RobVG wrote:
"I'm far from ingorant you putz. It's quite clear to me that you reserched material that supported your suppositions. Heaven forbid someone take a broader view and arive at a conclusion different from yours.
Quit being such a pompastic sphincter. "
My statement:
" You would have to be ignorant or a bald-faced liar to claim there WAS something there. "
Was aimed at the Bush administration, Pentegon Intelligence, Rumsfeld and Powell. I never heard you claim (and don't rmember one way or the other) if you said terrorists were in Iraq.
When I do research, Rob, I *DO* research. I go out and find the best sources I can and come to the conclusions that the facts indicate, at least to me. I can be wrong, about my conclusions, but I DO try to avoid bias. And what I found out during my research was that, FOR SURE, unless the CIA had an ace up its sleeve, Terrorists in corroboration with Iraq was such a far leap that you would need a jetpack and running start.
But, since you are in such a rush to call me a sphincter:
what research did YOU do about terrorist links? Where is your data? Where are your sources? Rumsfeld and friends?
Whats that about only choosing the data based on your suppositions?
BTW, is pompastic even a word? And what is a Pompastic Sphincter? Is that like a Spastic Sphincter?
Davin L.
Current Events » in reply to Oh No! Davin thinks I'm wrong!
Yeesh!!! I wasn't calling YOU ignorant! Drink some Iced Tea!
The whole thread (35 posts)
- BBC: Failure to find Iraqi arms 'surprising'
- Re:search for BBC news
- RI guess ignoring the finds of the bioweapon labs will be now be rationalized.
- Don, this is becoming spam. Please avoid this topic unless you have something NEW to say.
- Re: I disagree.
- Spam?!?
- Re: Spam?!?
- Re: Spam?!?
- Re: Spam?!?
- Keep on keepin' on, Don n/t (n/t)
- You go, Don!
- nope
- Re: BBC: Failure to find Iraqi arms 'not' surprising . . .
