Zeke Zzzzpt wrote:

RHF wrote:

Your lack of factualality causes you to make False and misleading
points.

Huh? A DIRECT word-for-word quote from the front page of the Wall
Street Journal is a lack of factuality? And what was false and misleading?

a) Direct quote from WSJ said "unsafe as 9/10/2001"

b) I said wars went on for 6 years (Afghanistan+Iraq). True fact!

c) I said the total cost so far was about half a trillion. True Fact!

d) I then asked a legitimate question of why they felt we were "unsafe"
after all that time and money.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what can be more factual than that, nor do I
see what is "false or misleading" about any of the statements I made.
Please be SPECIFIC in which statement(s) of mine you believe are "false
or misleading".

Also, even though the WSJ was my *secondary* source, I hope you can now
see why I mentioned it; unless you have an actual recording of a radio
broadcast, it can be difficult to remember exactly what was said. If you
have a secondary source in *print* (from a conservative, right-wing
source no less), it can go a long way towards removing confusion (except
in your case, where it seems to be causing confusion).

- There were TWO stories on BBC. The FIRST story
- (that I heard and quoted) and then the SECOND story
- of Bush's denial that you quoted.

But the first was not a American Bashing Story
- - - Which is what you tried to turn it in to.

I didn't try and "turn it" into anything. Just a direct quote from a
conservative, right wing source, which in turn lead to a fair,
reasonable and perfectly justified question--namely, after all this time
and all this money, why are we still at 9/10/01?

Much better to be 9/10/01 than at 9/11/01 any way one slices, dices, spindles
and/or mutilates it.

Think about it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA