> ... she's a partisan - no need to consider any
> further anything she said (so saith the liberals) ...
I hear you. Here's my take on that from another
thread, in response to:
> She is partisan, and she is admitting the documents
> weren't typed by her.
Which means that her pride is stronger than her
partisanship.
Had the forgeries been up to her personal standards
for work product, I wonder if she would have
disclaimed them.
In any case, although we can doubt her gossip, I
see nothing to suggest that she's lying about not
being the author.
______________
The gossip is at odds with statements from other
people there at the time. The lady was spouting
DNC catch-phrases. The point of the interview
was to validate or impeach the memos, and instead
of just saying "fake artifacts but true content",
but she took the opportunity to indulge in some
gratuitous Bush-bashing.
Those needless remarks bashed her own credibility
in my book. And that the AP and NYT excised those
remarks means that they know it.
Nah, I think the original DMN article was much better, because it left those comments in. The gist of that story was that even a rabid Bush-basher like that woman admits the docs are fake. Without the comments, it makes her negative comments about Bush's service look more reasonable.