Talk:Brett Kavanaugh/Archive 2

message: Contributing to Wikipedia should be more than characterizing sources as "conspiracy theory" and name calling.  Wikipedia readers deserve good scholarship from contributors.
Mr. Ruddy's book which has some factual errors also has a good deal of well documented information.  Simon and Schuster, a highly reputable publisher, which is owned by CBS, published Mr. Ruddy's book.   Many of the footnotes in Mr. Ruddy's book are to Senate depositions, FBI lab reports, The Fiske Report, Park Police Reports and other official public records.  To simply tear down the article based solely on the charge that the book is "conspiracy theory" is unscholarly.  
Critics of the section on Mr. Kavanaugh's role as Associate Independent Counsel have not read Mr. Ruddy's book or the official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals.  These same critics have not researched the thousands of pages of the underlying investigative records that are publicaly available.  Rather than do the serious research necessary to discuss the facts they shout, "conspiracy theory" and thrown away anything that offends their POV.
The Web site FBIcover-up.com has been dismissed as "conspiracy theory" by C56C however, the proof section of that web site offers a 510-page court document filed in the U.S. Court of appeals which has 908 footnotes to 610 pages of official investigative records including the Official Report by the OIC, The Fiske Report, the Police Reports, FBI investigative records, FBI Lab Reports, autopsy reports, Medical examiner reports, Depositions, U.S. Senate testimony and more. 
It is absurd to characterize the official reports and official investigative records as "conspiracy theory."    C56C is silent when asked if he has read even the 137-page official report.  I doubt if C56C has read Ruddy's book or any of the official investigative records or anything else related to this discussion.  C56C is not capable of discussing the facts therefore name-calling is the preferred argument.  
A good scholar on this topic should be able to point out facts that are correct as well as the errors that can be found in both the Official Report and Mr. Ruddy's book.  I have tried to present the facts supported by the official records.   Some public documents are not online at any site other than FBIcover-up.com but Wikipedia accepts these links as long as they accurately represent the actual documents.  The actual documents can be obtained at any public library for those willing to do the research.
People who do not do any research hurl insults and call names.
Thomist 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's look as your "sources:"
*Accuracy in Media For Fairness (AIM), Balance and Accuracy in News Reporting, Tape recorded comments of assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez to Reed Irvine, Chairman of AIM 
*  The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, Christopher Ruddy, Free Press 1997, page216.  
* The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Regnery 1997, page 174.  
* Failure of the Public Trust, John Clarke, Patrick Knowlton, Hugh Turley, McCabe Publishing, 1999  
** AIM was part of the group funded by Scaife in the Arkansas Project. Its sole purpose is to attack what it perceives as liberal. Scaife also paid Christopher Ruddy (NewsMax) to dig up dirt on Clinton when Ruddy worked for various conservative groups and Scaife- owned Pittsburgh Review (where Ruddy was reported). His book is trash even the American Spectator (a very conservative, and anti-Clinton magazine) said it only contained hearsay from questionable sources. The Secret Life of Bill Clinton can be filed with the questionable other stuff Regnery Publishing puts out due to its inherent bias. An editorial review noted that The Secret Life of Bill Clinton "connects the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones." So was Clinton part of the Oklahoma City bombing too? (Geez...)
**Thus, your allegations come from biased and debunked sources. This, persumably, is due to a belief system that you are seeking to justify. The "facts" and "sources" are laughable. If you want to put this stuff in there it needs come from dependable independent sources. C56C 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See Starr and Kavanaugh whether conservative or not aren't part of a fringe group. They were federal investigators. The people at AIM and FBI-Coverup have no credentials and rely on hearsay mixed with their bias. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ruddy, Pritchard, and AIM are known conspricacy theorists. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Now ware getting somewhere. So the book is questionable and contains things that are neccessarly the truth. However, you passed it off as the truth. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not the bias that the problem. AIM is not a reputable group. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What you "know" comes books that also claim Clinton was invovled in the Oaklahoma City bombing. C56C 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you dispute the editorial reviews by Amazon.com and NY Times? C56C 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentation