Hey, his was merely the first suitable account I happened upon while Googling.
And it matters not in the slightest whether you find that incident trivial, vapid or of no import whatsoever. What does matter is that I don’t agree, and that it was based upon my assessment of the likelihood of (apparently sucessful) chicanery on Hillary’s part with regard to that incident that I posted the comments that Equipoise listed above.
So I guess I’m gonna have to retract that ‘men of good character’ part where you’re concerned, given that rather than acknowledge that I never so much as insinuated that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster you’ve simply switched instead to quibbling over whether the events that did trigger my comments really happened or not.
Why should he write a correction?
He laid out an accurate accounting of the events that transpired, and as it happens the independent counsel could find no proof that document tampering/removal occurred as a result of those events.
How is anything that Safire wrote negated by the fact that no forensic proof of wrongdoing could be found?
And besides, denials and lack of forensic evidence does not innocence make, as we all found out once the existence of a certain blue dress finally came to light.
As you seem to be logically challenged, I have to say that he needed to make a correction since you still thought that his points from the past before the trials and inquiries are still valid. (Time lines are deadly for many right wingers still…)
It was Kenneth Star’s fishing expedition that found the dress, Kenneth Star himself had to say later that there was **nothing **to be found regarding the Foster’s papers or his death.
The “blue dress” of the Vince Foster papers failed to show up after several investigations. After the verdict of the courts, it is only deluded beings the ones that keep on trying to make something out of that incident.
Let’s run it through ‘a dynamic, forward-looking organization that will amplify the common-sense and wisdom of our fellow citizens through a grassroots dialogue with Republican leaders’, and see what pops out the other end.
Surely the National Council for a New America will save us all.
The site is a bleeding miracle, Squink. It burbles on and on in a sensible, mature tone about absolutely nothing. There are no ideas. Not that there are no new ideas, there aren’t any old ones, either. Its a stunning effort, really. There are no provocative positions. There are no controversial notions. It is a sombre, sensible, and clear-eyed vacuum.
However did they manage to assemble all those cliches without accidentally including an idea?
What matters is that it didn’t fucking happen. Did. Not. Happen. Happened? It did not.
Because it didn’t happen.
Actually, yes it does. That’s the way it works in America. No evidence = presumption of evidence.
Starr said he found no evidence whatsoever. Neither forensic or testimonial. Absolutely no reason to believe it happened. You are making accusations of evidence tampering against Hillary based on nothing. It’s beyond asinine to make totally unsupported allegations, and then say that everybody else has to prove they’re false.
Let me tell you, if your boy, Starr, couldn’t find anything or get anybody to squeal, there was less than nothing to it.
The files disappeared and turned up a week later in the Clinton living quarters.
That created suspicion.
That suspicion is what I referred to.
In a court of law, yes. In the court of public opinion, not so much. For example, how do you feel re ‘Bush lied’ to get us into Iraq? There is absolutely no way to know what Bush’s thinking was, and there was evidence, believed by most of the world’s intelligence agencies and Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves, that Iraq possessed or was developing WMD. But none were found so the overwhelming attitude around here is that “Bush lied”. Where’s your forensic evidence there?
Correct.
Not true. I’m making allegations of mysterious happenings with regard to files from Foster’s office. (Which aren’t actually ‘allegations’ at all, but matters of fact.)
The allegations I’ve made are totally supported by the facts. The inference to be drawn from them is obviously a matter of political persuasion.
That simply isn’t true. There may have been nothing to it, or there may have been something to it which was successfully removed or destroyed and which subsequently prevented it from coming to light.
Actually, I was under the impression that some billing records from the Rose Law firm were discovered in Mrs. Clinton’s personal spaces several months after they were said to be unfindable (in response to a subpeona from – somebody; I don’t recall who, or why they were wanted).
Nothing to do with Vince Foster, of course, but it certainly undercuts the accuracy of the overly broad statement Nothing “disappeared” and “reappeared.”
Things like that is what make me suspect that Starving Artist is really a plant trying his damnedest to make right wingers look bad.
The choice regarding what Bush was thinking is still between being a liar or an incompetent fool. You are trying to convince us that there is an advantage on the poison selected.
However, the Downing street memos tell me that:
So, there were many times from there when Bush told lies to the American people, a few weeks before the war he said that “we’ll call for a vote.” (for the second UN resolution, it never took place even though he remarked that it would take place no matter what) and “I’ve not made up our mind about military action.”
But the decision to go to war was already made. A liar or an incompetent? Does it have to be a choice?
I knew a woman once whose philosophy, if caught red-handed at something she shouldn’t be doing, was to deny, deny, deny…under the belief that blatant and continued denials whould eventually cause the accuser to doubt what they’d seen with their own eyes.
That won’t work with me.
To wit, from William Safire in the New York Times: [bolding mine]
(1) Foster’s body is discovered July 20. White House aides, unobserved, are in and out of his office that night and next day. His possession of the Whitewater file is kept secret. (2) On Thursday, July 22, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, with intimidated cops nearby, gives Foster’s box of Whitewater files to Ms. Williams (not, as was long said, to the Clintons’ lawyer). (3) After talking to Hillary Clinton, Ms. Williams locks the files in a closet in the third-floor family quarters of the White House, to which she had the only key. (4) Not until Tuesday, July 27, are the Whitewater files retrieved by the lawyer, then Robert Barnett.
So, a) Foster had files regarding Whitewater that had been kept secret. b) a box of Whitewater files was given to Williams. c) After consulting with Hillary Clinton, Williams, who had the only key, locked the box in a closet in the White House living quarters. d) The files were finally turned over to Barnett on July 27, a week after Foster’s suicide.
Now a box of Whitewater files may be construed as nothing but thin air to you, but to me it’s a box of Whitewater files.
IIRC, an office worker later claimed to have misplaced those specific items, in any case the items were produced and the courts decided that there was no evidence even to accuse them of obstruction of justice, and that IMHO was the point of the accusations of Safire and others. An accusation that was not demonstrated even in a court of law.
That is ok, you are on record of not believing the conclusions of judges and prosecutors after the evidence was already reviewed.
Yours would be a proud position for a “birther” to have (in the sense that they are proud to ignore even court decisions and the opinion of prosecutors). However, it does make many independents and reasonable Republicans to realize how doomed they are if you are a typical example of the conservative base.
There have been many times in my life when I may have wanted to do something, but thought a different approach may be better. Then I may have decided on a different approach than that, and then I may have gone back to the original plan after all.
All your memo shows is that Bush felt different ways at different times, no doubt influenced by the hundreds or thousands of bits of information coming in with regard to events transpiring either in or with regard to events in Iraq.
The big lie propagated around here is that Bush, knowing full well that Hussein didn’t have any WMD, lied and told the American people that he did and that going to war against Iraq was therefore justified and necessary.
To date I have seen no probative (i.e., proving) evidence that he knew or did any such thing, and barring personal one-on-one confession to the contrary from Bush himself or unquestionable mind-reading ability, there is absolutely no way for anyone to say with certainty that Bush lied about WMD to get us into war with Iraq.
Dio claimed that without evidence the presumption was toward innocence, and I merely used the opinion of so many like you (and him) around here with regard to Bush to show that such a presumption is hardly de rigueur around here.
I be very interested in knowing how you come to this conclusion. I obviously accept that no evidence of chicanery was discovered, and I’ve said as much. Still, that hardly proves no such chicanery took place, and just like with guys and “Bush lied”, I’m free to make that observation. Still, you have seen no call by me to press charges against her, have you? And if not, wouldn’t that indicate that I accept the conclusions of the authorities that no evidence of wrongdoing that would hold up in court could be found, despite the fact that I personally believe that evidence tampering either took place or was deemed unnecessary prior to its having been turned over to the authorities.
Double jeopardy and all that jazz, but that is also my point. You are beating a dead horse. As for Bush, the judgment of history is still coming.
And I’m a Historian
As a wise man said, you are entitled to your opinions but not the facts. And the fact is that no evidence of Chicanery regarding Foster’s documents was found by the courts, several independent investigations, or by even the investigation by Kenneth Star himself.
