How strange that Kerry's misspoken reference to Dubya's non-existent timber company is being blamed by the BAM Networks not on Kerry or his staff, but on an urban legend on the Internet, since corrected. This site was Kerry's staff's source, n'est'ce-pas? Is this revenge for Internet's exposure of Kerry's bogus war record and Dan Rather's forged Bush-attack? So if Kerry cites an internet source, it must be true even though it is false and it is the internet's fault. But if the internet questions Dan Rather's sources, it must be false even though it is true.

D.P. Bond
Wallace Street Journal

DFO: DP's referring to this exchange between Kerry & Bush during the last debate:

Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he’s counted as a small business. Dick Cheney’s counted as a small business. That’s how they do things. That’s just not right.

Bush: I own a timber company? That’s news to me.

Initially, factcheck.org claimed Bush had part ownership in a timber-growing enterprise but then said it was confused because he is part of a trust that has part ownership of a commercial tree operation. However, the $84 in question came from an oil and gas company. Long story short. Kerry had his wires crossed when he tried to describe Dubya as a small-biz owner. And, of course, the media let him get away with it.

---

---