Replies

"Oh" also means that I was unaware that the "wag-the-dog" tale is considered to be fact.

Your singular lack of awareness, in this regard, was plainly noted (and addressed) in my previous posting to you. I even steered you to the most recent (and best selling) writings on the matter, the better that you might more profitably educate yourself re: same.

Again, and finally: Clinton's craven dog-wagging -- in desperate attempt to exorcise names like "Monica Lewinski" and "Juanita Broaddrick" from the public consciousness -- is no "tale," or theory. It is concrete and verifiable fact.

You have been provided with the means requisite to verifying this for yourself, at your convenience. Whether you actually choose to do so -- or elect, instead, to base your beliefs on faulty and incomplete knowledge (or even no real knowledge at all) -- is your responsibility solely, at this point. You also have, likewise, every right in the world not to seek out the truth, should you prefer living without it.

However: the right to roll one's eyes and snort at someone bloviating in public fora, sans a decent amount of knowledge on their chosen topic, is no less an absolute or unassailable one, so far as that goes. Certainly, it's no less offensive, nor inherently more juvenile, than the single word "oh"... no matter how desperately one attempts tergiversating, after the fact.

Certainly, it's no less offensive, nor inherently more juvenile, than the single word "oh".

I wasn't intending to be offensive, and I apologize if you were offended.

I'll take your recommendation of Rich Lowry's book under consideration. I must confess that the title, "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years", doesn't evoke any anticipation of objectivity.

I have conceded, on your word, that the wag-the-dog stories are verifiably true. How about the Mena drug smuggling? How about the Vince Foster murder? The Ron Brown murder? Does Mr. Lowry also vouch for the veracity of these stories?

My minor point was that both political partisans create any number of far-fetched, or better yet, not so far-fetched stories to demonize their opponents in order to keep the party faithful indignant enough to motivate their continued participation and fund-giving. It's a fairly innocuous point and if I used a poor example to buttress it I apologize.