So sorry that at least one poster does not seem to like it when a conspiracy theory is pointed out.

Which part do you not accept--that the Scheunemann theory is a conspiracy or that it is a theory?

Also, the idea that any half-baked idea must be refuted by the target is totally absurd.

The idea that Scheunemann was part of a cabal that allegedly engineered the war in Georgia-- (Georgia's attempt to end South Ossetia's de facto independence)-- has as much validity as the idea that Obama is a closet Moslem.

In each case there is precisely zero evidence to support the theory.

The burden in a theory with zero evidence is on the person who puts forward that theory---and not on the target to refute it.

If Mudcatters don't understand that elementary bit of logic, there is no point in any reasonable person trying to discuss a political topic.

And if you do in fact think there is evidence to support the columnist's Scheunemann theory, you are yet again cordially invited to reveal that evidence. In all honesty I would be happy to see it.