|
DaddySatyr -> RE: And yet another area with Stave Bannon with which I agree (1/9/2018 9:05:11 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I wrote that most of the main claims in Wolf's book were nothing new and had been reported extensively in multiple independent media over the past year. This reporting amounts to independent corroboration of Wolf's text's main claims. We are all more than familiar with the firings, the factionalism, the chaotic nature of Trump's Administration, the back stabbings, the legislative failures, the very public sackings of important officials, the arrests and charges etc etc. It's all on the public record and indisputable. It adds up to a picture of massive dysfunction and chaos in the White House consistently reported over a long period of time.
This amounts to massive independent corroboration of many of the main claims in Wolf's book. Anyone who wishes to challenge Wolf's credibility needs to come up with a coherent and convincing explanation of why we should disregard the public record in this matter. This degree of independent corroboration also means that Wolf's personal credibility (however you may regard it) is not as critical an issue as it otherwise might be.
I didn't answer because I tend to gloss over your posts (and I think you know why. if you don't and really care to know, mail me on the other side and I'll explain).
I will grant a good portion of what you typed as truth, but you're missing something, also.
Michael Wolff (two "F"s) has a reputation for "making shit up". So, while everything you typed may be true, there's also a fair amount of things that aren't "already in the public record". I gave a couple of examples, earlier.
So, while some of what is in the book may be nothing more than supporting evidence of what we "already know", there's some things that are, according to a couple of people who've come forward, (Bannon, Blair, and Wintour, so far) just flat-out bullshit. The first condition doesn't negate the latter condition. In fact, the latter kind of taints the former.
I also saw an item on Yahell, today. The title was: "Cameron was not having a 'Bromance' with Obama". Apparently, that was a claim that was in the book, too. Cameron says some rather unflattering things about the former failure-in-chief in the article, but I only read the first couple of paragraphs.
No. I fucked that all up. Steve Hilton (who used to work for Cameron) asserted the headline claim while he was refuting Wolff's book. It was NOT a claim made in the book.
|
|
|
|
