"It is worth noting that the outlandish claim of an Israeli link to 9/11 was NOT made by any of the Democratic congressmen nor any of the witnesses."
That was described thusly in my post At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations It would help understanding if folks read and parsed the post before reacting.
"Sure, it would have been better if they'd had more control of the crowd and didn't let anyone pass their own leaflets around, but it was NOT part of the official hearing."
Sure woulda.
"If you're going to tar Conyers et al with those 9/11 claims..."
And please cite where I did so. Strawman again.
"As for McGovern's comments, I disagree with his comments and his tone, but sure it's not anti-Semetic to suggest that support for Israel has something to do with our middle east policy."
Where did I say so re McGov? The a-S comments were directed at the crowd supporting the hearings who were making the cited 911 claims.
Current Events » in reply to Officials vs interlopers
re: Officials vs interlopers
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Words of "impeachment" surface
- More sillyness. The votes are simply NOT there.
- re: Words of "impeachment" surface by anti-semites
- Drivel. There are absolutely NO GROUNDS for impeachment. (n/t)
- Geez, where have you been?
