Dan wrote:
"If you accept what he writes as fact about Bush, would you also accept accusations about Clinton as fact?"
It depends on weather or not what he writes is consistent with what we already know about the person. Thus if he were to write that Bush said something to the effect that the constitution was sacrosanct and should always dictate decision making in the White House, I'd say he was full of crap. But lets examine what we know about the president and his attitude towards the constitution, specifically the bill of rights and by extension, human rights in general. Besides the Patriot Act whose constitutionality is certainly questionable, we have the recent wiretapping without a warrant, and his attempt to label citizens as enemy combatants in order to deny them their rights. Concerning human rights we have his propensity to authorize torture and to deport people to countries where they can be tortured more vigorously and we have Guantanimo Bay where he has imprisoned hundreds without the basic rights we afford our own citizens.
This all points to an unhealthy contempt for the constitution and the rights of the people and makes the "piece of Paper" statement entirely consistent with what we already know.
I agree with much of what you said about Thompson and Capitol Hill Blue, but I think that there is enough credibility there that the report in question should not be rejected out of hand and should be given serious consideration by the mainstream press.
As for Clinton, we all know that his moral compas was a bit warped too. Not consistantly pointing south, like the Bush version, but certianly a tendancy to point west northwest on occaision. So again, if his sourced accusations were consistant with what I _know_ about him then I would assume that they are probably true.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
