"hk" wrote in message
. ..

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Your just not as weird.



Sure, Tom, and that's just because I believe the Bush Admin lied us into a
war with Iraq.


Fine. Now, getting back to the NPR interview .... one thing that popped
into mind as I listened was the author's obvious personal dislike of the
Bush administration, particularly Cheney. He claims that Bush isn't
(wasn't) strong enough to stand up to Cheney and his opinion, much like
yours, that GWB lied, is the worst President ever, etc., etc., etc. These
comments were interspersed between the interviewer's questions and the
discussion of his book's claims.

So, it sorta sets the mindset and agenda of the author. I would be more
convinced if he simply stuck to the allegations contained in his book and
defended it's accuracy.

Here's what is happening:

The book gets headlines and heavy media exposure, less than 3 months from
election day.
The primary sources of the information contained in the book have denied the
Suskind's claims.
Suskind offers his personal "opinion" that they did so because they are
afraid of having to testify.
The "truth", whatever it is, will come out ...... after the election.
Meanwhile, the damage has been done. The yet unsubstantiated claims have
stuck in many people's minds.


Give me a break.

Eisboch

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:07:21 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


The primary sources of the information contained in the book have denied
the Suskind's claims.

I'm not sure this is completely accurate. My understanding is the Richer
has denied the claims, and has stated McGuire gave him permission to make
a *specific* denial statement. NPR was interviewing Suskind, and he
states the McGuire "denial" is the result of confusion, and, after he has
read the book, will confirm Suskind's version. He also states that he
has all the conversations on tape.

But I do agree, one has to be very careful during an ongoing "he said,
she said", especially during an election year. It will take time before
all this shakes out, but, remember, these accusations are about Bush, not
about McCain.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:07:21 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


Here's what is happening:

The book gets headlines and heavy media exposure, less than 3 months from
election day.
The primary sources of the information contained in the book have denied the
Suskind's claims.
Suskind offers his personal "opinion" that they did so because they are
afraid of having to testify.
The "truth", whatever it is, will come out ...... after the election.
Meanwhile, the damage has been done. The yet unsubstantiated claims have
stuck in many people's minds.

That pretty much sums it up. When that fellow - I think his name was
Epstein - wrote the first Kennedy assassination book, many people of
conspiratorial bent took it for gospel because, after all, somebody
wrote a book, so it must be right.
In that case an industry was created. That won't happen here.
Then, to further what SW said, all kinds of "dots" started appearing.
Didn't matter that some of the dots were imaginary, and others had
nothing to do with the assassination. They could be connected into a
picture that satisfied the paranoia of the viewer.
Oh, BTW, if you question their picture, you are put by them into one
of two categories:
1. Your are too stupid to see the obvious picture drawn by the dots.
2. You are part of the conspiracy, thus another dot.

--Vic