Make what claim?
I said what happened. Bush did not have Robertson's support. They met. Bush had Robertson's support.
You know what Robertson is. You probably think he and his ideas are not dangerous to freedom and democracy. If you think that, it would explain your sanguineness about the good buddies' meeting being... confidential.
But many Americans, knowing Robertson's position about, oh, a number of things, wonder what was said in that meeting that was so productive for, we know, at least one of the two. The meeting that, after it, but not before, Robertson supported Bush? You know that one?
So Bush has been asked about it repeatedly.
But... well, it's confidential. Because... well, Bush is... an honorable man.
Now I don't know what happened in that meeting.
Because... it's a secret!
Because Bush is an honorable man.
So that's all I can show you. So I make no claim about what happened in that room, so there is no need for you to tell me not to.
I can't make any claim because, although Bush has, many times, been asked what happened to cause Robertson to throw his support behind Bush... his lips are sealed.
He'd LIKE to tell, of course. Certainly! But he's an honorable man. So is Robertson! Probably it would reflect well on both of them, what happened between them. But dang it all, it would be so un-honorable to discuss a confidential meeting! Dang!
So probably you are right. Probably the fact that Bush and Robertson have decided for their own reasons to keep "confidential" the discussion, and conclusions, they reached that pleased Mr. Robertson, is quite sufficient to justify telling an American not to raise the question
"What did Bush give Robertson in the meeting that Robertson liked so much he threw his support behind Bush?",
or even the question,
"What DID Bush and Robertson, a fanatical, frightening, vicious, vastly wealthy charlatan swindler of the gullible and friend of sadists and dictators, agree on already BEFORE the meeting that Bush merely made clear to Robertson at the meeting (no quid pro quo in that case), that so satisfied Robertson?"
Yes, an American shouldn't ask that question of a candidate for the presidency of the United States. Even if potential answers might be of deep concern, given Robertson's sordid character and undemocratic proclivities, we shouldn't ask.
Because it's "confidential."
Fanghorn, the only claim I made is that in politics and other real-world, grownup, power situations, alliances and support worth millions of dollars (and/or votes) are... earned. There ain't no free lunch. Unless of course both parties see the alliance as so mutually beneficial nothing further need be earned or conceded by either party. And of course it goes without saying that if there were any wider benefit to disseminating publicly the detail of the mutually agreeable arrangement, it would be disseminated. Further, I am sure we can agree that if there were disadvantage to disseminating the detail of the mutually agreeable arrangement, the detail would not be disseminated! Right?
Oh, well there is the "honorable men exception," you could call it.The "Dang!" exception? -- Gee, folks, we'd really love all you voters to know what it is we agreed/now-agree on, this silence hurts us more than it hurts you, hey, it probably costs VOTES, and CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, dang it, but... you know how, like, confidential and all it is? Dang!
I make no claim about what happened in that room. Except one:
Neither Bush nor Robertson will tell. |
