On the theory that any response is better than no response at all:
I’ll accept both ‘inadequate’ and ‘incomplete’, if only because, as I said in the piece, it is almost impossible to be encyclopaedic on the subject of the Clintons.
Regarding Clinton Cash, you’ll note that I did not include as points those aspects of the book/documentary — the uranium issue, for example — that have been convincingly refuted.
I am aware of the author’s political affiliations and his employment history; had I predicated my argument on his standing as an impartial and entirely impeccable source your rebuttal might have carried more weight. But as I didn’t. it doesn’t.
Pointing out his record as a Republican ‘operative’ is not itself an argument against his position; accusing him of hypocrisy (which seems to be the preferred refrain of that Media Matters dissection) only invites us to put the blame on the Bush administration as well — and I am more than happy to oblige — for its amicable relationship with the likes of the Kazakh and Rwandan regimes; it does not excuse the Clintons involvement with the same.
You’ll also note that the documentary informs only part of one section of my argument. It is not the source of my claims regarding Mark Rich, Norman Hsu or Tony Rodham (about both whom I have written elsewhere), nor any of the preceding sections covering domestic and foreign policy.
I could, for the sake of argument, accept the claim that ‘the reality is in the middle somewhere’. However, given the scale of the corruption and unpleasantness with which Ms. Clinton is involved, a half truth is half too much.
Her political career is, like her husband’s, evidence only of the folly of trusting her word and her commitment to the platform. It is a record of triangulation; of making promises to the Left and delivering to the Right. If you’d be happy with any candidate so long as they ran on the Democratic ticket that’s your problem and not mine.