How Hillary Ruined Her Legacy As Secretary of State

[merrily]

77. Isn't the issue whether the story is true or false?

This business of calling a source "right wing" and assuming that answers all questions is silly. If it's a pure opinion piece, sure. If it cites facts, attacking the source doesn't refute shit.

This is very similar to what Hillary does. When asked a question about an adverse fact, her answer begins, "The Republicans...." as if no one on the left has a single question about her and as if citing Republicans is some kind of refutation of what was said. When asked about Monica Lewinsky by Matt Lauer, she cited a vast right wing conspiracy. Guess what? There was something between her husband and Monica, even though the ones making the allegations were on the right.

Sorry. Killing the messenger solved nothing and refuted nothing before common era

.

Plutarch's Lives states: "The first messenger, that gave notice of Lucullus' coming was so far from pleasing Tigranes that, he had his head cut off for his pains; and no man dared to bring further information. Without any intelligence at all, Tigranes sat while war was already blazing around him, giving ear only to those who flattered him."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger


It still doesn't. But only ducks the issue. For some, that's the only goal.