You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #36: Actually, they CAN be their own source.... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Actually, they CAN be their own source....
Edited on Sun Oct-25-09 12:37 AM by SDuderstadt
and I'm glad that you've brought this up. Whether you know it or not, you're engaging in a variation of "argumentum ignorantium", because you're essentially challenging me to disprove a claim that has failed to be proven in the first place. I'm also glad that you've admitted that you "don't know a damn thing about Prescott Bush", because that's how these rumors get started and take on a life of their own. I'm hardly blaming you for that.

The reason I say that ADL can be its own source in this instance goes back to the issue of whether the claim has ever been proven to begin with. I have a simple question: How, specifically, is the ADL supposed to prove that Prescott Bush was NOT "Hitler's banker" or even on the board of "Hitler's banker"? And, therein lies the problem, because you're basically asking them to prove a negative.

I have to admit that I have seen this stuff over the last few years and that, initially, I didn't know as much about the history of the Bush family before GHW. I did recall that, among other definitive books, I read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer and "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" by Alan Bullock. Those two books are generally considered to be among the most authoritative. Neither one of them says anything remotely like what I have been hearing about Prescott, which I confirmed by skimming the relevant sections.

From that point on, I figured that the best way to approach this is to start with the source of the claim about Prescott. And, that's where the problem starts, as I had also asked my best friend from undergraduate school who is the Political Science department head at a college and he dismissed it out of hand. So, where does this claim come from? Well, there was an article in the Guardian. I don't know about you, but I don't regard the Guardian as a necessarily trustworthy source. Now, where did the Guardian get it from? Bingo. They got it from John Buchanan and Stacy Michael from an article they co-authored for the New Hampshire Gazette. First of all, John Buchanan is certifiable and I would not rely on anything he says. But, don't take my word for it. Below is a link to the New Hampshire Gazette:

Notice anything missing? That's right. There's not a SINGLE source for their claims, other than some vague references to "federal documents".

So, I have a simple question. Who are you going to trust? Alan Bullock, William Shirer and the ADL? Or John Buchanan and Michael Stacy? I'll go with the former, at least until I can see some concrete evidence to the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC