Cheney Goes on CNN and Acts Like a Dick

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
Public office = no private life.

If the Clinton's presidency has taught us anything it is that people like Dick Cheney are ALL ACCESS.

And like I said before, he had a great opportunity to elevate himself above partisan drivel...but he ended up looking like such a weasel.

This isn't Cheney's life we are talking about, this is his daughters and grandchilds life.
There are pictures floating around the internet of Chelsea Clinton drunk off her ass being carred to the car, should the press be able to ask Hillary about this?

Absolutely.

It is after all the freedom of the press. You and I may not like it, but that is the way it goes..

You should know, I mean, you have all those pretty "free speech" quotes in your sig. Don't you read them?

Of course he can ask the question. Then Cheney can tell him to go f? himself. Once you leave civil discourse you should expect none in return.

bingo. this is why there's nothing wrong with questioning Clinton's (lack of) handling Osama, or Obama Hussein being questioned about his schooling. Questioning about the person being interviewed is fine. Bringing the family into it is a low blow.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
Public office = no private life.

If the Clinton's presidency has taught us anything it is that people like Dick Cheney are ALL ACCESS.

And like I said before, he had a great opportunity to elevate himself above partisan drivel...but he ended up looking like such a weasel.

This isn't Cheney's life we are talking about, this is his daughters and grandchilds life.
There are pictures floating around the internet of Chelsea Clinton drunk off her ass being carred to the car, should the press be able to ask Hillary about this?

Absolutely.

It is after all the freedom of the press. You and I may not like it, but that is the way it goes..

You should know, I mean, you have all those pretty "free speech" quotes in your sig. Don't you read them?

Of course he can ask the question. Then Cheney can tell him to go f? himself. Once you leave civil discourse you should expect none in return.

I would hope that an individual that's in a high administrative position not to stoop down to the level of the fool. Let's have at least some dignity folks; your presentation is crucial in the world of politics. It's one of the biggest reasons why gay marriage movement is slow and why marjiuana is still illegal. Nobody's going to listen to men parading around in tight leather and stoners going "SMOKE WEED 420 EVERYDAYZ LAWLZ".

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
Public office = no private life.

If the Clinton's presidency has taught us anything it is that people like Dick Cheney are ALL ACCESS.

And like I said before, he had a great opportunity to elevate himself above partisan drivel...but he ended up looking like such a weasel.

This isn't Cheney's life we are talking about, this is his daughters and grandchilds life.
There are pictures floating around the internet of Chelsea Clinton drunk off her ass being carred to the car, should the press be able to ask Hillary about this?

Absolutely.

It is after all the freedom of the press. You and I may not like it, but that is the way it goes..

You should know, I mean, you have all those pretty "free speech" quotes in your sig. Don't you read them?

Being able to ask a question and asking it are two totally different things.

What Cheney's daughter does in her life has NO impact on what he does as President.
Did anyone ask John Kerry if the fact that his daughter runs around in see through shirts related to his stand on pornography or other moral related questions?
How do you think he would have answered such a question?

 

[MadRat]

Cheney is vulnerable on the gay rights issue, hence he goes off every time it comes up. His far right supporters cannot see him eye to eye on it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Czar
I agree with him, with the second question, that question was out of line. Has nothing to do with anything but his personal life.

um, he is part of a party that campaigns on restricting civil rights for gay and lesbian US citizens... but then it is somehow beyond the pale if someone in the media asks him about his own gay or lesbian family members? Either he has no loyalty to his daughter and is happy to pass laws restricting her rights, or alternatively he thinks the anti-gay campaigning on the part of Republicans is just a way of winning votes from bigots and he doesn't really support it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Cheney is vulnerable on the gay rights issue, hence he goes off every time it comes up. His far right supporters cannot see him eye to eye on it.

Which explains why his far right supporters get upset every time the question is asked... :roll:

You make to much of this 'far right' thing. Being against gay marriage does not mean you want to lock all the gay people up or hate people who are gay.

aidanjm I believe that Cheney tends to be silent on the gay rights issue. He speaks neither in favor or against gay marriage.
CNN Link

"At this point, my own preference is as I've stated," Cheney said. "But the president makes basic policy for this administration, and he's made it clear that he does in fact support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

Cheney, the father of two adult daughters -- one of whom is a lesbian -- was asked for his views on "homosexual marriage" during a campaign rally here. (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with," Cheney said as he began to explain his view.

"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody," said Cheney, who took the same stand during the 2000 presidential race.

"People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

Cheney then spoke specifically about marriage.

"Historically, that's been a relationship that's been handled by the states," Cheney said. "States have made the basic fundamental decision [as to] what constitutes a marriage.

"I made clear four years ago when this question came up in my debate with [Sen.] Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide and that's how it ought best be handled."

His view on this is very well known, why do they keep asking him questions about his daughter?
I think it has more to do with the left leaning media members trying to score points.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
Public office = no private life.

If the Clinton's presidency has taught us anything it is that people like Dick Cheney are ALL ACCESS.

And like I said before, he had a great opportunity to elevate himself above partisan drivel...but he ended up looking like such a weasel.

This isn't Cheney's life we are talking about, this is his daughters and grandchilds life.
There are pictures floating around the internet of Chelsea Clinton drunk off her ass being carred to the car, should the press be able to ask Hillary about this?

Absolutely.

It is after all the freedom of the press. You and I may not like it, but that is the way it goes..

You should know, I mean, you have all those pretty "free speech" quotes in your sig. Don't you read them?

Being able to ask a question and asking it are two totally different things.

What Cheney's daughter does in her life has NO impact on what he does as President.
Did anyone ask John Kerry if the fact that his daughter runs around in see through shirts related to his stand on pornography or other moral related questions?
How do you think he would have answered such a question?

Last time I checked, Dick was not president, unless Bush fell off the wagon. Yeah, that's the ticket. And Dick Cheney put himself, and his family under public scrutiny, when he became an asshole, err...Vice Bush, menace to society. :shocked:

 

[Lemon law]

I said it before in this thread---but for a review.

Dick Cheney freely panders to various groups exploiting the fact his daughter is gay.
He therefore is not hiding her under some bushel basket. He is exploiting her fir political gain.

Dick Cheney therefore loses the right to claim privacy.

You can't have it both ways----unless you are delusional Dick.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
Public office = no private life.

If the Clinton's presidency has taught us anything it is that people like Dick Cheney are ALL ACCESS.

And like I said before, he had a great opportunity to elevate himself above partisan drivel...but he ended up looking like such a weasel.

This isn't Cheney's life we are talking about, this is his daughters and grandchilds life.
There are pictures floating around the internet of Chelsea Clinton drunk off her ass being carred to the car, should the press be able to ask Hillary about this?

Absolutely.

It is after all the freedom of the press. You and I may not like it, but that is the way it goes..

You should know, I mean, you have all those pretty "free speech" quotes in your sig. Don't you read them?

Being able to ask a question and asking it are two totally different things.

What Cheney's daughter does in her life has NO impact on what he does as President.
Did anyone ask John Kerry if the fact that his daughter runs around in see through shirts related to his stand on pornography or other moral related questions?
How do you think he would have answered such a question?

1. He is the VP of the US, the press is going to ask him anything/everything. The fact that people dont like him very much means the press is going to go after him. get over it. You know it, he knows it, everyone knows it. Is he really such an a$$clown that he can't handle a single CNN interview where someone asks him something he doesnt want to respond to?

2. WTH does it matter if anyone asked John Kerry about pornography? This is a fallacious argument (not to mention a dumb one.)

3. He should have acted like the Vice-President of the US and answered the question without the whole laser-beam glaring thing and the crude sniveling. I agree the question was worthless and only asked in mean spirit, but Cheney reacted EXACTLY the way CNN thought he would and the general public expected... it was pathetic.

He displayed a level of classlessness by sitting there glaring, smirking, and looking like he was going to bite Blitzers head off. Is that what you wanted? Because IMHO he would have been far better off rising about the level that Blitzer wanted him to go.

But he didn't, he reinforced everything that everyone says about him.

Bill Clinton would have handled the questioning with ease.

 

[dahunan]

Are mr bush's children still on drinking binges and nearing alcoholism like him?

Did they sign up for the armed forces or ntl guard

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
Public office = no private life.

If the Clinton's presidency has taught us anything it is that people like Dick Cheney are ALL ACCESS.

And like I said before, he had a great opportunity to elevate himself above partisan drivel...but he ended up looking like such a weasel.

This isn't Cheney's life we are talking about, this is his daughters and grandchilds life.
There are pictures floating around the internet of Chelsea Clinton drunk off her ass being carred to the car, should the press be able to ask Hillary about this?

Absolutely.

It is after all the freedom of the press. You and I may not like it, but that is the way it goes..

You should know, I mean, you have all those pretty "free speech" quotes in your sig. Don't you read them?

Of course he can ask the question. Then Cheney can tell him to go f? himself. Once you leave civil discourse you should expect none in return.

bingo. this is why there's nothing wrong with questioning Clinton's (lack of) handling Osama, or Obama Hussein being questioned about his schooling. Questioning about the person being interviewed is fine. Bringing the family into it is a low blow.

you two missed the point. Blitzer was absolutely civil while he asked a stupid question. And low blow or not, Cheney took the bait. Cheney sat there looking like he was going to explode! again, classless, and Clinton would have handled it much better

Clinton took the bait too, he obviously had to blow off steam about Osama. The only difference about Clintons outburst is that he called people on their BS, he didnt become combative just for the sake of being combative. Cheney didnt want to answer the question, but he didnt have a tactful and professional way to go about moving onto the next question. Not only is that classless, it is not what you expect from a seasoned politician. I can only reason that Cheney thought he was "TOO GOOD" to be treated this way. Talk about disconnected.

Obama answered the questions about his schooling in a completely professional and tactful manner. You may not like his accusations about the Fox media, but he made such accusations in manner representative of our politicians. He acted the way you expect politicians to act.

Cheney can't even claim as much, and he is the VP, Obama is just a green Senator.

His behavior only reinforces the idea that this Administration is disconnected.

But then you can be sitting there thinking, that Cheney really stuck it to him!! That he took the gloves off and showed Blitzer who is Boss!! YEAAHH WOOHOOOO!!

That is partisan bullsh!t.

Sorry, but in a world where political presentation is crucial, looking like a knuckle dragger doesn't benefit your position. He should have rose above it and acted like a leader of this country. Embarrassing.

he is giving comfort to our enemies by acting like a gorilla.

 

[Thump553]

Excellent post, OrByte. You hit the nail right on the head on all the main points-Blitzer was civil, but it was a stupid question, and Cheney's reaction was simple rage. Not what I'm looking for in a world leader-or someone a heartbeat away from being one.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Look at the reaction to the Obama went to a madrassa mess. The story came from the Clinton's, and yet everyone jumped up and down and blamed Fox and Insight. "How dare they make they make that type of statement!"

That is completely and utterly false, the story did not come from Hillary Clinton or anyone associated with her. The story originated within FNC and their crack reporting team. This was debunked almost immediately.

 

[aidanjm]

it is amazing that people think asking about Mary Cheney and her decision to have a baby with her same-sex partner is off limits. Mary Cheney has made herself a public figure, she has campaigned for her father, she has written a (very bad) book, for fvck's sake. the cheeney's have whored themselves to the media when they thought it might benefit them, they don't get to turn around now and pretend their private lives are suddenly off limits. what a repulsive family.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
it is amazing that people think asking about Mary Cheney and her decision to have a baby with her same-sex partner is off limits. Mary Cheney has made herself a public figure, she has campaigned for her father, she has written a (very bad) book, for fvck's sake. the cheeney's have whored themselves to the media when they thought it might benefit them, they don't get to turn around now and pretend their private lives are suddenly off limits. what a repulsive family.

Good point.

Furthermore, since when have politicians' private lives been off limits?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: aidanjm
it is amazing that people think asking about Mary Cheney and her decision to have a baby with her same-sex partner is off limits. Mary Cheney has made herself a public figure, she has campaigned for her father, she has written a (very bad) book, for fvck's sake. the cheeney's have whored themselves to the media when they thought it might benefit them, they don't get to turn around now and pretend their private lives are suddenly off limits. what a repulsive family.

Good point.

Furthermore, since when have politicians' private lives been off limits?

They're not off-limits, Prof John merely wishes they were. And here's a point for you to ponder PJ: The obvious fascination with Cheney's gay daughter, now having a child with her gay lover, is clear. The Bush/Cheney anti-gay agenda is well-known and well-established. You don't think people wonder how Dick ratifies the two? Of course they do ... and so when the media asks him to comment on it, while he has every right not to, that's fair game. As aidanjm commented before me, the Cheney's (as in the entire family) have put themselves in the spotlight, there is no bright line that exists once you've gone public, not for Mary Cheney, not for Lynn and most definitely not for Dick.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Excellent post, OrByte. You hit the nail right on the head on all the main points-Blitzer was civil, but it was a stupid question, and Cheney's reaction was simple rage. Not what I'm looking for in a world leader-or someone a heartbeat away from being one.

Thinking about this some more..

what a DUMB question to ask. There are SOOOO many other issues I would have talked about other then the gay issue.

North Korea
Iran
WAR Intelligence
Ongoing federal assistance for Katrina (anyone remember that?)
Wiretapping
FISA Courts
Gitmo
Libbey
Hell I would have even asked him who is he planning to support in 2008!

edit: its not like he is on CNN every weekend interviewing, gotta take advantage whille you can!

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Look at the reaction to the Obama went to a madrassa mess. The story came from the Clinton's, and yet everyone jumped up and down and blamed Fox and Insight. "How dare they make they make that type of statement!"

That is completely and utterly false, the story did not come from Hillary Clinton or anyone associated with her. The story originated within FNC and their crack reporting team. This was debunked almost immediately.

That, too, is completely and utterly false, the story did not come from FNC or anyone on their reporting team. The story originated on Insight Magazine's website.

Text
Text

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Look at the reaction to the Obama went to a madrassa mess. The story came from the Clinton's, and yet everyone jumped up and down and blamed Fox and Insight. "How dare they make they make that type of statement!"

That is completely and utterly false, the story did not come from Hillary Clinton or anyone associated with her. The story originated within FNC and their crack reporting team. This was debunked almost immediately.

That, too, is completely and utterly false, the story did not come from FNC or anyone on their reporting team. The story originated on Insight Magazine's website.

Text
Text

And FNC was only to happy to run with it as if it was the undeniable truth even though the had to know that it was questionable at best.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Look at the reaction to the Obama went to a madrassa mess. The story came from the Clinton's, and yet everyone jumped up and down and blamed Fox and Insight. "How dare they make they make that type of statement!"

That is completely and utterly false, the story did not come from Hillary Clinton or anyone associated with her. The story originated within FNC and their crack reporting team. This was debunked almost immediately.

The origin of the story has not been debunked. CNN did not do a report saying "Clinton not behind madrassa story"
They did a story about the school and refuted the idea that the school itself was a radical Muslim school.

So far I have not seen ONE story that proves Hillary and Co was not behind the charge in the first place. If you know of such a story from a legit news company please post a link for all of us to see.

Here is a bit from the original Insightmag piece
link

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.

"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."

When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama?s press secretary said he would consult with ?his boss? and call back. He did not.

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

All FoxNews did is repeat what this story said.
All CNN did was try to refute the fact that the school was a 'radical' school.
CNN in fact did not refute anything in the original Insight story. Go read the story for yourself and tell me what part of their story did CNN refute?

 

[SickBeast]

Cheney did not act like a dick or have a meltdown in that video! :thumbsdown:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Look at the reaction to the Obama went to a madrassa mess. The story came from the Clinton's, and yet everyone jumped up and down and blamed Fox and Insight. "How dare they make they make that type of statement!"

That is completely and utterly false, the story did not come from Hillary Clinton or anyone associated with her. The story originated within FNC and their crack reporting team. This was debunked almost immediately.

The origin of the story has not been debunked. CNN did not do a report saying "Clinton not behind madrassa story"
They did a story about the school and refuted the idea that the school itself was a radical Muslim school.

So far I have not seen ONE story that proves Hillary and Co was not behind the charge in the first place. If you know of such a story from a legit news company please post a link for all of us to see.

Here is a bit from the original Insightmag piece
link

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.

"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."

When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama?s press secretary said he would consult with ?his boss? and call back. He did not.

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

All FoxNews did is repeat what this story said.
All CNN did was try to refute the fact that the school was a 'radical' school.
CNN in fact did not refute anything in the original Insight story. Go read the story for yourself and tell me what part of their story did CNN refute?

"Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim."

"Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations."

CNN

Sorry Prof, it's false, "researchers connected to Senator Clinton", that's thinner than thin. It they want to add credibility they better come forth with the actual source, but they won't because that source doesn't exist. FNC does this all the time, with their "some people are saying" crap, i.e. our producers want to plant this idea.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
"Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim."

"Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations."
CNN
Sorry Prof, it's false, "researchers connected to Senator Clinton", that's thinner than thin. It they want to add credibility they better come forth with the actual source, but they won't because that source doesn't exist. FNC does this all the time, with their "some people are saying" crap, i.e. our producers want to plant this idea.

So what you are saying is the fact that Clinton denies the story is all the proof we need?
I like that logic.
Let me think.... I could start to list the number of times one of the Clinton's has lied to the American people, but I don't want to waste bandwidth with such a long list.
You are a total FOOL if you take complete heed of a statement like that. Do you really expect the Clinton campaign to say ?yes, we did it!?
The leaking of damaging information about your opponent is one of the oldest tricks in the books.
Let?s look at just a few of the major instances of this happening:
The whole Foley scandal broke when someone who opposes him pushed the story into the media.
The Allen said the ?N? word-Webb is a pedophile stories were pushed by their opposition.
The macaca story came from a guy who was hired by the Webb camp to tape Allen's speeches in hopes of finding an error to exploit.
The whole Dukakis is weak on crime-furlough story came from the Gore camp.
The Joe Biden plagiarized a speech story came from the Dukakis camp.

Let me ask you one question: When the New York Times publishes its ?sources tell us? type articles do you immediately discount what the article says?
Because half the news that comes out of Washington is from these types of unnamed and unidentified sources.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
"Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim."

"Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations."
CNN
Sorry Prof, it's false, "researchers connected to Senator Clinton", that's thinner than thin. It they want to add credibility they better come forth with the actual source, but they won't because that source doesn't exist. FNC does this all the time, with their "some people are saying" crap, i.e. our producers want to plant this idea.

So what you are saying is the fact that Clinton denies the story is all the proof we need?
I like that logic.
Let me think.... I could start to list the number of times one of the Clinton's has lied to the American people, but I don't want to waste bandwidth with such a long list.
You are a total FOOL if you take complete heed of a statement like that. Do you really expect the Clinton campaign to say ?yes, we did it!?
The leaking of damaging information about your opponent is one of the oldest tricks in the books.
Let?s look at just a few of the major instances of this happening:
The whole Foley scandal broke when someone who opposes him pushed the story into the media.
The Allen said the ?N? word-Webb is a pedophile stories were pushed by their opposition.
The macaca story came from a guy who was hired by the Webb camp to tape Allen's speeches in hopes of finding an error to exploit.
The whole Dukakis is weak on crime-furlough story came from the Gore camp.
The Joe Biden plagiarized a speech story came from the Dukakis camp.

Let me ask you one question: When the New York Times publishes its ?sources tell us? type articles do you immediately discount what the article says?
Because half the news that comes out of Washington is from these types of unnamed and unidentified sources.

Deny all you want, read the bolded part again. If FNC and Insight wanted people to believe their story they would name the source, but they won't because the source doesn't exist. It's probably Dick Morris for all we know.

If you think about, I'm pretty sure that if someone associated with Hillary wanted to discredit Obama, they would have done so on media outlets sympathetic to her and/or Obama, not media sources who go out of their way to attack her. That would lend some credibility to it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
"Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim."

"Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations."
CNN
Sorry Prof, it's false, "researchers connected to Senator Clinton", that's thinner than thin. It they want to add credibility they better come forth with the actual source, but they won't because that source doesn't exist. FNC does this all the time, with their "some people are saying" crap, i.e. our producers want to plant this idea.

So what you are saying is the fact that Clinton denies the story is all the proof we need?
I like that logic.
Let me think.... I could start to list the number of times one of the Clinton's has lied to the American people, but I don't want to waste bandwidth with such a long list.
You are a total FOOL if you take complete heed of a statement like that. Do you really expect the Clinton campaign to say ?yes, we did it!?
The leaking of damaging information about your opponent is one of the oldest tricks in the books.
Let?s look at just a few of the major instances of this happening:
The whole Foley scandal broke when someone who opposes him pushed the story into the media.
The Allen said the ?N? word-Webb is a pedophile stories were pushed by their opposition.
The macaca story came from a guy who was hired by the Webb camp to tape Allen's speeches in hopes of finding an error to exploit.
The whole Dukakis is weak on crime-furlough story came from the Gore camp.
The Joe Biden plagiarized a speech story came from the Dukakis camp.

Let me ask you one question: When the New York Times publishes its ?sources tell us? type articles do you immediately discount what the article says?
Because half the news that comes out of Washington is from these types of unnamed and unidentified sources.

Again you speak with absolute truth and clarity.
The term ignorance is bliss applies to those who would oppose what you are saying Prof.
In facxt those who would oppose what you are saying are most likely in denial as we speak or they are just too young to know any better. 13 yrs old is a tender age and most people who would oppose what you are saying are dealing with one problem and only one problem. That problem is how to get rid of there first zit or acne...lol