The Emperor's New Hump (The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the W election)

[Omaha Steve]

Will Rmoney try this too?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election—because it could have changed the election

By Dave Lindorff

In the weeks leading up to the November 2 election, the New York Times was abuzz with excitement. Besides the election itself, the paper’s reporters were hard at work on two hot investigative projects, each of which could have a major impact on the outcome of the tight presidential race.

One week before Election Day, the Times (10/25/04) ran a hard-hitting and controversial exposé of the Al-Qaqaa ammunition dump—identified by U.N. inspectors before the war as containing 400 tons of special high-density explosives useful for aircraft bombings and as triggers for nuclear devices, but left unguarded and available to insurgents by U.S. forces after the invasion.

On Thursday, just three days after that first exposé, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.


It's clear even from unenhanced photos that George W. Bush has been wearing some kind of object under his clothing, both during the debates and at other public appearances. The enhancements done by NASA scientist Robert Nelson show a rectangular object with a long "tail"; in some shots a wire leading over Bush's shoulder is visible. This configuration closely resembles a PTT (Push To Talk) receiver with an induction earpiece, a device used by some actors, newscasters and politicians to allow for inaudible voice communication in a public setting. The particular model pictured here (which does not appear to be the exact type Bush wore) was manufactured by Resistance Technology, Inc. of Arden Hills, Minn.

The so-called Bulgegate story had been getting tremendous attention on the Internet. Stories about it had also run in many mainstream papers, including the New York Times (10/9/04, 10/18/04) and Washington Post (10/9/04), but most of these had been light-hearted. Indeed, the issue had even made it into the comedy circuit, including the monologues of Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jon Stewart and a set of strips by cartoonist Garry Trudeau.

FULL story at link

[joycejnr]

1. And the surprise is?...

...and after 2004 even less. No books from Woodward, et. al., and there never will be. "Lame stream media" indeed.

[George II]

32. Well, since that article was written and posted in 2005........

...it should not be a surprise to anyone.

This was reported on in dozens of newspapers and blog sites a few days after the debate. It's not news.

Why this attempt to demonize the New York Times 8 years later?

[Th1onein]

77. It's news when it is supported by more than speculation.

And it wasn't reported in dozens of newspapers after the debate. It was put down as a conspiracy theory.

[George II]

83. Google "bush" "wired" "debate"

[Th1onein]

92. I HAVE googled it and what I see supports what the article says: Printed as conspiracy theory

And published as such in one mainstream publication, and I'm not sure that was even in the print copy. It was about how the web was buzzing about this.

Everything else, pfft! Salon, an online publication, was the only big news outlet to print the story.

[George II]

101. That debate and discussion (and yes, NEWS REPORTS) happened 8 years ago...

...don't we have more important things to worry about in 2012 than to dredge up stuff 8 years ago and articles 7 years ago?

I know I do.

[Th1onein]

102. Actually, WE SHOULD PUT THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE NOW!

Because the debates, once again, are coming up, and Romney has already tried to pull this kind of shit once, as I've posted in a video twice on this thread already.

YES, we should worry about this, because history repeats itself. It has done so ONCE already during a Romney debate. It threatens to do so again, during the Obama/Romney debates if we don't put this front and center everywhere we can possible post it.

[joycejnr]

104. Absolutely! n/t

[Th1onein]

95. WHERE? WHERE? WHERE was it printed in dozens of print newspapers?

No, it was not. The article, itself, said that it was not.

And, if we don't pay attention, now, we just might have a few more moments of deja vu. Look at this clip:

[George II]

98. It appeared on "several" (ok?) newspaper sites and blog sites. This 2005 article is nothing new:

"bush" "wired" "debate" yields more than 8 Million hits....

Among them:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/12/bush_wireless_coaching/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18734-2004Oct8.html

http://www.salon.com/2004/10/09/bulge/

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/299251.shtml

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7036.htm

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/open-chat/37482-bush-wired-first-debate.html

Even Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2004

Even Democratic Underground:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2488705

It certainly wasn't a "cover up" by the NY Times, the whole world was aware of it.

[Bainbridge Bear]

33. Yes, thank you, New York Times

the so-called Paper of Record, for helping the Bush Regime to lie us into the "war" in Iraq and elsewhere and to keep Wubya from being held accountable for his despicable cheating during the debates. I was just watching the 1992 documentary "Manufacturing Consent" last night and one scene featured a senior editor at the Times telling the interviewer that Noam Chomsky's assertion that news is manufactured and selected to serve the agenda of the elites and corporate interests was nonsense. The film also stated that the media was controlled by 22 large conglomerates. Those were the days! That number has been pared down to only 5 or 6. I don't trust any of those papers anymore and I certainly won't pay for them. Imagine this. We get better news from two comedians named Stewart and Colbert and from Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! plus the excellent online sources than the papers that used to practice real journalism. The Washington Post probably wouldn't go near the Watergate expose these days. The era of "Uncle" Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, is gone.

[trueblue2007]

53. NEW YORK TIMES SUCKS

[tiny elvis]

67. military anthrax sucks

no such stuff was or would be done for any other president

still worse

the Times is thus far claiming that the Bush Bulgegate story never existed in the first place (2005)

[Politicalboi]

2. Yeah but,

Obummer uses a TelePrompter.

[jmowreader]

63. Yup. He sure did.

[JHB]

70. Oh, thanks for that photo. I want to use it every time some idiot...

...gets in a lather about Obama and teleprompters.

Fergawdssake, Reagan is the one who normalized them, made them the "index cards" of the television age. I remember it, and I was a teenager then.

And if some people can be excused because they weren't paying attention then, it doesn't excuse their "fair and balanced" sources, who DO know better and have been lying to them.

[Nictuku]

3. Vindication is nice

It is nice to finally find out that I was right. I could tell by the way Bush paused, and hesitated, it was obvious to me that he was being coached. I think this is a big deal. I wish it would get more coverage, even so many years later.... so that the informed public can be on the look out for it happening again.

If a man can't stand up in a debate without being coached... then there is no doubt in my mind that his entire presidency would be .... coached.

This would bring attention to the puppeteers. Just who is pulling the strings?

[Omaha Steve]

4. OOPS (forgot to post this photo)

[tblue]

38. And remember he said "Let me finish!" though NO ONE was talking!

Oops is right! And there was stipulation that no cameras be allowed behind the debaters.

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

76. Those 2 facts are facts.

[Rhiannon12866]

103. I certainly remember that photo! We were all talking about that right here at the time...

Despite whatever help he had, Bush* clearly lost.

[Politicalboi]

7. It wouldn't surprise me

If they did it this year too. Rmoney is going to fail big time on the 3rd.

[Bjorn Against]

14. If they got by with it in 2004 using an actual wire...

Then I have no doubt they will do it again in 2012 now that wireless technology has greatly improved and they could use an ear piece that would be impossible to see on camera.

[The Wizard]

39. Wireless technology

Imagine someone knowing the frequency and having the dupe on the receiving end saying something like "so I'm a corrupt prick who profits from the misery of others."

[BlueJazz]

49. LOL!..I was thinking the same thing. "Put the wrench in the bunny's soup and click your doorbell"

[JHB]

71. Like James Randi did to a faith healer in 1987

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 07:59 AM - Edit history (2)

In 1987 James Randi exposed faith healer Peter Popoff in precisely that way. Popoff was being fed personal information about audience members (who had filled out "prayer cards" when entering the event) by is wife via a hidden wireless receiver. Randi used a scanner, found the wife's frequency, and recorded the whole thing.

Then he went on the Tonight Show (with Johnny Carson still reigning) and showed Popoff's own video of the event synced with Randi's recording of the wireless transmission. It was absolutely devastating and forced Popoff into bankruptcy (though after a while he was back to fleecing a new flock. The don't call them "shorn-again" for nothing).

However, if Romney tried it (and likely with Bush) the signal would probably be scrambled for security. I don't think there's anyone in that business who doesn't know about the Popoff expose and how it was done.

On Popoff ar it again (with some clips from the Tonight Show expose):

[alfredo]

20. They could put it in the calibration panel in his scalp.

[formercia]

46. Or inside his Cranium

since there is not much more than a reptilian Brainstem and a lot of free space......

[alfredo]

60. It's full of PEZ. Push his nose up and the PEZ drops out. Neat huh?

[freedom fighter jh]

22. But Romney probably won't listen, cuz he's gotta be the man in charge nt

[donco]

86. If mittons wears one

i would love to have the frequenccy of the button.Hank Williams Jr Would come on loud and clear "ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL! "

[Th1onein]

96. IF he wears one? He's already done it once.

Watch this clip and watch his mouth:

[Downtown Hound]

88. You know what's really sad about this?

Even with the coaching, Bush STILL lost those debates. And the American people still voted for him enough to allow him to steal the election...again. Man, those were dark times. I'm grateful that the public as a whole has seems to have woken up a bit since then (not that we still don't have a LONG way to go), but I'm angry that it took so much loss for us as a nation for it to happen.

[NV Whino]

5. Well, we all knew that, but

I seriously doubt it would have changed he outcome of the election. The Neocons had that sewed up nine ways to Sunday.

[Kolesar]

6. Could be a heart control

Some sort of automated defibrillator. I don't know the technology well enough to describe it. A writer at Slate or Salon speculated on this.
He had this in 2002 while pretending to be a cowboy on his farm

[arikara]

8. They implant defibrillators

the same as pacemakers. Some are combination defib/pacers. My Mr has one.

[Major Nikon]

52. I suspect Shrub wore one during most of his 8 years

Looks better than a hand up your back.

[Botany]

9. Just like the NY Times refused to run the story of bush/Cheney and their wiretaps

or the stories about Ohio 2004, or .......

liberal media

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. And they led the charge against Clinton 15 years ago

That's when I stopped subscribing. Haven't trusted them since.

[randr]

10. Should Obama demand a pat down of Romney?

He may have an artificial heart hidden under his shirt.

[Aerows]

15. I'd wager

that more than his heart is artificial!

[yardwork]

11. I've wondered if Kerry messed up the wiring at the beginning of the first debate.

The two men shook hands at the beginning of the first debate, and Kerry put his hand on Bush's shoulder and back. I've wondered if he deliberately (or accidentally) disconnected the wiring, which would explain Bush's dismal performance during the first debate.

At the rest of the debates, Bush did not get close enough to allow Kerry to touch him. The reason given by the pundits was that Bush didn't want people to see how much taller Kerry is than him. (Historically, taller candidates always won presidential elections.) I've always wondered if Bush was also protecting his wiring from Kerry. Bush did much better in the other debates. His feed was coming through clearly.

Kerry had to know.

[jsmirman]

65. Really?

That's fascinating.

Do you have any sources on the "Bush not allowing Kerry to touch him" at the other debates?

I never knew that.

[yardwork]

80. I'm speaking from my memory of the debates. Are they on Youtube?

The speculation I read about why Bush wouldn't let Kerry near him during the last two debates was just internet chatter, I can't remember if I read anything published about it. I'll google around later today and see what I can find.

[alp227]

93. The CSPAN Video archives.

First debate video: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/183580-4
Second debate video: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/183582-2
Third debate video: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/183583-2

you are right, Kerry did put his hand on Bush's back in debate 1 but not 2 or 3.

[yardwork]

94. Thank you!

[jsmirman]

100. That would be great

you anticipated my next question, which was did it hit any sort of news.

I find the idea of W trying to avoid physical contact to be fascinating.

[Overseas]

12. Killing a well-investigated article about Bush cheating, because it could change the election!

That is disgusting. News management when the USA USA USA is so proud of its "free press!"

What will they hide from us about Willard Bain Romney because it could change the election this time?

If he needs a hidden prompter device they'll surely have found a less obvious one to use. He may not need it during the first debate but will probably need one in the Town Hall format.

[wickerwoman]

24. This is the point.

Why is "it would change the election" even a factor in how professional journalists chose to report (or not report) a story?

We can't go back and unchange the 2004 results but we can hold the decision makers who killed this story responsible.

[Overseas]

43. Journalists already give Rmoney & Lyan too much deference. Pretending they are not lying and are not

pushing cruel policies that will bankrupt our country further.

They were too kind to Bush also. Making excuses for him and finding ways to trash Kerry for their pretend balance.

[raouldukelives]

78. Just keeps getting harder to use the word "journalist" when talking about corporate media. nt

[NYC Liberal]

13. The confirmation for me was when he blurted out "Let me finish!" in the middle of his answer

when there was still like a minute left on the clock and NO one - not Kerry, not the moderator(s), no one from the audience - had said anything.

[yellowcanine]

18. Yep that was a big giveaway but the MSM pretty much ignored it.

[intheflow]

21. I absolutely remember that!

Couldn't believe all the nay-sayers calling us conspiracy theorists. Very damn annoying - and proof-positive to me at the time that DU was being hounded by trolls.

[NYC Liberal]

30. And remember the other earpiece incident in France?

One example is from when Bush spoke at D-Day ceremonies in France last June. As the site notes, "viewers watching on CNN, Fox and MSNBCŠ were startled to hear another voice speaking Bush's words as if to prompt him. " Some said this continued into the question-and-answer period. Here's another example: when Bush appeared on television to address the nation on 9/11, some viewers of television stations in Quincy, Massachusetts and New York City say they heard another voice speaking, slowly and carefully, a few words at a time -- words which were then recited by the president. As one Quincy resident reported, "The voice was nondescript, male, definitely not the president's voice."

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2467257

[cilla4progress]

48. That was a punch to the gut

This MUST be exposed! Doesn't John King have the cojones to EXPOSE this?????

[freedom fighter jh]

23. Same thought here. nt

[tarheelsunc]

47. "As the politics change, his positions change, and that's not how a Commander in Chief acts."

Bush said something that makes sense! Don't let Romney hear that one.

[myrna minx]

97. I remember that clearly. It was so odd at the time.

[Turbineguy]

17. We can expect

Romney to cheat too. But there should be devices out there able to detect these things.

[malaise]

19. That electronic device was exposed here on DU

complete with photos - I remember well.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. Yes it was and we were labeled

conspiracy theorists. DU is first again.

[malaise]

58. No surprise

I think KO also raised it on his program

[jsr]

59. WP: Bulge Under President's Coat in First Debate Stirs Speculation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18734-2004Oct8.html

Bulge Under President's Coat in First Debate Stirs Speculation
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 9, 2004; Page A16

A photograph that flew around the Internet this week shows a boxy bulge in the back of President Bush's suit coat during the first debate, leading to widespread cyber-speculation that he was wired to receive help with his answers.

Bush's aides tried to laugh off the controversy, with one official joking about "little green men on the grassy knoll."

Several officials, pressed for a serious answer, flatly denied that anything was fishy about the hump. These officials said they had checked and that there was nothing under Bush's jacket -- not a wire, not a transmitter, not a garage door opener. Bush was not wearing a protective vest, sources said.

The White House refused to provide an on-the-record comment, saying that it would dignify a baseless issue, and referred questions to the Bush-Cheney campaign. ...

[closeupready]

82. Oh, yes, I remember, as well.

nt

[Gregorian]

25. Fourth Estate my ass! We pegged that turd cheating right here on DU.

And I'll go as far as to say that the day we cannot discuss on this forum is something we're right about as well.

I'm pissed. This kind of shit is treasonous. Omissions are just as crippling as the crimes themselves. We're a country without a control system. Private citizens on the internet are just about all we have.

[JDPriestly]

26. Why didn't Nelson go to the Kerry campaign with that story?

[Lint Head]

27. "Are you wearing a wire?" should be one of the questions during the debates.

[klook]

73. +1 brazillion (n/t)

[dkf]

29. Sorry but don't we need facts in order to make a definitive conclusion?

Even if he had an electronic device we would still be speculating in order to make the conclusion he was cheating.

Its still in tin hat territory, like the layers on the "faked birth certificate".

[OregonBlue]

31. If they knew what kind of device Romney would be using, could they interfere with it somehow?

[onethatcares]

34. no surprise here, if they would steal the 2000 election

with a stamp of the USSC approval, what's a little bit of hearing the answers for a debate?

Our entire financial system is a fraud so it leaves me little to believe our political system is

without the same amount of fraud.

[heaven05]

35. new york

times spread the lies about wmd's far and wide. I never forgot their editorial push for the invasion of iraq.

[coalition_unwilling]

56. The NYT will never see another penny from me (nor will I perforce be shopping at any

of their advertisers) until they issue a front-page above the fold apology for their craven lies and a call for Bush and Cheney's indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Cancelled my sub to both the NYT and the LA Times in March 2003 and haven't looked back once.

[lunatica]

36. A cheat cheats all the time, not just sometimes

Why bother to ever be honest when by cheating you can get what you want?

[ThoughtCriminal]

37. What hump?

[lovuian]

40. Al Gore WON the Election

The Supreme court help elect a criminal and their vote is casted in history as well as the Congress vote to Preemptive strike Iraq

The TRUTH is revealed and the Truth will RISE UP

the Republican Party is DYING and no amount of MONEY can bring it from its filfth

the naive constituents are dying out so soon they will have no voters

I knew all along he wore a WIRE ...he was too stupid to answer the questions and they knew it

[Berlum]

41. "Eat it, America. We Repubbies totally screwed you. Smirk." - George AWOL Bush (R - 1%)

"You Americans will get more of the same kind of sorry-ass smirky screwing from Willard, another Republican draft and tax dodger like me. Smirk." - George AWOL Bush (R)

[MFM008]

42. i thought he may be wired to blow up or something

[tarheelsunc]

44. Didn't someone have a pic of Romney wearing one of these for his Univision interview?

[cilla4progress]

45. Who here thinks this is less likely to happen this year?

I think the media is doing a better job. Or perhaps Romney is less popular, so media feels more free to go after him. I am impressed with the digging and truth-outing being done this time around, compared to years past. Messaging too. I don't know if Dems have just received some luck breaks, but I'm impressed.

[bucolic_frolic]

50. A crutch to disguise the dope

a true Pretender

[underthematrix]

51. I don't think you need to worry about the PBO/MITTNOCCHIO debates

Remember, PBO is the President of the United States, which makes his "resources" unlimited. PBO is playing MITTNOCCHIO and the GOP like pawns on a chess board. In the broader scheme of things. I don't give a damn about the debates or the economy.

My BIGGEST CONCERN is vaginomics. I don't want a bunch of dudes telling me what I can and cannot do with my private parts. I consider vaginal probes unreasonable search and seizure.

[gopiscrap]

84. Welcome to DU!!!

[left on green only]

55. I would think.........

.....now that the DNC knows about this in advance, that it would be easy enough to jamb the waves inside the auditorium with a portable jambing device, similar to those used to jamb police speed trap radar. Did I say that? Well, slap my face!

[patrice]

57. The home of War Careerist Judith Miller LIED about the Iraq War, by omission, and then LIES again

by omission again about Bush, the LIAR in Chief.

Isn't plausible deniability just dandy?!! . . .

a highly marketable commodity, indeed!

[jimlup]

61. I've always been startled that the story just totally died after the election...

I know that it was probably considered spilled milk or whatever but it says so much about how low the folks on his side will stoop. I'm still kinda startled that our propaganda system functions in the way that it does. I mean to understand recent history this is actually a significant artifact.

The other ironic thing is that I believe that it actually hurt Bush during the debate. His responses were after odd delays and seemed robotic. It seemed like he was "out of it" and knowing now that he was listening to an ear piece absolutely fits. What a cheating slime ball!

[rhett o rick]

62. Why isnt the Democratic Party interested in this? It never fails to amaze me that when cheating

is suspected, like Florida 2000 and Ohio in 2004 and this, the Democratic Party seems happy to just let it go. In this instance, why didnt they know about this? Dont they have decent investigators? They could have jammed the system. What will be the next egregious thing the Republicans do that the Democratic Party doesnt anticipate?

[kath]

66. Because the Dem vs Rep thing is all just a game of "good cop - bad cop". Welcome to Corporate

One Party Rule.

[shanti]

64. ok, how many DU'ers called this back then?

we all saw the earpiece, but the media said little about it that was critical! watch 'em try it again too!

[SoCalDem]

68. Only

ALL OF US !

[sofa king]

91. Shit, I was the guy screaming "JAM HIM!" before the debates.

But you know what? I'm okay with it now. Sooner or later the rest of you are going to realize that they were willing to do shit like this because they had already done shit that would leave them all squirming at the end of ropes.

They had to win that election because they were already on the line for espionage, criminal negligence (if not outright collusion with terrorists), criminal use of chemical weapons (guess what Judith Miller was writing about before she became Cheney's bitch?), mass murder (up to a thousand dead bodies a month dumped in Iraq, with nobody ever caught even once), election theft, and launching an illegal war on false pretenses.

They would have killed John Kerry if they felt they had to, just as they killed everyone else who threatened to get in their way. They would have dissolved our Republic to protect themselves, as I still think they actually threatened to do in November, 2005.

But instead, they got away with everything and then gave us our country back because they fucked it up so bad it wasn't worth keeping anymore. It's like a gang of small-time hoods spent years figuring out how to steal a Maserati, but never spent any time learning how to drive. So they stole it easily, but had to leave it smoking in a ditch, with a broken fire hydrant spraying through the shattered glass. And recidivist auto thief W walked away saying, "I shall now retire from the sport of street racing, a champion."

As it has been pointed out by Dick Gregory, it took a President as bad as George W. Bush to make a President as good as Barack Obama possible. But those people still need to go to jail for what they did, for the rest of their lives.

[shanti]

105. john kerry

being that he was also a "bonesman" like *ush, my feeling is that he was never going to challenge the status quo...and he didn't. when was the last time we heard from him?

[SoCalDem]

69. links from the rabbit hole ...as we discussed it back then (extra long link but it works)

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=SoCalDem%20&tok=j-lcUBtLGGJ5SKJZkFAwmw&pq=socaldem%20demoxcraticundergrouns%20bush%20wire&cp=52&gs_id=4hp&xhr=t&q=SoCalDem%20democraticunderground%20bush%20wire%202004%20debate&pf=p&newwindow=1&sclient=psy-ab&oq=SoCalDem+democraticunderground+bush+wire+2004+debate&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=19cbd9c82115ea9a&biw=740&bih=416

[KansDem]

72. But...but...he likes to give out nicknames!

And...and...Cokie said he was charming!

And...and...more of us wanted to have a beer with him than Al!

You know! Really important stuff!!!

[valerief]

74. The fix was in, just like PNAC's WTC fix. nt

[rtassi]

75. Knock me over with a feather ... you mean he cheated?

[KurtNYC]

79. What's the frequency Kenneth? Hijack the frequency and either block it or

tell Romney what to say.

[closeupready]

81. American journalism has fallen so very, very far.

It's sad to face up to it, but the reality is that even the "paper of record" (or whatever they used to proudly call themselves as if they were the standard-bearer) has fallen victim, and frankly, fell decades ago.

It's still prestigious, but not doing as good a job as Al-Jazeera or the Guardian at covering important matters and giving Americans honest facts.

I don't bother reading any current US sources for news. I read mostly UK news sources, Al-Jazeera for their magnificently in-depth human interest stories, and for fun, the Daily Fail/Mail.

[Historic NY]

85. Somebody needs to have an electronic frequency generator handy...

it can detect & disrupt.

[trailmonkee]

87. Romney is going to come out wearing a full helmet

[Downtown Hound]

89. Well, waddaya know? All of us kooky, out there conspiracy theroists were right after all.

I'd say let that be a lesson to all those who think they're way more rational than they really are, but I already know it wil fall on deaf ears.

[DeSwiss]

90. ''All the news that's fit to print''

- The first lie.....

K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

99. Well,....can you?

[img][/img]