I'm holding fire on whether the Times or McCain has it correct or not on the extent to which his relationship with Iseman influenced his official conduct. In fact, the Post article today calls into question McCain's candor re: what he did for lobbyists' clients, and so I'm just "waiting to see." The FCC commissioners themselves thought he had stepped over the line, and the client for whom he did the favor now disputes McCain's version of what transpired.
Like any politician, McCain could be saying to himself, "Why tell the truth if a lie will suffice?" And we may be in the process of seeing whether a lie will suffice.
I'm sure there are dozens of investigative reporters digging thru everything they can find, and fielding calls from sources that they will need to run down......
We didn't have the facts on Monica Lewinsky the day Bill pointed his finger at the camera, and said he didn't have sexual relations with "that woman."
Net of the matter is that today is woefully premature either to exonerate McCain or to convict McCain. If I had to choose (and of course I don't) I'd trust the Times' journalistic integrity over McCain's word on the matter at hand.
Like a good investigator interviewing a hostile or reluctant witness, you don't reveal all you know in the first interview. The Times and others could be holding a lot more information, just waiting for everyone on McCain's side to set their contrary version in stone before the Times releases the rest of the story.
__._,_.___
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder