posted October 13, 2007 10:02 PM            

I don't understand. If Bill wanted to make such a comparison, why didn't he go for something like the My Lai massacre? Here's a very brief photo history of it for those interested, just a couple of minutes long (TIP: mute it, the music is friggin' annoying!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BsOysRpNbY

Even if Bill had been correct, this is far more heinous. And to think only one was convicted but was immediately pardoned, IIRC (in comparison, the Manson family, on trial at about the same time, got much harsher treatment by the legal system).

Wouldn't this have worked better for him and the point he was trying to make anyway?

Given that the My Lai massacre happened over 10 years before I was born and I know about it anyway, surely Bill knows about it, given that he was an adult when it happened (let alone when it was exposed, went to trial, etc).

The more conspiratorial part of me is wondering if Bill intentionally messed up just to create a stir which leads to further distractions. Though, like many conspiracy theorists, I'm probably just trying to make sense out of that which makes no sense.

Still, what was Bill trying to do? Wouldn't the My Lai massacre have worked better for him (even if he'd been right about the massacre he was wrong about)?

I'm just trying to understand, though that's a bad habit I'm trying to break.