Reply With Quote
Scottie says he's willing to testify, and the White House doesn't share your eagerness to see him take the stand.
pretty good, but you left out some personal "pocket lining" events.
500,000 missing weapons
and
9 billion dollars in cash!
Scottie says he's willing to testify, and the White House doesn't share your eagerness to see him take the stand.
Yes, let's see how he testifies under oath. With what I heard on the Neal Boortz show, it appears the book is a fabrication, rather some truth twisted.
99% of the attacks are on McClellan, not on what he says, for which the WH/Repugs/neo- s have no defense and nothing to say.
Perino was answering a direct question.
Seems pretty ambivalent to me.
You know, McClellan had this book reviewed by the White House before it was published, so trying to argue about the veracity of the content now is pretty silly.
neal boortz
She's out of the loop!
I think Perino is kind of hot.
Are you high again? The review is a formality for screening of confidential content. Not if they agree or disagree.
The White House cannot stop a book from being published because they don't like the content. As long as secrets are not disclosed, I don't think they can do very mush.
Imagine the fallout if they were to supress someones first amendment rights!
The point is they knew the content and have known the content for some time. If they really had any problem with the facts, they could have said exactly what they thought was wrong and why in the press even before the book was published.
Why didn't they do that?
It has been brought up at least a week ago on talk radio, I don't recall which show or exactly when, but this is already old news to those of us who listen to more than just the liberal mainstream media.
Why didn't they do that?
So why didn't they?
What are you asking me?
Are you asking me why the leftist mainstream media didn't report the concerns?
Duh... the are biased...
No I'm asking you why the White House didn't deal with the assertions of the book earlier.
Since your media sources were all over it, you should already know.
Deal with what. Allegations that to acknowledge them might legitimize them in many peoples eyes? It's a no win scenario. That's my best guess.
No, there were early leaks of the material at least a week ago. Speculation is not fact. I only know the basic content was known. I also know the integrity of the publisher is close to zero and that they edited McClellan's draft. I can make an educated guess that McCellan's draft was approved, then when it was altered by the publisher became fiction. I'm confident history will see it as such. Of course, I could be wrong. Only time will tell.
Please stop snooping for positive answers. You know I don't have them. At least I hope you are not stupid enough to think I have definitive answers on this.
Prove it. Not by posting some talking head innuendo.
Prove it.
I know you don't have answers. I don't understand why you keep pretending like you do.Please stop snooping for positive answers. You know I don't have them. At least I hope you are not stupid enough to think I have definitive answers on this.
It would be hard to convince you and others. You are hard headed. I don't care if you believe me or not. Not worth my time. History will tell.
Please notice that I do try to distinguish between facts and opinions by the words I use.
Would you agree o disagree I do better than most at that?
So you're saying talking head innuendo is all you have.
Understood.
You have notable lapses.Please notice that I do try to distinguish between facts and opinions by the words I use.
Would you agree o disagree I do better than most at that?
OK, we can go as far as calling it dogma if you like. I take a certain faith in the matter. You are right, I don't know it as 100% fact. However, I have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
It would take me too much time to explain how I derrived my conclusion, and source the material to make it worth my time.
Again, history will tell. I trust I am on the right side of the future's history.
We all have opinions. I acknowledge that as yours.
You still didn't answer a simple question as to weather or not my attempt to distinguish between fact and opinion is better than most others.
Will it hurt that much to agree?
You have a habit of claiming to spend a lot of time researching something then stating it isn't worth your time to explain your research. It's much easier to dismiss your assertions when you do this.
Since your lapses are so notable, I have to say your record is mixed.We all have opinions. I acknowledge that as yours.
You still didn't answer a simple question as to weather or not my attempt to distinguish between fact and opinion is better than most others. You don't lie all the time like Yonivore, so you got that going for you.
Will it hurt that much to agree?
You don't lie all the time like Yonivore, so you got that going for you....
Some things are of more interest to me than others. That's all it is. This item has little interest to me other than giving my position. I'm not going to go out of my way to defend president Bush. As much as I like some of his actions, I dispise others.
Well, you just spent half an hour telling us it's not worth your time....
It's not that much time while mul asking. Researching links, or other material takes seroius time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
