From: "Mark" 

You're assuming things that are not in evidence.

Why are so many, so willing to conclude things on pure conjecture, what's
wrong with waiting for Fitzgerald to either act or not?  You don't really
want to emulate Chris Matthews, do you Rich? 


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:435d98a4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> That's what makes this akin to the inane  actions of the Watergate crew.
> Neither action was necessary. There were better ways to refute portions of
> Wilson's charges but it appears those involved just settled for a mindless
> counter-attack.
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:435d9659{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote:
... So far Wilson's
>> information has been shown to be far more correct than
>>> the Administration.
>>
>> Wilson's information was completely refuted by the Senate Select
>> Committee way back when. He's been entirely discredited by that and the
>> Butler report in the UK. This is an old argument, very old.
>>
>> I'd go dig for old links (in fact I just dumped a link to the Senate
>> report a little while back because I, stupidly, never thought it would be
>> relevant again), but why bother? It'd just be another 6 months, or a year
>> and the same old claims would resurface as if they'd never been
>> discredited.
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5