How did this simple story become a “conspiracy theory?”

You either believe it or you don’t Wes. Which is it?

P.S. “Reaganesque?” Give me a break!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

yonason wrote:

Still, I think that sitting on the info until a more opportune moment than blowing the whistle BEFORE the horse got out of the barn is, well, at least as unethical.

On this we are in complete agreement.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh, and you don’t anger me by “pointing out that this is most likely true.” It isn’t possible for you, or anyone in the “blogosphere,” to anger me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You know, as bad as the accusations are, I would think they should fall under the category of “Liable” and warrant legal action, …if false. Just another item to consider in the “they might just be true” column. Still, I think that sitting on the info until a more opportune moment than blowing the whistle BEFORE the horse got out of the barn is, well, at least as unethical.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Guess what? There’s TONS of stuff to dislike about the Clintons, and there’s tons of pure political manipulation in their history. That doesn’t mean that every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike is true, or even that it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

All I said was that there should have been some third-party confirmation/corroboration of this stuff at some time in the last 15 years. That’s a completely reasonable statement, but you basically accused me of drinking the Kool-Aid (with your ever-so-special graphic to boot).

It’s really simple – I have a hard time believing ANY single-sourced story, especially one that comes wrapped in a conspiracy theory. I said the exact same thing about the McCain/Isemann “story” on this very blog, remember? I wasn’t on this blog at the time, but I said the same thing about “W snorting coke” back in the day.

As far as the Clintons are concerned, go read the “Hillary Spins More Tall Tales” article currently on the front page. Someone posts a “this couldn’t be right” article, everyone chimes in with “she’s lying,” and then 5 minutes’ worth of Googling shows–and in a rather straightforward fashion–that there was, indeed, a time when the situation facing the survivors of our fallen military matched what Clinton described.

Color me Reaganesque – I like “trust, but verify.” (Yes, I participate in Democratic/liberal blogs too, and they get the same treatment from me.)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wes: Your comments continue to suggest that you don’t really believe Zeifman’s account, even though it hasn’t been refuted. Is there NOTHING bad about the Clinton’s you will believe?

I’m not sure why you would be so angry with me for pointing out that this report is most likely true, especially in light of Hillary’s known history.

Go back and take another swig of the Hot Springs, Arkansas Kool Aid and try again.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike, get off your hobby horse. I never disputed the question of any letter of recommendation. Given the rest of Zeifman’s (apparently uncorroborated) allegations, a letter of recommendation isn’t even worth arguing about. I don’t really care if he gave Clinton a letter, and I can certainly believe that he didn’t. (His allegations would have little merit whatsoever if he had given her some glowing recommendation, true?)

Give up on the red herring, dude – you can’t yell at someone to “refute” something they never challenged. I, as well as reviewers at the time who reviewed his diary, challenged the whole conspiracy theory Zeifman presented, not the particular point of a recommendation letter.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wes: Still no refuation of Zeifman’s claim!

Hmmm… wonder why?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Anyway, I see a deeper and more disturbing question that Zeifman’s allegations raise, and that is, “if he sees it as such a profound lack of ethics now, why didn’t he back then? (especially since he was supposed to be one of our ethical watchdogs.)” You don’t suppose that Zeifman’s being a self-styled “lifelong Democrat” would have anything to do with that, do you?

I think that Zeifman’s political career plans went straight into self-protection mode. We see political players of every stripe pull this kind of stuff on a routine basis; let them get into a cushy position or achieve financial security, and here come the tell-all books and the post-dated “I knew it was wrong” comments. Look at Feith’s book; according to him, the fault for all our missteps in Iraq lie with everyone but–guess who?–Rumsfeld and Feith himself.

Try “lifelong political player,” and you’ll be closer to the truth.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@wesmorgan1

Ok., it looks like there doesn’t appear to be a whole lot of independent verification on this story. (I tried posting a longer response, but wasn’t able to. ….don’t know why.)

I do have to agree that one should proceed with caution before pushing a story too far when the corroborating evidence isn’t there (just ask Dan Rather). Besides, we have PLENTY of other solid dirt on the Clintons, so it’s not like we are desperate, or anything.

Anyway, I see a deeper and more disturbing question that Zeifman’s allegations raise, and that is, “if he sees it as such a profound lack of ethics now, why didn’t he back then? (especially since he was supposed to be one of our ethical watchdogs.)” You don’t suppose that Zeifman’s being a self-styled “lifelong Democrat” would have anything to do with that, do you?

From the looks of things, Henry Ruth’s alleged (by Zeifman) comment that “the Clintons poisoned the soul of the Democrat Party,” should have been, “We served KoolAid, and the Cliintons all too eagerly joined us in consuming it.” (Birds of a feather, and all that, you know).

…or, maybe,… “We served KoolAid, and the Clintons hogged the punchbowl.”?

Like or Dislike: 0  0