Irony is cool with me, Neocon, it's this other stuff.
Either Paula is telling the truth or Bill is. Absent a definitive adjudication, we are free to surmise either way. I choose Paula.
Is that Neologic, or are you just putting the con back in Neocon? You can choose to believe whatever you want. Neither of them is necessarily telling the truth.
You've got quite a curious way of presenting justification for your version of the "truth". Starting out with:
Actually, Paula decided to come forward after an allusion to the incident in David Brock's original article on Clinton's abuse of office and reckless behavior in Little Rock. She was not enlisted.
I.e., she just had to clear her name after the Arkansas trooper article planted with Brock smeared her. Of course, the troopers smeared her, and conservative Smith paid for the story, and behind the scenes lawyer Porter got to assuage Brock about the payments, but Paula Jones decided all on her own she needed an apology from Clinton.
Her original attorneys were straightforward litigators. It was only after it became too expensive to support the suit that conservative groups stepped in.
Yes, Jones just randomly walked into that conservative conference off the street where she first demanded an apology. Porter and Marcus were just looking out for the truth in recruiting Jones' "straightforward litigators", just as Porter was looking for the "truth" when he helped plant the Arkansas troopers story. And to question this curious version of the "truth" is all guilt by association and innuendo, right? McCarthyism, right? Or is it just the con in Neocon again?
By the way, I didn't say they were coincidental associations, just that many of the inferences that one might tend to draw by the narrative had not exactly been proven.
Nothing much has been proven about the Paula Jones story. If you accept the neologic that either Jones or Clinton must be telling the absolute truth, you're never going to prove anything anyway, because your logic is cracked.
Okay, I actually think that it's possible that (loosely) the same group of people were behind the article, and helped on the lawsuit. I just don't see that it matters, particularly if Paula were sincere in wanting vindication.
And it's obviously clear that Paula Jones is sincere. Especially after all that plastic surgury. Just as it's clear that Porter was interested in the "truth" when he helped plant the "true" Arkansas trooper story that led Paula Jones to seek vindication. Want to untwist the neologic in that one, Neocon?
By the way, I had lunch with a handful of conservative journalists and think- tankers a couple of months before the Lewinsky hit the fan, but as the Jones case was moving forward. No one said "Oh goody, now we'll get him", or "Now we can trap Slick", or "This'll go some way towards damaging his ability to lead", or anything else of the sort. Most believed Paula, because Bill seems like that kind of guy, and the discussion revolved around which was worse, the exposure of his penis without invitation, or the use of the trooper to retrieve a state employee he intended to hit on. In other words, they were appalled at Clinton, not full of glee about getting him. But, of course, that was only one group of conservatives, and I could be throwing "neo- b.s.".
I think it's clear what you've been throwing here. I'm sure all those conservative journalists believed in their hearts, just as you do, that Paula Jones could only be telling the absolute truth. She's guileless, you know? A simple country girl who read "American Spectator" religiously, and just had to clear her (first) name. And she just stumbled into that conservative conference while walking around, trying to clear her head. So, the Arkansas troopers were lying about Jones wanting to be Clinton's girlfriend, but they were telling the absolute truth about everything else. Just like Paula Jones has told the absolute truth. Under the neologic that the moral reformationist arm operates under, that's the only way it can be. You seem to surmise a lot, Neocon. Funny how that works. True objectivity and lack of bias, typical of the conservative press that feeds crap to Drudge and then takes that as justification to print it everywhere without confirmation. And totally unlike the dreaded "liberal media", like the NYT, which printed that story that clearly came from Brock and Jones' attorneys of record. |
