henchman wrote on Mon, 04 July 2005 00:40 |
sixtiksix wrote on Sun, 03 July 2005 15:26 |
Bush lied....hmmm...don't know about that one still..nice for a fresh perspective though...no sense getting in a rut...
|
Really? Do you choose to ignore facts when they don't fit your opinion?
Also, explain. You stayed?
You either moved there or you are german. Which is it?
|
German? well, you're obviously not reading the thread hench. Or you don't have time to take in what I wrote and only want to argue.
And by rut I mean, you say he lied. And I don't think the proof is there.
I think it is clear that it was a blunder.
And since I don't think he is even qualified to be there I am not suprised....it doesn't mean I have to buy into sensationalist propaganda without a shred of evidence.
Lot's of good men died at Point du Hoc. THERE WERE NO GUNS THERE!!!!
Does that mean Roosevelt lied?
The WTC was totally destroyed because our Intel was asleep at the switch, instead of waking up we continued in our arrogance and blew the WMD thing as well.
By lying I assume you mean he knew there were no weapons in say February?
I guess everyone in the government was in on it to? All our boys dressed in Chem gear in 90 degree heat....
That's what I mean by a rut...there's no evidence he lied?
Do you think he would still be here?
Face it...you're stating a cynical argument of epic proportion.
It means Colin Powell willfully lied to the U.N.
It means all the top generals and naturally everyone involved in our government lied....
Furthermore it's a juvenile argument that presupposes that the president gets an idea and acts unilaterally like Hitler....without the knowledge or support of the congress, that none of the Generals who went in on the ground or the air had access to the "real" intelligence
Why did the congressman apologize to president Bush in tears last week after making statement comparing Gitmo to a gulag?
Lemme nough