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

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:11:42 +0100, Adam wrote:
>
>
>> Ah George. Somehow your technical rather than human background betrays
>> you.
>
> Even better if a human person doesn't come up with a scenario that he
> wants and then keeps pushing it without any evidence.  This is all you are
> doing.  You are creating a logic track that comes to your conclusion even
> with no facts other then speculation.  Even the investigator of the leak,
> says the President wasn't involved, yet you persist.  Sometimes you have
> to decide when you are pushing to hard for a conclusion that you want
> to find.
>

A clear party political abuse of the declassification system.

That much is plain & clear to all. If the President's case was so good,
why then did they need to resort to this? They could have argued
sucessfully simply based on their sucess.


> I can find the most logical sequence of steps and the conclusion can still
> be false.  Your steps you have laid out are logical and could be true, but
> there is no evidence.
>

There is smoke. If the wind blows & the ground is dry....

Here you have "Bushie's" great texan mate "delayee"
(Tomeeee?) certainly "losing power" & possibly "his
liberty".

That sort of thing can dry out the ground.

Lots of other similar problems & Bush is going to have to get used to
people "re-examining" his record (possibly while he's still in
the job). That's quite a change from the "War president".

BTW if he's the "War President" then does the war end when he
bimbles back to texas?

Adam

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