Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: assimilate on 17 Dec 2009 23:03 On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > Doesn't have to be a lie to be under false pretenses. yes because it implies deception, -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 17 Dec 2009 23:06 On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> The point you wingnuts keep missing is that the "bad intelligence" > >> Bush acted on came from Bush/Cheney/Wulfowitz, not from the CIA. > > > > more BS > > Bill, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to > your own facts. and you can spread that bull on bread and make it a sandwich, but that doesn't turn it into "fact." -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 17 Dec 2009 23:09 On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > There has been considerable reporting about the stovepiping > of intel through Cheney's office. I want to be precise about > this, though: *Cheney's* office. >But the links between Cheney and the doctored intel are >documented and proved. where? -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 17 Dec 2009 23:11 On 17-Dec-2009, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > you read too much Cy Hirsch > > What was he wrong about, specifically? just about everything -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 17 Dec 2009 23:12
On 17-Dec-2009, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > what udder cow dung > > It isn't. > > The record bears it out and you should know it. That just not true, and if you really were after the "facts" you wouldn't be swallowing the anti-Bush spin -- bill-o |