I had to kill Montoya’s father to get the jacket so I’d better get it dry cleaned first.

I feel bad about the people slaughtered at Cannae and Carthage and Babylon and the like. Being human sometimes can pretty well suck ass.

This phrase wasn’t the important part of your question, but I’d like to address it briefly.

The documents in question (plural) were almost certainly “fake”. However, let’s be clear about a few things. A key piece of evidence that was cited at the time wasn’t valid at all. Contrary to common belief, the documents were actually never proven to be “fake”, and CBS never actually admitted that they were “fake”. CBS did acknowledge that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents, and this was certainly correct.

Whether or not the documents were “fake”, CBS mishandled the entire affair. They ended up looking like idiots. More importantly, and some people believe that Karl Rove planned it this way, the incident obliterated any further interest that the mainstream media had in reporting on what actually had happened three decades earlier. In my opinion, CBS has a great deal to answer for.

Incidentally, Roger Stone, who’s been accused of setting the whole thing up with Mr. Rove’s assistance, has offered a valid argument in his defense. He says, “I believe in bank shots, but that one was too big a risk”.

You also said, The Paula Jones reference goes to the lady you cited who was present or knowlegeable about Bush actions… Do you see the connection?

Yes. There’s more than one possible parallel. Originally, I assumed that you were simply making the following carefully-reasoned argument, which I still encounter from time to time:

CLINTON SEX LIE IMMORAL BAD

Arguments of this type bore me, so I usually dismiss them. Upon further reflection, you were probably talking about male Presidents who are associated with women that can embarrass them. If that’s what you’re referring to, it’s a valid parallel, but it wouldn’t be especially relevant or amusing unless Bush had been sexually involved with the woman that I referred to. That wasn’t the case.

If I remember correctly, the woman that I referred to was simply somebody who was in a position to authenticate what the documents said, as opposed to whether or not Dan Rather’s copies were the originals.

Then you probably have an indigo coat or jacket. You can put the extra theses in the pockets.

The question was directed at you, or more accurately, the reader.

You also said, Also shouldn’t you be saying “alleged” war criminal re Bush? Don’t you believe in innocent until proven guilty? Isn’t that working back from a conclusion like you accuse fundies of doing?

Useful points. I’ll address them in the order that feels right, which differs from the order that you’ve used.

First, to be clear, everybody works backwards to some extent. Fundamentalists are simply the baseline.

On a related note, this is why science is important. It’s also why science and religion are fundamentally incompatible (to coin a phrase). It’s not that science is going to “disprove” the existence of the Fundamentalist God, though it is driving Him farther and farther into the shadows, into the places just beyond the reach of the light. It’s that science is the one, and only, approach that allows us to move forward. Science is the only approach that allows us to build on existing knowledge, to consistently and reliably produce facts we don’t already know (or, more precisely, believe).

Science is the light. Working backwards is religion. It’s the darkness. When you’re talking about the human mind, working backwards is also the most natural thing that there is.

Second, regarding the innocent until proven guilty question: If somebody isn’t ever going to be tried, how does your question apply? I’m not saying that it is, or isn’t a, valid question. But it’s not valid just because it sounds valid. In the context that you’re referring to, this question strikes me as a non-sequitur.

Third, regarding the “alleged” war criminal question: As I’ve just noted, Bush won’t be tried, so it would be inappropriate to refer to him as a “convicted” war criminal. However, by the same token, the word “alleged” seems inappropriate as well. Bush will never be formally punished, but he’ll never be formally cleared either. History will be the judge, and there’s nothing wrong with the debate over what history is likely to say.

Mama also claims I have ADD so maybe you better stick to three easy theses.

The Paula Jones reference goes to the lady you cited who was present or knowlegeable about Bush actions (National Guard or whatever) which coroborated a fake document put out by Dan Rather. Do you see the connection?