Singing the Bite Me Song


« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »

November 26, 2005

GOP Rep. Ron Paul on a future martial law nightmare: The US policed by international mercenaries?

What an interesting sector that this voice is heard from. Rep. Paul is a conservative (perhaps an isolationist) who is pushing to pull the U.S. out of the U.N., which is not a position I support, but I find his point of view below very interesting, especially in the manner Blackwater Securities, Hallibuton, Chilean troops, etc. have been used in Iraq, not as U.N. Peacekeepers, but in the hire of the United States. Blackwater etc. were also seen patrolling with submachine guns without question in New Orleans.

I found this at PrisonPlanet.com.

Congressman Ron Paul Reiterates Danger Of Foreign Troops Being Used For Martial Law

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | November 24 2005    

Republican Congressman Ron Paul recently appeared on nationally syndicated radio and again reiterated his deep concern that foreign troops are mobilizing outside and inside America to be used as assets in a martial law takeover by the Bush administration.

"It's a horrible precedent and it's all part of the NAFTA scheme and globalization and world government," Paul told the Alex Jones Show.    

"Obviously they shouldn't be permitted. What I'd like to see is that we don't have our troops in foreign countries and if we needed a national guard that they were back here at home, that's the bigger problem. Then if there were foreign troops on our soil maybe our state officials could deal with that with their own national guard."

Paul elaborated on his fear that after  the next crisis the government, in line with their own public statements, will use military assets to police Americans on a regular basis.

"They're putting their back up against the wall and saying, if need be we're going to have martial law."

"We've heard all these statements by the President, by the administration, why they need more militarism at the federal government to keep people in check so nobody knows how this  will turn out but I do know that the only thing we can do about it is try  to alert the American people to what's going on so they can be prepared."

Paul offered his take on why the government seemed to be acting in a deranged and reckless manner on every issue.

"It's almost like they're going overboard  that they lose their rationality and that's part of the reason why they usually fail too is they get overly bold and I think our government is overly  bold thinking they are invincible and they feel invincible with their finances. Our government controls the reserve currency of the world, they literally  have the ability to print gold."

[...]

November 26, 2005 at 01:42 PM in Current Affairs, Democracy, Favorite Links, News to Note, Privacy & Free Speech, War/Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Deborah Davis challenges the federal government

OUTRAGEOUS!

Link: Deborah Davis :: Want to Ride? Papers, Please..

Commuting By Bus In Denver? Papers, Please.

DEB DAVIS LIKES to commute to work by public bus. She uses the time to read, crochet or pay bills. It's her quiet time. What with the high price of gas, she saves money, too: a week's worth of gas money gets her a month's worth of bus rides.

Deborah Davis and Son

Deborah Davis defends freedom at home while her son serves abroad in Iraq.

The bus she rides crosses the property of the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices such as the Veterans Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and part of the National Archives. The Denver Federal Center is not a high security area: it's not Area 51 or NORAD.

On her first day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center. A security guard got on and demanded that all of the passengers on this public bus produce ID.  She was surprised by the demand of the man in uniform, but she complied: it would have meant a walk of several miles if she hadn't.  Her ID was not taken and compared to any "no-ride" list. The guard barely glanced at it.

When she got home, what had happened on the bus began to bother her.  'This is not a police state or communist Russia', she thought.  From her 8th grade Civics class she knew there is no law requiring her, as an American citizen, to carry ID or any papers, much less show them to anyone on a public bus.

She decided she would no longer show her ID on the bus.

The Compliance Test

On Monday, September 26th 2005, Deb Davis headed off to work on the route 100 bus.  When the bus got to the gates of the Denver Federal Center, a guard got on and asked her if she had an ID.  She answered in the affirmative.  He asked if he could see it.  She said no.

Welcome.

Visitors Welcome (to be arrested). The entrance to the Denver Federal Center.

When the guard asked why she wouldn't show her ID, Deb told him that she didn't have to do so.  The guard then ordered her off the bus.  Deb refused, stating she was riding a public bus and just trying to get to work.

The guard then went to call his supervisor, and returned shortly with a federal policeman.  The federal cop then demanded her ID.  Deb politely explained once again that she would not show her ID, and she was simply commuting to work.  He left, returning shortly thereafter with a second policeman in tow.

The Second Compliance Test

This second cop asked the same question and got the same answer: no showing of ID, no getting off the bus.

The cop was also annoyed with the fact that she was on the phone with a friend and didn't feel like hanging up, even when he 'ordered' her to do so.

The second cop said everyone had to show ID any time they were asked by the police, adding that if she were in a Wal-Mart and was asked by the police for ID, that she would have to show it there, too.

She explained that she didn't have to show him or any other policeman my ID on a public bus or in a  Wal-Mart.  She told him she was simply trying to go to work.

The Arrest

Suddenly, the second policeman shouted "Grab her!" and he grabbed the cell phone from her and threw it to the back of the bus.  With each of the policemen wrenching one of her arms behind her back, she was jerked out of her seat, the contents of her purse and book bag flying everywhere.  The cops shoved her out of the bus, handcuffed her, threw her into the back seat of a police cruiser, and drove her to a police station inside the confines of the Denver Federal Center.

Once inside, she was taken down a hall and told to sit in a chair, still handcuffed, while one of the policemen went through her purse, now retrieved from the bus.

The two policemen sat in front of their computers, typing and conferring, trying to figure out what they should charge her with.  Eventually, they wrote up several tickets, took her outside and removed the handcuffs, returned her belongings, and pointed her toward the bus stop.  She was told that if she ever entered the Denver Federal Center again, she would go to jail.

She hasn't commuted by public bus since that day.

Here's are some legal aspects of the case cited on the Papers Please site:

The Legal Case

Deborah Davis' case is about one thing: the right to travel.

The reason why she was charged has absolutely nothing to do with security. The guard at the Denver Federal Center wasn't checking IDs against a 'no ride' list: there is no such thing. The demands made against Deb Davis were nothing more than a compliance test, a demand that she kowtow to officialdom. And lest we forget, having to show your ID is a search without a warrant.

Welcome.

By 'Welcome', they mean 'Show us your papers'. Yet more signs at a Denver Federal Center entrance.

The significance of Deb's case was readily apparent to the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, who immediately arranged free legal representation.  The first-rate legal team of ACLU volunteers Norman Mueller and Gail Johnson — attorneys from the prominent Colorado criminal defense firm of Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman, P.C. — are mounting a vigorous defense on Deborah Davis' behalf.

[...]

When Deb is arraigned in U.S. District Court on the 9th of December, she will most likely be charged with the following federal criminal misdemeanors: 41 CFR § 102-74.375 (Admission to Property) and 41 CFR § 102-74.385 (Conformity to Official Signs and Directions).

[...]

Be sure to go to the site and check all this stuff out. It's amazing!

Miasma

 

November 26, 2005 at 03:24 AM in Democracy, Favorite Links, News to Note, Privacy & Free Speech, Singing the Bite Me Song, War/Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 23, 2005

What did Scooter Libby complain to Tim Russert about?

This quotation is from earlier this month, but it bears recording for our memory in order to be ready when the conversation finally comes out in court with Russert's testimony (since he's less than forthcoming about it now, following that new trend of journalists like Russert, Woodward, and Miller concealing more than revealing in the stories they cover, with an astonishing and highly suspect coyness and lack of transparency that is old media's biggest credibility problem these days).

Libby says he talked about former Ambassador Wilson's wife in a phone conversation with Russert on July 10, 2003. Russert says Libby called to complain about an MSNBC report and never mentioned Valerie Plame.

So folks in blogland speculate endlessly on what Libby was so incensed about that day, that led him to follow the urge to call the NBC bureau chief with the desire to rip him a new one. The one guy other than Russert who could shed some light on the subject, Chris Matthews, the most vocal Bush administration critic at MSNBC, had this to say, reprinted from Michael Smerconish at the Philadelphia Daily News [emphasis mine]:

Link: Philadelphia Daily News | 11/03/2005 | Michael Smerconish | WILL MATTHEWS CORROBORATE RUSSERT?.

 

[...]

Watching from here, in Matthews' hometown, my instincts tell me that if Russert had received a complaint call about Matthews from the vice president's chief of staff, his next call would probably have been to Matthews himself to tell him what Libby had said. (At least that's how it worked in the schoolyard: "Guess what so-and-so just said about you.")

So, did Russert make such a call to Matthews after hanging up with Libby? I got the chance to ask Chris Matthews. His reply: "No, I never got such a call."

I'm glad I didn't leave it there. I immediately worried that my question had been too restrictive with regard to timing, so I asked Matthews he "ever" had any conversation with Russert where Russert told him that Libby had a beef with him? I was really asking whether Matthews could corroborate Russert's version.

He hedged a bit. Here's my transcription of what Chris Matthews told me:

"Well, let me just tell you this, without getting into that, because I know the answer generally to your question, is that, because all of this involves testimony that Russert is probably going to have to make, and let me just tell you this, that those people in the White House, especially Libby and the vice president, working as a team, "connected as a root," to use Libby's favorite phrase, basically pulled off an alley-oop play to get us into war in Iraq by feeding to the New York Times stories about nuclear potential in the hands of Saddam Hussein, to get it into the Sunday paper, and then deploying the vice president on "Meet the Press" and other administration officials like Condi Rice on the other Sunday talk shows in a kinda alley-oop play.

"So they put the ball in the air, and then on Sunday mornings, these guys put it in the basket, and then all of a sudden we're at war over Iraq because a lot of Americans in the middle politically say, 'I don't know how we're getting into that mess or why we're getting in it, but I guess we have to protect ourselves against a mushroom cloud,' that is Condi's phrase.

"So, having pulled this masterful move of moving the undecided middle into the war, they then became very sensitive to the charge by Joseph Wilson that they had done the very thing, pushed the nuclear button and then covered up any threat to that nuclear button, and Wilson was that threat, and then, going volcanic against anybody including me, who dared to say, 'Wait a minute, there is a pattern here of how we got into the war, and how they promoted the nuclear case and how they protected the nuclear case against Wilson.'

"They didn't like me doing that. I know that a number of administration officials were screaming at my network at all levels about me raising this issue, the very points I've just made. They don't like hearing it, Libby is in trouble now because he doesn't like hearing it, the vice president is very much a part of this, and the answer to your question is that you are on the right trail, Michael."

What does all that mean? To me, that Russert may not have called Matthews immediately after hanging up with Libby, but he did tell his colleague of that call, which doesn't bode well for Libby.


November 23, 2005 at 09:49 PM in Democracy, Favorite Links, Media & Journalism, News to Note, Politics, Rhetoric, War/Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 18, 2005

Sometimes ya just gotta let a guy talk...

Democratic Senator John Murtha, from Pennsylvania had a few words to say today. I think they are worth quoting in their entirety.

Here's another story about Murtha and Senator McCain that is also food for thought.

Link: Veteran lawmakers allied against abuse.

It gives you an idea of what this legislator who is also a Vietnam combat veteran is like, what a low profile he usually keeps, and what it took to bring him to the point where he spoke the words below.

Link: The Stakeholder:: Murtha in Full.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

"For 2 ½ years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.

"My plan calls:

  • To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
  • To create a quick reaction force in the region.
  • To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
  • To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
  • "This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

    "Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

    "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

    Here's the Resolution Murtha and McCain put forward.

    Murtha Resolution To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq:

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    November 17, 2005

    MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on _____________________

    Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

    Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

    Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

    Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

    Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

    Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

    Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

    Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

    Therefore be it

    I)    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

    2)   Congress assembled,

    3)   That:

    4)   Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

    5)   hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

    6)   date.

    7)   Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines

    8)   shall be deployed in the region.

    9)   Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

    10) through diplomacy.

    Oh, and by the way? Here's the most brilliantly reasoned and erudite response to Senator Murtha that came out of the office of the White House Press Secretary, currently out of South Korea.

    THE WHITE HOUSE

    Office of the Press Secretary
    (Busan, Republic of Korea)
    ________________________________________________________________
    For Immediate Release                          November 18, 2005

    STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

    Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America.  So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.  The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists.  After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

    # # #
     

    November 18, 2005 at 12:56 AM in Politics, Singing the Bite Me Song, War/Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    November 17, 2005

    Patriot Act Permanent Renewal: a grim time approaches

    The beginning of the end? I can't let this moment in history go by unmarked, and unremarked upon.

    Perhaps we should start a candlelight vigil on the deathbed of our key freedom as citizens in a democracy.

    The Patriot Act was certainly ugly, but the Patriot Act as permanent law is unconscionable. Mount the campaigns now, because this poor excuse for monitoring terrorists is nothing but a license for the federal government to monitor citizens and actively punish dissenters.

    Link: Congress Nears Deal to Renew Antiterror Law - New York Times.

    Congress Nears Deal to Renew Antiterror Law

    By ERIC LICHTBLAU
    Published: November 17, 2005

    WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional negotiators neared a final agreement Wednesday night on legislation that will extend and keep largely intact the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to the federal government after the Sept. 11 attacks under the law known as the USA Patriot Act.

    After months of vitriolic debate, the tentative agreement represents a significant and somewhat surprising victory for the Bush administration in maintaining the government's expanded powers to investigate, monitor and track terror suspects.

    [Don't call them terror suspects. "Terror suspects" are the red herring, because ANYONE can be fudged into the category "terror suspects" at any time. ANY kind of "suspect" is an innocent person who has not been proven guilty of any crime according to the rule of law. That makes monitoring "terror suspects" EXTRALEGAL according to our own laws.]

    Negotiators met into the night Wednesday, with last-minute wrangling over several narrow points, and were expected to reach a final agreement by Thursday. Once negotiators sign the deal, it will require the final approval of the full House and Senate, which is likely to come this week.

    But civil rights advocates and Democrats were already in full attack mode late Wednesday, calling the expected deal an "unacceptable" retreat from promised restrictions on the government's sweeping antiterrorism powers.

    The agreement ensures the extension of all 16 provisions of the law that were set to expire in six weeks. Fourteen will be extended permanently, and the remaining two - dealing with the government's demands for business and library records and its use of roving wiretaps - will be extended for seven years.

    [This is small comfort. Already word is getting out (despite the deliberate silencing of the people who observe the across the board hoovering of library records) of how fully these powers are being abused.]

    The agreement also includes a seven-year extension of a separate provision on investigating "lone wolf" terrorists.

    [uh, don't we have a word for "lone wolf" "terrorists" already in our legal system? Isn't that word "criminal"? Will the word "terrorism" be expanded to include all criminal activity soon?

    Well, of course "terror" would never be expanded to include hate crimes, since they don't inspire terror in battered wives, beat-up people of color, and especially not gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Because hate crimes don't really inspire deep-seated, long-term "terror," right? But "lone wolf" bank robbers do. Especially anyone who is misfortunate enough to commit a crime against a rich white man in a suit (unless it's a white collar crime, in which case the kickback exists for him to look the other way)... these may easily become our new "terrorists."]

    The deal reached by negotiators does include some new restrictions on the government's powers, including greater public reporting and oversight of how often the government is demanding records and using various investigative tools.

    Critics at the American Civil Liberties Union and elsewhere called the changes "window dressing" and said that the legislation left out what they considered more meaningful reform in preventing civil rights abuses in terror investigations.

    "This is a bad bill," Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. "These are cosmetic changes that do little to change the Patriot Act from the way it was passed four years ago."

    The antiterrorism law has become a lightning rod, and the debate over its future - including dozens of hearings and votes by nearly 400 communities urging further restrictions - amounted to a national referendum on the balance between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties.

    [...]

    The Bush administration has made renewal of the antiterrorism law a priority. Administration officials said Wednesday that while they were still waiting to review the final agreement of more than 200 pages, they were pleased that it appeared to retain virtually all of the government's current powers.

    [...]

    It would be nice if Republicans were to suddenly discover their own party's long-lost affection for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I won't hold my breath. Real Republicans seem to have vanished into the sands of time along with Barry Goldwater. I have no clue who these mutant, fascist pod-people are now.

    November 17, 2005 at 02:03 PM in Singing the Bite Me Song | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    November 02, 2005

    Gee Whiz, CBS old bull anchors don't dick around...

    Link: Fresh Intelligence October 31 2005 : Radar Online.

     

    Pissing Match At CBS

    When newly-promoted CBS News president Sean McManus gets around to chatting with Dan Rather about the fallout from his Bush National Guard story, we hope he uses more tact than Mike Wallace. According to sources inside the network, Wallace recently got into a shouting match with Rather after telling the disgraced journo he should have resigned over “Memogate”—while the two men were standing side-by-side at a urinal.

    The argument erupted in a men’s room at CBS headquarters in New York, we hear, after Wallace sidled up to his whizzing 60 Minutes colleague of three decades and told him he had just confided to Katie Couric in a Today Show interview—scheduled to air this morning—that he thought Rather should have resigned when his underlings were canned for basing the National Guard story on what turned out to be phony documents.

    “They were both standing at the urinals when Wallace casually mentioned what he had told Katie,” says the source. “There proceeded a twenty-minute shouting match in the bathroom” between Rather and the 87-year-old journalist.

    Reached for comment, Wallace confirmed that a “discussion” had taken place—”I don’t remember whether it was in a men’s room,” he said—but called the notion that tempers flared “bullshit.”

    [...]

    November 2, 2005 at 01:53 PM in Singing the Bite Me Song | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack