"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "T. Early"

That's entirely predictable. They will ignore any facts, and point
out the Weekly Standard is published by "neocons." FWIW, Stephen
Hayes, the author, has a book coming out on the same topic that
will
provide further info on the connection.

Uh, gee, weren't you one of the folks deriding anyone who's trying
to sell a
book with anti-Bush words as nonobjective? So when Hayes writes an
article to
promote his upcoming book that's just further verification?

Not that it matters, but I wasn't--provided there are supportable
facts in the book. There are anti-Bush -opinions- in books and there
are anti-Bush -facts- in books. The source is relevant to the former
but not the latter, assuming the facts can be substantiated.
Unfortunately for the professional Bush bashers, their tomes tend to
be long on opinion and short on facts--much like a lot of the
anti-Bush rhetoric here.


Consistency seems to be something you've forgotten about. But,
please, don't be
too offended by that "ruthless" insult on my part.....


Well, I didn't get involved in that whole "ruthless" discussion, but
don't let that stop you. I don't find you to be "ruthless." I find
you to be factually-challenged. Among other gaffes, I'm still waiting
to hear you support your claim that the London think tank that you
referred to in a post was regarded as right wing and a possible CIA
operation. I questioned it at the time, but it seems that you
"forget" to respond when inquiries like that come up.