To ask a question is to imply some foreknowledge of the answer. The more questions, the more is implied. If I say, "Did CGE have carnal knowledge of a labrador retriever?", I am in effect claiming to know something that gives me a reasonable suspicion to motivate the question. The fact that the question is interesting has no bearing on what I know or don't know.
A simple demand for an investigation is unexceptionable. But her talk goes way beyond an "it". The innuendo in her speech goes way beyond it. She paints a broad picture of skullduggery. Without evidence. It's one thing for an Internet muckraker to do that. For a Member of Congress, it's stupid. Stupidity is not an admirable quality in a leader.
mbs
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org]On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:08 AM To: lbo-talk Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] McKinney never said it
The smearing of McKinney that Palast describes continues in Sawicky's and Berlet's comments. The Counterpunch articles to which they refer raise reasonable questions, principally "What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11?" Congress is unwilling to deal openly with that question, but posing it is not evidence of "conspiranoia." --CGE
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk