These guys said 'this happened' and the rest is hearsay.
There's nothing that really supports this... certainly less than there is for Enron, and we know how flimsy that case is from the other thread.
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The same can be said of Gennifer Flowers and Whitewater.
Only this is actully serious.
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, and a cartoon for discussion purposes is hardly presenting evidence.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
i was not trying to be malicious to other branches of the military. i'm just saying that because the air force was the first branch to be involved in Desert Storm and later, Desert Fox. the ground war came later. And i'm saying that they shoulda blown Saddam into little tiny bits. just like they're doing in Afghanistan.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Asking for evidence of unsubstantiated claims is a typical response from First o' Two? You'd think that such a thing would be a smart thing to do.
At least with the Clinton debacle there was evidence- the fact that Congress waffled on it doesn't change that. This little report doesn't have any except that two french guys said so. Give it up.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
You wouldn't know evidence if it slapped you in the face. Always that dismissive attitude...
You think these "two french guys" pulled the whole story out of their ass. Sorry, that is just a liiiittle bit too unlikely for my taste, what with Bush having been bought into the WH by Big Oil et all. I am rather sure their sources are somewhat more reputable than those of the average Jean-Luc. It'd be illogical (to coin a phrase) for them to jeopardise their careers - and make total fools of themselves - by producing phony information, don't ya think?
It's often the independent foreign researchers who manage to turn up the truth in an investigation.
Hmm... this road looks awfully familiar. Could it be we've been down it before?
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
These two French writers claim that the second-in-command at the FBI told them this in an direct quote:
quote: ...the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.
And Rob claims that is hearsay? Sounds an awfull lot like a journalist quoting a source to me.
It's a pretty scandalous charge. One that should be looked at in greater depth.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
No, you're not supposing that. You're supposing he said what the French journalists say he said. Perhaps it's true, perhaps not. People can say other people said lots of things, without being truthful, if there's something in it for them (like a lucrative book deal).
Remember the respected journalist who ghostwrote Howard Hughes's autobiography? Remember the Hitler Diaries? Remember "Go Ask Alice?" Remember back when the "Weekly World News" was still pretending to be real?
[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Rob, people might listen to your arguements more if you didn't go around insulting the population of a whole country to undermine two people. It reeks of a certain desperation to attack something for which you have no other weapon to do so.
Using your logic, I could debase your arguements by arguing that anyone who lived at home until age thirty doesn't deserve to be listened to.
And since your whole arguement seems to be "the French aren't trustworthy, and the darn liberal media certainly isn't!" it is thus promptly ignored.
Thank you for playing.
[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
posted
You were right about the froggies... don't know why I said that. My mind was elsewhere, I guess.
However, use of an unpopular word does not invalidate the rest of the argument, depite what the PC brainscrubbers have told you.
Everybody spins. Some folks fib.
I've seen enough "the untold story" and "top censored stories" and "what the papers didn't tell you" stories to know that the media can fib just as well as anybody else.
I know of people who have falsified stories, quotes, and data to get THEIR stories told, from regular folks all the way up to best-selling 'expose' authors. I know of stories that 'everyone' accepts as true that aren't. Like the 'high number' of incidents of tampered-with candy on Halloween.
Verify, then return. I never take the word of ONE man. (Or in this case, one team).
[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:However, use of an unpopular word does not invalidate the rest of the argument, depite what the PC brainscrubbers have told you.
I didn't realize PC brainscrubbers were the ones that implanted the idea that insulting a person (by calling them 'froggies', or how long they lived at home) wasn't a way to win a debate. Wow. I guess they got to you?
posted
God to you eh? In the form of a white dove or a whisper on the wind. Or, did He send a flesh and blood person to talk to you like the former number 2 guy at the FBI?
My guess is that if we read the book, one would find some supporting evidence...not that you missed that part of my first post stating that no one here had read the book. If you notice, when I wrote I called the charges allegations or something of that sort.
I bring up these charges for discussion, not saying it was true or not. I do, however, think it's important for a person who made character such a big issue during the last election to have his actions while in office held up to scrutiny.
Obstruction of an FBI investigation sounds like a pretty serious charge for someone to make about Mr. Bush in a public forum. I can't think of many journalists here at the Times who would go public for the short term goal of selling a book and ruining their reputaion and future forever in process. I guess for you, it's just easier to call them liars and be done with it.
Still, if you think it's effective just to call the French guys liars, cause that's an effective way not to deal with the issue, then by all means Fo2, let's do that. Oh, what evidence do you base that on? Just cause you're so hip and media savy?
You don't know if the writers lied or if their charge is true...you won't admit that...but the one sure thing is you don't care to find out or dicuss the possibility of it being true.
It's a comforting thought that the idea of Mr. Bush obstructing a ciminal investigation doesn't bother any of our right-wingers at all.
[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
