Should we get Stone?

Perhaps we should offer here a few words about Roger Stone, alleged by some as the Republican dirty trickster who set-up Burkett as a patsy. The rumors were first published, some five days ago, in the New York Post.

Stone is worth looking into, of course -- he has a long history as a GOP dirty trickster particularly unburdened by ethics. And he and Rather have a history that goes back to Watergate. Even so, right now I have doubts that he is involved.

Why? Because when Rupert Murdoch's propaganda-sheet Post tells the world "Hey, Democrats -- look over here!" -- you can be pretty sure that the truth is in another direction.

Even so, I feel persuaded that someone played Burkett. A psychological profile of Burkett (and folks with intel backgrounds have long been big on developing these profiles -- hence the break-in to the office of Ellsberg's shrink) would have allowed the planners to guess with reasonable accuracy how he would have reacted to manipulation.

A final word about the Post. At the time of their infamous "Axis of Weasles" cover (the one that showed weasle heads pasted over the German and French U.N. delegates), I told associates that the paper had been reduced to the level of Naxi propaganda. This comment may have been unfair to Nazi propagandists. Can anyone recall if any issue of Volkischer Beobachter resorted to such a tactic?