From: George Sherwood 

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:08:49 -0600, John Cuccia wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:03:08 -0500, George Sherwood
>  wrote:
>
>>Yes, clearing up.  I meant to say that two of the three stories had faded
>>and the third was fading. After reading again it did sound more like I had
>>said the third faded also.
>
> Whether or not you phrased your contention properly  is irrelevant.
> The fact is that your contention, in whatever tense, is wrong.
>
> A story's fading from public view in no way implies that it was untrue
> or that acts described did not happen. It merely means that the
> public, which as little appetite for stories more complicated than who
> will win the latest Survivor contest, has lost interest.  While that
> may bode well politically for Bush and the GOP, it doesn't in any way
> exonerate them, which is what you are claiming to be the case.
>
> War crimes are still criminal actions whether or not anyone cares.


Wrong according to who?  You?  You are entitled to that opinion.  But items
fade from the news for many reasons.  You have named, but one.  They fade
because there is no hard evidence of wrong doing.  Hence no case against
the people.  They fade because there is more to the story then is reported
and those on both sides don't want it to be exposed fully.  Your hate of
the Bush Administration leads you to only one conclusion, that crimes were
committed and it is only the lack of interest by the public that causes
these "crimes" to fade away.  I am only presenting another view
and you really are incorrect to say I am for sure wrong. As I would be to
say for sure you are wrong.

George

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