Re: virus: political stuff

chardin (chardin@uabid.dom.uab.edu)
Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:12:27 CST+6CDT

So, I had the wrong Nate, I'm still having to place everybody.
Did you NOT see Aldrich's interview? He kept admitting that it was
all allegations, gossip--"matters that need to be further looked
into." He was not credible. Some of his "sources" were infuriated
that he would use their name in connection with his "reporting."
They said they talked with him over a glass of beer and admitted they
were just gossiping and had no idea the guy would use them in a book.
Aldrich guy backed down and made himself look like a fool and YOU STILL
BELIEVE HIM--Nateman, where is your logic!
check it out: http://www.htcomp.net/123/bgt_book.htm
He told Tim "allegations that need to be further looked into."
Whitewater, my goodness, the Republicans have spent $30 million
dollars to investigate that trailer court project. We could have
bought everybody in Arkansas a mobile home for that...but don't get
me started on government spending. . . the Republicans will drain the
treasury to go after Clinton.

> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:19:16 -0600
> From: Nathaniel Hall <natehall@worldnet.att.net>
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: virus: political stuff
> Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com

>
>
> chardin wrote:
>
> > > From: "Gifford, Nate F" <giffon@SDCPOS3B.DAYTONOH.ncr.com>
> > > To: "virus@lucifer.com" <virus@lucifer.com>,
> > > Nathaniel Hall
> > > <natehall@worldnet.att.net>
> > > Subject: RE: virus: I have returned
> > > Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:57:02 -0400
> > > Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
> >
> > > >It certainly worked for Bill Clinton. A prime example of why logic rather
> > > than
> > > >feelings should guide peoples choices.
> > >
> > Nateman, I agree with you. One of the most fascinating things to me
> > about politics is the way people make all sorts of assertions without
> > proof. I have some friends who are die-hard Republicans who accuse
> > Clinton of all manner of scandal. But I am from the old school, I
> > want proof. It is amazing how many people repeat things for which
> > there is no proof. Some people make a very good living at it, even
> > writing books. For example, one friend who sought me out to give me
> > "proof" presented me with "Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the
> > White House." I was saved from taking the book seriously, however,
> > when I saw an interview with Aldrich, the author of the book. Time
> > and again Aldrich told Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" that he had no
> > proof that these were "only allegations that need to be further
> > investigated." Why should I read his book? Allegations, allegations, allegations. I am sooo
> > tired of that. Yet the pubic can't make the distinction it seems
> > and offers any form of gossip up as "proof."
>
> I'm glad you picked that particular book because I happened to have read it! Clinton did a very
> skillful job of minimizing this guy (He had 6 months to prepare a counter response, as a member
> of the FBI Aldrich had to get permission from the FBI in order to publish which, surprise ,
> surprise , Louis Freeh , brown tongued director of the FBI won't give him). Gary Aldrich was the
> FBI guy assigned to the White House to help with security. As such he had plenty of FIRST HAND
> knowledge to report on. The Clinton gang focused on the weakest parts of his book as if that was
> the way the whole thing was written. The book is well worth reading. I only wish more voters
> would have read it and taken it to heart: we wouldn't have this crook in power now if they had!
>
> The Nateman, who is probably soon to face a "coincidental" tax audit.
>
>
>