To: publius321
I think -not- releasing the tape may be doing damage as well because there is so much suspicion surrounding the existence of the tape.Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner. All the "I-wonder-what's-on-the-tape" speculation is better than the contents. Cover-up is always way more damaging than facts. Just ask Nixon.
7 posted on
10/29/2008 11:33:19 AM PDT by
scottinoc
To: scottinoc
“Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner. All the “I-wonder-what’s-on-the-tape” speculation is better than the contents. Cover-up is always way more damaging than facts. Just ask Nixon.”
That was a pretty obvious statement I made LOL. Good point about Nixon. Then, if you really want to ruminate on this - one would think the Dems would know this - and it is absurd to think that if Obama’s campaign WANTED this tape released (to exculpate him in the public mind) - that the LA Times wouldn’t gladly oblige them.
From that perspective, if the “cover up” is BETTER than what’s on that tape - it must be pretty friggin damaging. Hmmmm. If this were to reach critical mass, I expect an “edited” version to appear.
To: scottinoc
“Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner. All the “I-wonder-what’s-on-the-tape” speculation is better than the contents. Cover-up is always way more damaging than facts. Just ask Nixon.”
That was a pretty obvious statement I made LOL. Good point about Nixon. Then, if you really want to ruminate on this - one would think the Dems would know this - and it is absurd to think that if Obama’s campaign WANTED this tape released (to exculpate him in the public mind) - that the LA Times wouldn’t gladly oblige them.
From that perspective, if the “cover up” is BETTER than what’s on that tape - it must be pretty friggin damaging. Hmmmm. If this were to reach critical mass, I expect an “edited” version to appear.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson