i caught you dishonestly paraphrasing, just take it like a man. i do it to everyone. learn your lesson and move on.
You'd like that, wouldn't you, SF? Well, you can just get that out of your head because you know it ain't gonna happen. Maybe you are one, sir, but I'm no quitter.:thumb: Hey martin, do you know what the phrase 'to the effect of' means? No? Ok, well it means that it's probably not exactly this, but the contents bear some resemblance of this. Perhaps I would be 'busted' (hahaha whatever) if I had outright sworn that to be the complete truth. Further, I have already admitted even after the fact that I was mistaken. If you had read the article instead of lying about reading it, you would understand the source of confusion. But no, instead of dissecting the issues, you'd rather sit there and accuse me of making stuff up. And that's ok with me, but you're always the one who starts crying and bellyaching when you think I'm diverting away from the issues and onto an individual. I know that it's all a part of a feeble attempt to discredit me, but the item that you are contesting is absolutely futile in relation to the argument. I would hope that more of a presidential daily breifing gets read than its title. Of course, with these bozos, I wouldn't be too sure. Now, why don't you just go back to your typical ways of disagreeing with everything that someone says just for the sake of disagreeing?
in your case it means "in the absence of research, i make things up to support my argument." taking shots at me isnt gonna help. i do my research. again, i called you out when you were making stuff up. take it like a man. if you dont want to believe i can read the first couple articles google gives me when i want to know about something, ok, but everyone else here knows i am borderline obsessed with stopping myths from spreading. 1. the real memo said "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US". that is vague. 2. you claimed bush had specific info, using this memo as evidence. you then made up a title for the memo that suited your purposes. this is the exact point i was arguing, that is ludicrous to think that bush knew in advance of the attack. dance around it all you like, but you made up title for the memo that was nothing like the actual memo, to support your claim that bush knew specifics. do things like that and i am gonna catch you pretty much every time. it is a hobby of mine to debunk things. i dont need to discredit you, your making stuff up does it just fine. plus your accusations that i havent read what i claim are the just the sort of usupportable personal shots you often resort to, and i expect from you. are you claiming bush didnt not read or was not told the info in theis briefing? here read the exact memo: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html so tell me, where does the memo tell bush the specifics? what exactly should he have done?
Again, you fail to see the point. That memo was not the only source of prior intelligence that indicated a major attack. But stick to, if it helps. I know that it's your only leg to stand on right now. Learn what 'making stuff up' means, and then come talk to me. If you can accuse me of doing that, I can call you a liar. Now go read the article. Perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of us where I made the claim that the memo was the sole shread of pre-intelligence. I used the memo as an example, not the be-all-end-all of terror warnings. Get that through your head. No, me having a different outlook on politics from nearly everyone here does that. You carrying on and on and on and on and on about me 'making stuff up' (a term whose meaning with you are still obviously completely baffled by) is a weak and pathetic attempt to divert from the issue at hand. Neither. My point, since I have to spell it out for you, was that what good is it to sit her and bicker about the exact title when the content of it, along with other tidbits of information he recieved, pretty much relayed the same idea? Hopefully, W doesn't get all of his information from the titles of his PDB's. Now, would you like to sit here and keep bitching and moaning about my mistaken memo title, or would you like to actually try and defend your stance that they had absolutely no idea that the attacks were coming? This particular PDB only had such a big to-do made about it because it was once classified information. There is loads of other evidence. But if it makes you feel vindicated, keep harping on about the title of the memo. I know how you like to stray from the subject and split hairs.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since I know you're going to ask, here is a host of others:[/font] http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html Notably... [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font] [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]
grow up man, the article corrected you, not me. get over it. jibberish. i never said you made any such claim. you are babbling. ok, so where is this "evidence"? shhh, , i am asking you about the issue at hand. pay attention. here is the issue again. besides the memo you "mistakenly" misrepresented, why else would you think bush had prior specific knowledge of sept 11? (if you do in fact think that, do you?) just to be clear: 1. are you asserting that bush had specific prior knowledge of sept 11? and if so, how? 2. what do you think should have been done differently by bush to prevent the attacks? what knowledge did bush have that could have prevented sept 11? are you even saying anything specific at all?
can you even read this article after the first paragraph? it is a subscription archive. i cant read it. post the rest of it, so i can see what you are talking about.
i have mantioned before that the "loose change" video makes me very angry. anyways, here are some refutations of it, not that any adult should need any. http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/videos.html
