Instead, what I said upthread is the actual truth: you don't really want to ask if there's anything wrong, nor do you want anyone else to ask.
I honestly have zero problem with Michelle Malkin and Jim Gilchrist raising questions about this. I honestly don't. But I'm going to ask you yet again, can you honestly tell me that the majority of the folks on this thread have not been against the Minutemen and the border security movement in general long before this alleged scandal? I contend that these people are hoping for these allegations to be true.
Before that happened, the complaint was that only FROBLs (a dishonest term) were pushing this story. Now that the likes of Malkin, WashTimes, etc., are questioning it, the complaint is what, exactly, . . . that only FROBLs were pushing this story first?
The question remains, if Satan himself pushed this story, would there be any merit to the story or not? Only Simcox knows, and he ain't telling.
Ultimately it matters not one whit who is asking the questions, if those questions are grounded in some kind of reasonable suspicion, if there is a public interest in the information, and if the suspicions prove accurate.
"..can you honestly tell me that the majority of the folks on this thread have not been against the Minutemen and the border security movement in general long before this alleged scandal?"
Once again, what people are you talking abou? For the people on this thread that I know, I can say "yes".
Well, I don't mean to flame you for it. Goodness knows I've called my share of names and more.
My only point is that I'm not a Bush sycophant, yet you lumped me in such a group. I want an Israeli wall, tall and smooth. I would resent very deeply someone who falsely took money implying he would build one, or whose malfeasance/nonfeasance could be used to marginalize the whole Minuteman/Border-wall movement. Similarly, I was opposed to Harriet Miers...I was disgusted by the whole debacle, actually.
I only meant to point out to you that I am at least one "non-sycophant" who is very hot under the collar about the Simcox scenario, and I believe there are others--Gilchrist, Malkin and the WashTimes among them.
The point when I became sickened by all this was the day when I read about the man who mortgaged his house and minutes later when I saw the aerial photos of the fence built at the Memorial Day photo-op. You can imagine I think why someone might be irate.
In response there have been paid lackeys dispatched to the four corners of the cyberglobe to obfuscate and (ironically) stonewall any inquiry. "Attack attack attack!"
It's very Carvillian.