Reply #46: I'm sorry, but I have to respond to this one [View All]

[Cicero]

I'm probably going to catch a lot of flak for this, but...

If, at the start of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the woman who was taping her conversations instead decided to type them out in letter form, purporting to actually have been sent by Monica, and then those documents made their way to the press, and then questions came up as to their authenticity, WOULD THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CONTENTIONS IN THE DOCUMENTS HAD NOT BEEN REFUTED BE CONSIDERED THE SLIGHTEST BIT CREDIBLE???

That's the problem I have. This is a story that's been bumping around for years, now all of a sudden these documents show up, and people are surprised when their authenticity is questioned.

"It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge." Remember that? Accusations that Bush41 had something to do with the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis? Do you also remeber how it ment not a hill of beans when it came down to the results of that election? Bush41 still won handily.

So long as the "vector" for the charge continues to be seen as coming from the "Killian memos", you're not going to get a DAMN but of traction in making the charges stick, and in fact it may have permanently damaged any chance in pinning Bush43, because now not just the documents, BUT THE CHARGES THEMSELVES ARE NOW PERMANENTLY TAINTED.

(Puff, gasp, wheeze)

OK, I'm off my rant now. Flame away!

Later,