I thought the WH disavowed the Swiftboaters in 2004

[Kingofalldems]

And claimed they had nothing to do with this group. Now a big swiftboat contributer gets an ambassadorship. I think an investigation is warranted.

[ccpup]

1. good catch!

we should find the 2004 quote from bush, et al. disavowing the Swiftboaters and send it to Keith, to Waxman, to Reid, to whoever would be good for this sort of thing.

[zbdent]

8. Even a direct quote won't do any good

I mean, the righties have embraced "I never said 'stay the course'!" despite all the contrary evidence ...

[bryant69]

2. You'd have a devil of a time proving a direct connection

Since one is clearly not necessary for them to have done what they did.

And even if you did find one, did the person claiming no connection say it under oath?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Virginia Dare]

3. They also said they would investigate the outing of Valerie Plame..

and the perpetrator would be dealt with. The bottom line is, just about everything they say is a lie.

[Kingofalldems]

4. Exactly

And the lies need to be exposed.

[Tyler Durden]

6. Turning blue holding my breath waiting for THAT to happen.

[blm]

5. Fox 'couldn't recall' who asked him for the $50,000 donation to swifts, either. Which means

the person HAD to be affiliated with the Bush campaign, or he wouldn't have felt forced to protect that person under questioning.

No one believes that someone just FORGETS who asked them to write a 50,000 dollar check.

[AndyTiedye]

9. $50,000 Here, $50,000 There, It's So Hard To Keep Track of All That Money

Let us assume for a moment that they are telling the truth.

That $50,000 is just pocket change to these people, and that they make donations like that every day
(and obviously without regard to any Federally-imposed spending limits!)

Perhaps the Swift Boat Liars are only the tip of the iceberg.

[TahitiNut]

7. Well, just because we see a 'quid' and a 'pro quo' doesn't mean it's a 'quid pro quo'.

Does it?

:sarcasm: