| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#5
May 29th 04, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
