Reply #138: Au contraire! [View All]

I am very proud of my neutral stance, despite your straw man arguments. Your analogy is far from fitting. I liken the situation more to someone with a checkered past who may or may not be guilty but is being persecuted, not for any evidence that a crime has been committed, but because of the aforementioned checkered past. Oh, wait. That is exactly what is happening.

How, pray tell, are "people like you", ie, me, making anything more difficult?

I want to see the truth. There's nothing but honor in that. Leopold will get his due regardless of any message board arguments. Either we will get some sordid tale of basic BushCo behaviors that exonerates Leopold, or he will be shown to be a fool. There is simply not enough evidence to prove either regardless of the assumptions you tout as fact. We don't know jack. We know that certain claims in a breaking news story apparently did not come to fruition, but we have no other details or explanations. It very well could be that BushCo played dirty, and who would be surprised at that? It is also possible that Leopold is a lying sack of crap. I see nothing but assumptions claiming that is true.

I'll take the high road, the most honorable road, and wait until this scene has played out. There are too many unanswered questions, such as, why the need for Fitz to send Luskin a letter exonerating Rove if Rove had never received a target letter, which is what Luskin claims. That makes no sense at all. Luskin obviously lied in one, or both, of those statements.

And you still have not answered the questions I've asked, even though I continue to be polite and answer yours.

Why a letter saying Rove is clear when there was no letter saying he was a target?

Why do you care so much about this?

I'm very proud of my stance. Damn proud. I demand facts, not assumptions. There is nothing but honor in that stance.