My concern about reports of Dr. Mansour’s possible help for Obama isn’t whether it is true but whether it is relevant.

The relevance is a second order problem. The first order problem is whether the incident is true. And the story was introduced in a context that was intended to be flattering to BHO by persons who are his admirers, as will be evident from the video. So the intent of those who introduced the subject into the public domain was to suggest that the Mansour incident was both true and relevant. It is not as if someone went dumpster diving to steal Obama’s childhood records or spied on him. No. The entire thing was recounted and raised by his admirers. That being the case, it hardly seems fair to object to discussing a subject they themselves have raised on the grounds of irrelevancy or untruth.

Fundamental equity requires that it cuts both ways. If a man’s supporters boast of something, why is it unfair to take their statements at their word? You will note that I was initially disinclined to believe Sutton, or maybe misgive his memory on account of his age, but was forced grudgingly to acknowledge from other web discoveries that Dr. al-Mansour was real.

But then we still haven’t established the facts very clearly. We don’t even know whether the Dr. Mansour described by Sutton is the Dr. Mansour web searches suggest. Maybe we can settle that first.