Bryan Posted February 25, 2007 Report Share Posted February 25, 2007 Anonymous "Guest" with voluminous post receives "three strikes" rule. "Let's review a significant comment I ended with, first: I'd love to see you post other than anonymously and defend your misleading and (frankly) idiotic use of the data. I'm sure I'll be kept waiting." -Bryan- You must be *DYING* to know who "Curveball" is then. Idiotic data indeed. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29 "Curveball was the designation for a claimed 'Iraqi chemical engineer' who the United States claimed had served as an informant. Curveball would be the attributed source of pivotal information concerning weapons of mass destruction leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq." *** Non sequitur. Strike one. "Guest avoids the truth of the matter, that the 9-11 attacks were mostly planned under Clinton's watch (as well as the Cole attack), focuses entirely on Bush's supposed inaction leading up to 9-11. Bush was planning a more comprehensive answer to terrorism on the part of the government." -Bryan- I'm just asking you to list what Bush in his infinite wisdom put into action against terrorism between Jan 2001 and Sep 2001. As a good American I should just take on faith whatever he was "planning" whilst taking August 2001 off? "Guest" again avoids the truth of the matter mentioned above. Apparently a Bush who does little against terrorism is an awful president, but Slick Willie is still a saint. Double standard appears intact. Strike two. It was *Clinton's* fault that Bush did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to counter terrorism in his first nine months and decided to take August off prior to 9/11 despite a PDB that said "Bin Laden determined to strike US." I see... Thanks. It's very easy now to take a warning and say that it is significant, but the intelligence services intercept huge amounts of such information, then work to separate what means something from that which means nothing. - Fever Swamp tactic? "Guest" brought up intelligence warnings. I brought up the volume of intelligence warnings. If intelligence warnings are on-topic then the volume of intelligence warnings is also on-topic. Strike three. You're out. Thanks for wasting my time with your utter ineptitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 Wow. I misunderstood Bryan until I reviewed the previous post. Bryan is actually a genius in the way he can hold opposing viewpoints and turn it into an artform, not unlike Picasso. The surreal picture painted through masterful use of rhetorical gerrymandering is reminiscent of Dali. I applaud your efforts and salute you, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.