« Strange Bedfellows | Main | So THIS Explains It? »



Interesting take you have on this. If you read Simon's piece you might have missed this part.

"People were dumping on the Times for reporting a half story with no substantiation. Still, in my heart-of-hearts, the affair/relationship or whatever it was remained possible. The Times had done its job to some degree, raising suspicions, not just for me but for many others."

What also needs to be pointed out, is that there are some major flaws in Iseman's case. For example:

1. It’s not enough for Iseman to prove the story was or is false, she also needs to prove that the Times knew it was false also.

2. The Times has stated that the story was not that an affair had or even was happening, but the story was that rumors of an affair were circulating, and that McCain staffers were worried. So, if indeed rumors were circulating, and if indeed staffers were worried, then its story was in fact true.

Do you not think there are some sources out there that can prove that there was some concerns in the McCain camp about this? If there was some concern, and I do believe they have some sources, then her case is toast. So I will file this with the Times getting the whole Bush illegal wiretap story wrong. Oh, I forgot they were right on with that one.

The comments to this entry are closed.