to the effect of "the police reaction was extreme" or whatever. But NO - he chooses to lie about the incident, to present an utterly dishonest and distorted version of what really happened to plant a seed in the reader's mind that the kid was being tasered for what he asked Kerry, rather than because he was being violent, disruptive, and erratic. By spreading this lie that the kid was tasered for "asking tough questions," rather than simply focusing on the alleged overreaction of the police forces, Palast changes the entire tenor of the discussion over the incident. It's every bit as dishonest as the right-wing distorting and manipulating select facts to "prove" their points, like Fox News reporting on anti-war protestors "jeering" soldiers while conveniently leaving out the fact that the vast majority of the other anti-war protestors shouted them down. It's dishonest and if Palast's "main point" is now being obscured because he chose to lie, that's his own damn fault.

[cui bono]

46. Again, you are failing to see the point of the whole piece.

And that's your own damn fault, not Palast's. But if it's more important to you to nitpick rather than grasp the actual meaning and importance of what's being said, then so be it.

[KittyWampus]

45. I KNOW about voter caging because of DU and NOT Palast who simply takes info others gather

mixes in his own brand of polemic and then pretends to be an investigative reporter with secret sources.

[cui bono]

22. No he doesn't. The main point is still extremely valid.

Palast is not a liar. I believe you are just having a knee jerk reaction because you saw that kid mentioned.

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. He clearly IS a liar because he lied about the taser incident

The fact that his account of the incident is demonstrably, provably false says to me that I shouldn't take a word Palast says seriously. If he's willing to lie about that incident to advance his own bias/self-promotion/objectives, what else is he lying about? How else is he distorting the truth to promote himself or his pet issues?

No, just because Palast claims to be "on our side" doesn't mean I have to abandon critical thinking skills to blindly support him. If he lies about ANYTHING he tarnishes his entire credibility. And FTR this taser kid is not the first thing Palast has been dishonest or misleading about. His pieces are as intellectually valid as Michelle Malkin's - they are 80% ranty opinion supported by dubious, taken-out-of-context or just plan false "facts" with perhaps a nugget or two of truth thrown in just so people can say "SEE, HE/SHE'S RIGHT ABOUT THAT!"

[cui bono]

37. Do you have examples to back up your claims?

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. Do you think I bookmark everything I've read over the past 3 years?

Do you have links to prove that everything out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth is a lie? Does that mean that everything he says is true?

I remember Palast implying that "where there's smoke, there's fire" in regards to the Swift Boat liars - in other words, that they were telling the truth. No, I don't have a link, but I read it in 2004. I don't usually catalog exactly where or when I read something over the span of several years. That aside, I find most of Palast's articles contain either outright lies or a very dishonest and selective interpretation of facts, not to mention the fact that he throws out conspiracy theories and causalities with no proof. Palast has asserted a host of charges which he rarely if ever provides solid proof for; do you email him after every article he publishes asking him to back up his claims? Or are you willing to accept his conclusions because they confirm your biases?

[cui bono]

44. I'm merely asking you to back up your statements. If you can't then end of story.

Or am I supposed to just believe anything anyone says on a message board?

[sendero]

58. FWIW...

.... I agree with you. The kid might not have deserved to be tasered, but he DAMN SURE deserved to be thrown out on his ear by any means necessary. And I am a VOCAL KERRY DETRACTOR, as any search of my posts here will verify.

Trying to turn the sow's ear of that kid's performance into some kind of silk purse is demeaning to silk. The kid is merely a professional jerk who deserves no more consideration than someone farting in an elevator.

And Palast is full of shit, something I was not aware of before.

[karynnj]

32. Palast linked the two of them

He also interpreted Rather in the worse possible light. At the time Rather may those decisions, it was not just him but the futures of many very good journalists in his organization on the line - he tried to save them. As to Palast, he should be aware that the NYT polled people likely to vote for Bush when the story came out. The result was that they found that even if all the story was true - that he got help getting in (duh), that he simply stopped going and that there was something fishy in not taking the medical - it swung very close to ZERO people. The reason - they all knew that that was in the period when they knew he was an irresponsible frat rat. It did not change their view of him. (the irony was that the SBVT hit a person, who had acted honorably throughout his entire life. They attempted to change that narrative to make it at least questionable.)

As to the jerk - Palast brought him in - oddly inferring that this jerk and his stunt were better than Rather, who had a very long, distinguished career as a journalist. Giving him no credit for being one of the last to remain honest. Of the three, Palast, Rather and the jerk - Rather is by far the best. Palast diminishes whatever credibility he had by bashing Rather and elevating the jerk.

One that is rarely needed by kids in the entry level journalism class in high school. After you ask your question, wait to hear the answer, if one is forthcoming. In Meyer's case, what Palast is trying to hide is that Kerry intervened at the very beginning to let the obviously troubled kid ask his question. Meyer than engaged in a rant against the Senator, blocking him from answering. I am shocked that an investigative journalist of Palast's supposed skill can't see a set up when it placed before him.

Consider:
The first video seen was from Meyer's web site and was linked to by the Miami Herald's coverage hours after the event, when he was still in jail. This means it had to be premeditated with people ready to process the tape and put it on Meyer's website. The tape eliminated all the preliminary events - such as Meyer rushing the line, the police acting to stop him, Kerry saying that he would let him ask a question, Meyer engaging in a pompous rant - not letting the Senator get a word in edgewise - continuing and moving closer to the stage when the sponsor's of the event cut his mike. If this is Palast's idea of good journalism, I will need to take his stories with a bigger grain of salt - it is simply guerrilla theatre.

Senator Kerry has given thoughtful answers to these questions when asked in other forums by people who then let him respond. Here, the "journalist" became the story. As Meyer was taken out, you can here bits and pieces of Kerry's answer on the election question as it faded in and out on the tape - as Meyer was moved to the far back of the auditorium. No one has put out the transcript of Kerry's answer showing that the stunt, not the 2004 issue was the focus of the story. Palast also ignores that 700 people were there to hear a serious speech on foreign policy - and their desire to learn what Kerry thought on various issues was ignored. To me this simply says that Palast has jumped the shark and he confuses a cheap stunt by a person known to seek attention inappropriately with real journalism.

The worst result of this is that in the MSM accounts it makes the idea that 2004 was stolen appear to be the province of people they can call nut cases. This makes it easier to ignore the comments of people, including Senators Kerry and Boxer, listing the very real ways that votes were suppressed, machines switched votes (Senator Kerry spoke of the touch scenes that asked you to confirm you voted for Bush when you had voted for Kerry - in a speech on the Senate floor.) and other ways that the Bush team used to steal Ohio. Congressmen Conyers and Tubbs spoke of many discrepancies on January 6, 2005 - they are all in the record. RFKjr did an analysis that showed that including the suppression of votes, he could identify enough lost "votes" that Kerry should have won Ohio. There were also well documented studies of the caterpillar ballot problem (in Cleveland) that were posted here.

If Meyer was genuinely seeking answers rather than confrontation, wouldn't he have responded to Kerry's comment that he had read Palast's book - with a question on what he thought of its content or did he agree with it? What is clear is the Palast and Meyer want a narrative that Kerry avoided the question - but the facts are against them.

[shance]

56. Absolutely Cui*** It's not about the kid,

its about the situation itself, the violations and the abuse.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Palast still hasn't gotten the message about the taser guy

that he was a douche bag rather than a saint. Maybe it's because the dear lamb mentioned Palast's book.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. You mean Palast's motives might be less than pure? You mean he might be a self-promoting huckster?

Say it ain't so, Joe!

[Luminous Animal]

27. Really.

Explain to me how, specifically he was a douche bag.

[LittleClarkie]

30. Jumped ahead in line. Asked someone to film him. Only acted out when being filmed.

Billed himself on his website as a heckler, be it sports or politics. There for the Q and A but wasn't really there to ask a question, but to rant instead. Was more interested in the attention than anything else.

Douchebag.

[karynnj]

34. To get attention, he was willing

to harm, the reputations of:
Senator Kerry, who gave him far more time than any other politician would have

The kids who planned the event

and the police, who were charged with preserving the piece.

Anyone who is seriously discussing the various problems in the election process - because it makes it easier for the MSM to reject all of it as nonsense and link us with him.

[Usrename]

13. As any asshole can see, no one else is asking those questions.

Are they?

Are you being intentionally obtuse about this, or what?

[nolabels]

14. Dan Rather probably figured grabbing his ankles would benefit him...

in the long run. He later found out that he was actually just a tired old man they wanted to get rid of. The man lacked integrity and all his millions he made will never be able to bring that back while in his senior of years. Too bad he waited so long to find out how much of sell out he really was. Dan should just shut up and go away He has done enough damage trying to prop up the dysfunctional establishment and most of us don't need his lame excuses at any rate x(

The good thing about the irrational fascists ignoring history is that sword they are wielding often finds time to cut both ways.

[jhrobbins]

26. Exactly, right on, you rock and a bunch more affirmative stuff!

[leeroysphitz]

43. A hero? How can You call him a hero when by his own admissions

he knowingly failed to do his job at a time when it could have done some good. If you need a journalistic hero try Bill Moyers who got Rather to admit his failures. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1224381378772296469&q=moyers+dan+rather&total=30&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

For what it's worth I like Dan Rather but c'mon... Palast may be a bit of a character but he has been asking the tough questions. No?

[Jim Sagle]

4. Greg Palast RRRRRAWWWWXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!

His detractors ain't nuthin' but shit.

And that's on a GOOD day.

[provis99]

11. Palast is a naive fool

I mean really, hiring an attention-getting clown who starts shouting about "Skull and Bones" conspiracies to take over the world, and comparing said clown to Dan Rather, a real journalist. Palast is nothing but an obnoxious attention seeker himself.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Hiring? Hadn't heard that one.

Where do you get that from, or are you speculating that Palast hired that Andrew person?

[cigsandcoffee]

16. It's easier to believe he was hired...

...than to believe he actually bought that book.

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. Palast said he'd hired the asshole on the Stephanie Miller show

I believe. It was on one of the lefty talk shows.

[nolabels]

28. I hate to float the turd in the pool but didn't Palast say he 'wished that he hired him'........

or was that alternative world i was living in?

Really I was just kind of passing through stations on my way to listen to Rush when i heard that little tidbit :shrug:

[cui bono]

39. No he hasn't hired the kid.

Well now that you've posted something that isn't true I guess I should just discount everything you say then. In fact, what he says is that he can't even get hold of the kid because of the kid's lawyers.

And using the phrase "one of the lefty talk shows" is very telling as to your leanings. And using it when having named Stephanie Miller Show as the possible show is so far off the mark it's almost shocking. You think that's leftist? You've got a lot to learn about leftists if you think she qualifies as one.

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. I like Stephanie Miller, and I had read on DU that he'd told her he'd hired the kid

Obviously, I could be remembering wrong, or the person who posted on DU could have been mistaken; I, unlike Greg Palast, am not immune to admitting I made a mistake. I will no longer post that he has hired the kid because unlike Greg Palast, I'm not interested in spreading false information.

I like Stephanie Miller precisely because she's not a raging leftist. I am not a leftist nor will I ever be - I dislike extremist radical ideologues from every end of the political spectrum. I am a liberal, and if that's not pure enough for a lot of people here, well, I suppose that's too bad, but it doesn't really concern me.

[cui bono]

47. Except that you keep saying he's spreading false information without backing it up with facts.

But whatever.

[WildEyedLiberal]

51. His lie about the taser incident is evident to anyone who watches any of the videos.

That is a FACT - so don't even go there. You want to blindly support Palast, fine, but don't be surprised when others have a less than glowing opinion of him. You've never challenged my point that he is lying about the taser incident because you know full well he's distorting what actually happened. I guess for you Palast's "bigger point" makes it okay for him to lie about the taser incident, but that very lie actually makes his "whole point" moot. I take Greg Palast as seriously as Michelle Malkin.

[cui bono]

52. You've made more claims than that but still refuse to back them up.

So you aren't lending any credibility to what you are saying.

[WildEyedLiberal]

53. I already told you I didn't bookmark every piece of Palast's I found inaccuracies with

And frankly I find his writing to be shrill, tedious, and irritating, and I'm not going to comb through it just to trot back here obediently to give you some links and point out his distortions. I know I saw him give credence to the Swift Boat liars but I'm certainly not searching for that piece of swill again, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Or not. Your choice. If I did find a bunch of links of Palast lying you'd just argue that it doesn't matter because it's not central to his "main point." Or that his conspiracy theories by definition can't be proven or disproven so therefore they're credible. Again, whatever; you want to like him and find value in his writings, fine. I think he's a lying hack, and frankly, I don't NEED any more evidence than this very piece quoted in the OP to prove that, because he tells a pretty egregious lie right there. It's not a terrible stretch to imagine that if he's willing to lie about something as trivial as the taser dumbass, he's probably lied about other things. But if you like him nothing is going to convince you that he's less than sincere anyway, so this conversation has officially become redundant. Have a nice night.

[cui bono]

54. Well if you are going to make slanderous claims you should back them up.

Period.

And I wouldn't speculate about how I'd respond since you clearly have no idea at all. Again you are not dealing with facts.

I've simply asked for evidence and you go off on tirades and still don't provide it. You might have convinced me had you been a credible source. As it is well... I doubt you'd believe yourself either at this point.

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. You seem uninterested in Palast's "slanderous claims"

You have made it clear that you don't give a shit that he's lied in this article, so save the faux outrage over my "slander" of him. He's a lying hack as is proved by the videos - what more PROOF do you need? This conversation is going nowhere.

[cui bono]

57. Why do you refuse to back up your claims?

That's all I've asked you. If you provide proof you may sway me, without it you're just slinging poo.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. That was your 666th post

COINCIDENCE???? I THINK NOT.

OMG SKULL AND BONES SATANIC BLOOD OATH BLACK MAGIC CONSPIRACY :tinfoilhat:

[LittleClarkie]

17. You forgot the freemasons

they don't like it very much when you forget them, you know...

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. lol do your remember Dr Fate's post about the Shriner Conspiracy

Still one of the funniest GD threads ever.

[Vektor]

21. Hahaha...I was just thinking about the Shriner post yesterday...

Laughing my ass off, remembering that brilliant piece of satire.

[lateo]

31. K and R!

Lol...boy this one really got all the hater's panties in a knot.

[NashVegas]

35. With All Due Respect, Two Words for the BBC: David Kelly

..

[mmonk]

48. I support Palast and his work.

He's not a wide eyed liar as some say.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. Recommended. eom

[Truth2Tell]

50. K & R for Greg Palast! n/t