From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Mark wrote:
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:435995bc{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>Bush knew a lot of this to begin with, hence the lying part...  I know you
>>don't agree, but you know I don't agree with you about it either.
>
>
> That's more pure conjecture, and you know it.
>

As was the entire Iraqi invasion. Conjectured WMD passed off as real,
conjectured happy Iraqis dropping flowers in the path of the troops,
conjectured link with Al Qaeda etc.

& I am sure they knew a lot of it was conjecture & yet they passed them
off as "facts".



>
>>We really ought to just can discussions like this as none of us are going
>>to change anyone else's mind.
>
>
> Can't argue with that, I could be lying, but I think I mostly enter these
> threads after a new post is entered falsely claiming (yet again, with the
> same lack of evidence) that Bush is lying -- when those false claims stop
> coming, my refutation won't be necessary.
>

So which is it the Mark, lying or incompetant? It has to be one of the 2.
Are you therefore siding with those who say that Bush is simply
incompetant?



>
>>You choose to trust Bush, fine, that's okay, but at least understand why we
>>might not.
>
>
> Trusting in his doctrine and his implementation of same is one thing,
> certainly I can understand a pacifist not wanting to go along with that --
> but to then take it out to the illogical conclusion along the lines of:
> "well, he's a war mongering chimp and he lies besides" in
effort to refute
> that doctrine is, quite simply nonsensical.
>
> If you think the world would be better off with Saddam in power, that we
> should just roll over and not "stir things up" in the world,
just say so,
> don't try to undermine our foreign policy by interjecting the
"Bush lied"
> pomposity at every turn (and yes, Bob, I know you're not a primary offender
> in that regard)
>

ROFLAMO this from people who's main thing against CLinton was "Clinton
lied".

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5