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
Google

Reply #16: I have read it, in detail. I just wondered why you chose that phrase [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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I have read it, in detail. I just wondered why you chose that phrase
If you didn't mean anything bigger by it, then OK. I think there's more to fairness than just quoting both sides' statements, but since I don't carry any particular torch for Schakowsky I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It's not that I think you're biased so much as it seems to me you're milking the story rather than investigating it.

Let me ask you this, which you can answer or not as you see fit: Schakowsky asserts matters of fact which flatly contradict Edmonds' account - to wit, the death of her mother occurring back in '87, 12 years before she entered Congress, and her historic lack of residence in a townhouse, which I suppose could be verified with a trawl through public records, albeit at some minor expense. Edmonds declines to address these contentions in her rebuttal, and reverts to telling her own story rather than supply any substantive detail to corroborate her earlier remarks.

Given this lack of substantive rebuttal or checkable corroboration, how much longer can this story go on? To me it raises very basic questions about the reliability of Edmonds as a source. If (for example) she were to claim that she's just reporting what she heard the Turks speaking about and can't vouch for its accuracy, then she is ill-advised to describe Schakowsky's supposed affair to AmCon as if it were a matter of fact, and even less to challenge the congresswoman to a lie detector test.

Indeed, various luminaries have attested to her general credibility, but this can only take a story so far - Washington is full of people who pay lip service to someone for transient political advantage because talk is cheap - in DC, it seems to be very cheap indeed. But when push comes to shove, and we get down to matters of verifiable fact - like when someone died or which property somebody owned, matters of public record and therefore checkable - Edmonds' story seems to fall apart, and it's disturbing that her 'rebuttals' don't even address the facts in dispute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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