Frankly, there's no excuse for making a statement as far off-the-mark as this one. Especially, not after I sent Hemenway an email two months ago, also correcting him on his mistaken references to the forensic analysis of the COLB. I also sent the same message to his wife, just in case he didn't get it.
Apparently, he still doesn't "get it."
Now you know why I'm asking everyone to keep reminding the public of the real reasons why Obama's COLB is bogus. Otherwise, we'll keep hearing these off-the-mark statements being made by seemingly sensible people.
These ‘sensible people’ are playing in the Obowma dissonance orchestra, and they know they’re doing nothing but creating dissinformation (read lying for their pres__ent). A fraudulent affirmative action figure maintains his fraud by the lies told for him by his sycophants. We have a few of that species working FR don’tchaknow.
>>> Apparently, he still doesn’t “get it.”
Ron, he may not want to get it. Either that, or the finer points weren’t covered in the Executive Summary Rupert’s aides prepared for him to read.
We have to keep pushing, though. For now, BHO is still seen as the savior by too many, and people like Rupert don’t want to rock the boat — and risk their financial livelihood — against someone who seems to have a mandate like BHO seems to have.
When it’s understood that he’s NOT the Savior by enough who supported him, people will be looking for a reason to demonize him. Even though the COLB issue should have prevented him from being even nominated in the first place, I think it will be something his “loyal opposition” to latch on to, and the soft 10 percent of independents will go along with.
I still think there are of plenty of Republican politicians who have been MORE than willing to let BHO and the Dems “have” this bad economy to take the blame, especially when they saw that McCain was going to lose. They’re also sitting on the birth certificate issue to use it at the “right” time to embarrass and bury the Dems (at least, that’s how I’d plan it if I were Karl Rove).
Or maybe he does, and his motives are not what they seem.
I recall particularly that in the aftermath of the death of Vincent Foster, there were a number of people who seemed to want to expose the death for what it was, but they made small "mistakes" that became the focus of the naysayers who used these "mistakes" to discredit everyone who was asking reasonable questions.
ML/NJ