I believe Corsi that he did, partially because I believe him, and partially because Strickland has wiggled his way from *anonymous tip* (heavy implication, given that it was in the late 1990s: a phone call, or perhaps a brief e-mail) to *anonymous letter*.

Now I suppose you want to hold on to the idea that someone would bother to write a letter about such a serious matter and send it to Strickland wthout supporting documentation. Odds: VERY, VERY low.

Corsi has said he knows that Strickland had the documentation in addition to the anonymous letter. It makes sense (i.e., it is NOT blind faith), my belief is further bolstered by his track record, and we are not in a courtroom. Nobody is lionizing anyone, I only see someone (you) trying to demonize someone.

What is really sad about this line of thought is that even if by some long shot Strickland did not have the docs, he was one phone call away from confirming or denying what someone who went to the trouble of sending him a letter informed him of. So in a significant way it does not even matter, even though meeting the condition set by Kirsten Powers was worth it just to have chance to show her picture. :–>

You are being a condescending PITA. WND is no more *fringe,* and in fact has been probably less *fringe*, than the NYT has been since it got BDS about 3 years ago, with its raft of anonymous sources making stuff up without accountablility (I am assuming by your standard that you have bought into nothing Bush-related that the Times has published based on anonymous sources, in which case there is almost nothing left in the Old Grey to read on the topic.

I am not lionizing the messenger, but somehow you think you have the right to shoot the messenger. Horsecrap. I am done with you, unless you have a new argument.

I’ve asked the only question that needs asking in refuting the message - a question you answer not by validating the message, but by lionizing the messenger. If the message is valid because of the messenger, then it can be called into question because of the messenger.

Basic argumentation, dear boy. Now, tell me why I should believe unsubstantiated rumors on a fringe site like WND, and do so in a way that doesn’t contradict your complaints against the MSM or ask me to believe blindly in Jerome Corsi’s unfailing accuracy.

You want to out Corsi’s anonymous sources. I’m assuming you’ll hold newspapers to the same standard. Ha.

Larger point: I’m supposed to accept the daily barrage of “informed sources” and “high-level administration officials” quoted in news stories, but I can’t accept at face value a contention from the guy who co-wrote the 99.9% accurate Unfit for Command? Please.

My guess is that “Ohio Concerned Citizen” is the same person who submitted the docs to Strick eight years ago, but I really don’t care.

And then he summarily fails to detail what he’s verified and how - he’s just said it, over and over again. Again, what is his evidence? Is it the original letter? How did he verify it? Who gave him the information? How does he know it’s valid?

You wouldn’t take this level of obfuscation from the Cleveland Plain Dealer or Columbus Dispatch - why is it gospel from Jerome Corsi?

I have independently confirmed that Strickland was presented with at least the Washington County arrest records in the final phase of the 1998 campaign.

Does Corsi have a copy of the anonymous letter?

Even for a lefty she’s cute.