No end in sight

[Bryan]

Ok Bryan,

We are at an impasse. I don't believe all the bullshit about Iraq.

You don't have an answer for it. This stuff was in the news all along and you just ignored it. You've called Bush a liar repeatedly based on media lies and your own biased interpretations.

I think it was wrong and illegal.

And what pizza topping is your favorite?

You can't back up your opinion with facts, Keith.

As is your right you believe the bullshit and think we are totally justified.

Totally justified? I don't pretend to know that, but I suppose that can't stop you from making it up and stating it as if it's true (just like your lies about Bush supposedly lying).

Hussein left the U.S. with little choice. The Democrats have played the situation for maximal political advantage, with little regard for the truth. You can count yourself among their number if you wish.

Fine. I can live with that. Will you just answer one simple qustion for me. May I have my recruiter friend give you a call?

Sure. Tell him to give me a call.

They would be happy to have you.

Meh. You still won't put up or shut up.

[Bryan]

Bryan, I don't know where you get your information from although I see that some of the sights you reference are from the right wing blogs.

So apparently you do know where I get my information (except you took the Weekly Standard as a blog when it wasn't and turned whole thing plural). Or perhaps you think that journalist Christopher Hitchens (a liberal who supports the war) is a blogger.

But if you're truly interested here is the chain of events.

The decision to send someone to Niger came as a result of a question VP Cheney asked at a briefing.

He didn't ask the CIA to send anyone, they made that decision on their own. Since Valerie Plame worked in the counter nuclear proliferation section of the CIA (a covert section), her supervisor asked her if her husband would be willing to go to Niger and investigate the British Claim (now proven to be false) that Sadaam was attempting to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. At no time did she ever bring his name up in conversation prior to his being selected.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Courtesy of the right-wing bloggers at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html

Since he had been an ambassador and was familiar with the region he volunteered to go. When he returned he made it perfectly clear that no one in Iraq had asked for or made arrangements to purchase this from Niger.

... and in so doing he lied.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...er=emailarticle

He did however, reference some sort of conex containers that he had seen while there. This information was turned over to the Navy for investigation but nrver followed through on.

The whole matter would have been over had it not been for the famous State of the Union Address. It wasn't too long after that when he wrote his article.

Joe Wilson's trip to Niger had nothing to do with the content of the SoTU speech, except that his debriefing lent some support to the president's statement that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium in Africa.

Do I need to spell it out for you?

When Cheney read his op-ed is where the problem began. NO one in the White House ever asked, requested or approved sending Wilson.

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/...ec0&ei=5007

I wonder why the CIA would mention Cheney to Wilson at all. Is that information Wilson would need in order to do the job?

Again, he was sent because the VP asked a question. What happened after that is as with anyone who disagrees with this administration they set out to destroy Wilsons credibility, but in the course of this, outed his wife.

Wilson destroyed his own credibility. The amazing thing is that it isn't obvious to everybody.

You can read the whole story by reading the United States v I. Lewis Libby. The book is the actual trial using the transcripts of the people involved and are not altered. They are the actual transcripts. And you will clearly see why Libby was found guilty.

If the transcripts were not edited for length, then the book is probably not very interesting on the whole.

What you got, I suspect, was the Murray Waas edit.

Now with regards to the aluminum tubes. Sadaams son was in charge of purchasing the tubes to be made into convential rockets, not nuclear ones. The problem was that when Sadaam asked for something, the Government always purchased more than was needed because he had been known to kill people for not providing what he wanted so better to have to much than not enough. The problem was, the Iraqi scientists could not get the fuel mixture correct because his son purchased the wrong sized tubes. ( he was paid a bribe to buy them). Of course all of this should have been known to Colin Powell before he gave his speech to the Un but by that time the decision to invade had already been made.

Is that in the Libby book also?

Feel free to offer a citation.

NOw as far as knowing how many people suffered as a result of her outing, we don't know. But I would suspect there were several. I hope that you will read the book I mentioned. You will lear(n) more from that one book than any blog.

... or from news reports, transcripts and professional analysis combined no doubt.

[Guest Ketih-Marshall,Mo]

You don't have an answer for it. This stuff was in the news all along and you just ignored it. You've called Bush a liar repeatedly based on media lies and your own biased interpretations.

And what pizza topping is your favorite?

You can't back up your opinion with facts, Keith.

Totally justified? I don't pretend to know that, but I suppose that can't stop you from making it up and stating it as if it's true (just like your lies about Bush supposedly lying).

Hussein left the U.S. with little choice. The Democrats have played the situation for maximal political advantage, with little regard for the truth. You can count yourself among their number if you wish.

Sure. Tell him to give me a call.

Meh. You still won't put up or shut up.

I will take Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's word before I would anything from the white house. Give me your number and I'll hare him call you. The marines ok with you?

[Guest Guest]

I will take Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's word before I would anything from the white house. Give me your number and I'll hare him call you. The marines ok with you?

Huh ??

[Bryan]

I will take Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's word before I would anything from the white house. Give me your number and I'll hare him call you. The marines ok with you?

Huh. You tell me that you have one simple question, I answer that and next thing I know you're asking for my phone number and adding yet another question. I guess you lied about just having one simple question.

Pretty funny that you've been calling Bush a liar on imagined evidence and you'll believe Lyin' Joe Wilson instead. Did you read the report produced by the Senate investigation at all? It blasted Wilson for lying (in an addendum by Pat Roberts).

See pages 443, 444, 445

Meh. What would you care? You made up your mind long ago. Evidence isn't going to matter to you.

[Guest Keith]

Huh. You tell me that you have one simple question, I answer that and next thing I know you're asking for my phone number and adding yet another question. I guess you lied about just having one simple question.

Pretty funny that you've been calling Bush a liar on imagined evidence and you'll believe Lyin' Joe Wilson instead. Did you read the report produced by the Senate investigation at all? It blasted Wilson for lying (in an addendum by Pat Roberts).

See pages 443, 444, 445

Meh. What would you care? You made up your mind long ago. Evidence isn't going to matter to you.

Like I said we are at an impasse. Give me your phone # and I'll have a Marine recruiter call you. Simple as that.

[Bryan]

Huh. You tell me that you have one simple question, I answer that and next thing I know you're asking for my phone number and adding yet another question. I guess you lied about just having one simple question.

Pretty funny that you've been calling Bush a liar on imagined evidence and you'll believe Lyin' Joe Wilson instead. Did you read the report produced by the Senate investigation at all? It blasted Wilson for lying (in an addendum by Pat Roberts).

See pages 443, 444, 445

Meh. What would you care? You made up your mind long ago. Evidence isn't going to matter to you.

Like I said we are at an impasse.

That's what happens when somebody (such as yourself) isn't open to the evidence.

Give me your phone # and I'll have a Marine recruiter call you. Simple as that.

Thus revising your earlier (lying?) account of the simplicity involved?

Your next post will probably try to change the subject too, won't it? Don't worry. You can just blame it on the impasse.

[Guest Keith]

Like I said we are at an impasse.

That's what happens when somebody (such as yourself) isn't open to the evidence.

Thus revising your earlier (lying?) account of the simplicity involved?

Your next post will probably try to change the subject too, won't it? Don't worry. You can just blame it on the impasse.

My point has always been that if you support the war so much then you should join the military and get after it. Who's changing the subject now?

[Guest Guest]

That's what happens when somebody (such as yourself) isn't open to the evidence.

No, that's what happens when a chicken hawk like you is all for a war as long as someone else fights it.

So in addition to everything else, you're a hypocrite and a coward.

[Bryan]

No, that's what happens when a chicken hawk like you is all for a war as long as someone else fights it.

So in addition to everything else, you're a hypocrite and a coward.

Look how far we've come from Bush is a liar.

[Bryan]

My point has always been that if you support the war so much then you should join the military and get after it. Who's changing the subject now?

You are, unless we're to suppose that your every post has the above as its point.

We could talk about the weather in Antarctica and as soon as you flub up you'll be back to recruiting, telling me that's been your point all along. You're pathetic.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82333

[Guest Keith]

You are, unless we're to suppose that your every post has the above as its point.

We could talk about the weather in Antarctica and as soon as you flub up you'll be back to recruiting, telling me that's been your point all along. You're pathetic.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82333

It's definately ironic that the only thing you are actually an expert on is the subject of the pathetic. Unfortunately you just have to look in the mirror. You are a small and spineless wonder. You beat the drums of war as if it were some sort of quasi masturbatory spasm. You love it at distance. Perhaps only as a voyeur but never truly wanting to be involved. Involvement is for others. The only way that I could ever be bothered by your calling me pathetic would be to have even a micron of respect for your opinion. Pathetic Bryan? Pathetic indeed. Semper Fi, coward.

[Guest Truth Squad]

Look how far we've come from Bush is a liar.

Bush is a liar. And you're a coward and a hypocrite. And not much at logic either.

[Bryan]

It's definately ironic that the only thing you are actually an expert on is the subject of the pathetic. Unfortunately you just have to look in the mirror. You are a small and spineless wonder. You beat the drums of war as if it were some sort of quasi masturbatory spasm. You love it at distance. Perhaps only as a voyeur but never truly wanting to be involved. Involvement is for others. The only way that I could ever be bothered by your calling me pathetic would be to have even a micron of respect for your opinion. Pathetic Bryan? Pathetic indeed. Semper Fi, coward.

Another priceless evasion. Sweet.

Bush is a liar. And you're a coward and a hypocrite. And not much at logic either.

If you could provide a concrete example for any of your four groundless assertions that would be a start.

[Guest Guest]

If you could provide a concrete example for any of your four groundless assertions that would be a start.

I picked the simplest lie I could find. After all, the fewer words, the less ammo for your semantic nonsense.

Bush's Lie: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. President Bush (09/01/05)"

The Facts: "The White House situation room received a report at 1:47 a.m. the day Katrina hit, predicting that Katrina would likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching. Two days before Katrina hit FEMA predicted that Hurricane Katrina could be worse than Hurricane Pam. [MSNBC 1/24/06]"

Also: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/0...bush_resume.pdf

[Guest Keith]

I picked the simplest lie I could find. After all, the fewer words, the less ammo for your semantic nonsense.

Bush's Lie: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. President Bush (09/01/05)"

The Facts: "The White House situation room received a report at 1:47 a.m. the day Katrina hit, predicting that Katrina would likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching. Two days before Katrina hit FEMA predicted that Hurricane Katrina could be worse than Hurricane Pam. [MSNBC 1/24/06]"

Also: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/0...bush_resume.pdf

Thank you for that guest. I try not to succumb to Bryan's requests for facts because anyone who has ever paid attention already knows the facts. Wheter they accept them is another thing. Thanks again.

[Bryan]

I picked the simplest lie I could find. After all, the fewer words, the less ammo for your semantic nonsense.

Bush's Lie: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. President Bush (09/01/05)"

The Facts: "The White House situation room received a report at 1:47 a.m. the day Katrina hit, predicting that Katrina would likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching. Two days before Katrina hit FEMA predicted that Hurricane Katrina could be worse than Hurricane Pam. [MSNBC 1/24/06]"

OK, well at least you're starting out with the assumption that Bush is relatively smart. Many liberals start out by assuming that Bush is stupid, in which case we shouldn't be surprised if he thinks nobody expected the breach of the levies regardless.

Unfortunately for you, your example isn't well-founded even if we assume that Bush is smart.

You can watch the original statement by Bush here (I don't recommend paying attention to the Media Matters analysis--they just aren't very good at it as a matter of custom).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509020001

Diane Sawyer asks President Bush if he is satisfied with the timing of the relief effort given that a "Hurricane (Category) 5" was anticipated. That is when Bush responds that the breach of the levees was unexpected. It is most reasonable in that context to conclude that Bush has in mind the specific failures of the flood walls rather than the potential that levees might have failed if Katrina had hit as a Cat. 5 storm. And that particular breach of the levees was unexpected because it appeared that New Orleans had weathered the storm rather well.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/15...t/appendix3.pdf

Q Scott, back on September 1st, President Bush said in an interview, "I don't think anybody anticipated a breaching of the levees in New Orleans." And we had this Infrastructure Simulation and Assessment Center that delivered a report to the White House that, indeed, said that the levees were likely to be breached and that New Orleans would be underwater for months. So did the President mis-speak, or did he just not get the word?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think, unfortunately, you're kind of combining two things that are not related, because the President actually talked about this --

Q Which one is not related, the hurricane or New Orleans?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President actually talked about this and talked about what he was referring to, John. Of course, we know -- we knew what the potential was of a hurricane of that magnitude. We had done exercises in Louisiana and other exercises and looked at such a possibility previously. As the President said, what he was referring to was that there was a sense by many, once the hurricane hit and had passed, that the worst-case scenario did not happen. There were numerous media reports saying that New Orleans had dodged the bullet. And I can pull those up for you and show you those. And so that's what the President was referring to.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060124-3.html

The context appears to offer plenty of support for the interpretation McClellan suggests, particularly since the early reports that the levees had held would figure in while emergency response efforts were being executed.

I see no reasonable grounds for questioning the explanation offered by Scott McClellan.

Also: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/0...bush_resume.pdf

Okay, so you're completely unbiased.

Seriously, what other than a prejudice against Bush would lead you to reject McClellan's explanation in favor of supposing that Bush was trying to mislead people into thinking there was no worry at all that Katrina would breach the levees?

[Guest Guest]

Okay, so you're completely unbiased.

Feel free to prove that anything in there is a fabrication.

Seriously, what other than a prejudice against Bush would lead you to reject McClellan's explanation in favor of supposing that Bush was trying to mislead people into thinking there was no worry at all that Katrina would breach the levees?

Okay, so you're going down the "mistaken not deceptive" route with the Katrina thing. Should have known. Let's see you dodge this one, then:

President Bush: “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.” (03.25.04)

Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which mentioned bin Laden’s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.”

Bush DID know what was coming (at the very least that it was a distinct possibility), and he did nothing. Two lies for the price of one, and the memo is absolutely damning. I can't wait to see how you attempt to rationalize this into anything but blatant dishonesty.

[Bryan]

Thank you for that guest. I try not to succumb to Bryan's requests for facts because anyone who has ever paid attention already knows the facts. Wheter they accept them is another thing. Thanks again.

[Bryan]

Feel free to prove that anything in there is a fabrication.

You can hardly type without trying to create a deliberate distraction, can you? My comment suggested bias, and you're trying to twist it to fabrication. But don't hang your head in shame, because I'm up to the challenge:

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Is Reagan supposed to be Bush's father?

Bush nominated two justices to the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas and David Souter. Souter dissented in the Bush v. Gore decision vacating the Florida Supreme Court's pro-Gore remedy.

http://www.footnotetv.com/mwsupct.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

How did you miss that one?

And just so you know (since you probably don't), if the Florida court's decision had stood, Bush almost certainly would have won.

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_wa...ecount_4-3.html

So, George H. W. Bush's court appointments were a wash: one for, one against for the key 5-4 decision, and neither vote was needed to win the 7-2 decision (W wins that case even if both voted for and both votes were reversed, which would have made the decision another 5-4 decision in Bush's favor).

Okay, so you're going down the "mistaken not deceptive" route with the Katrina thing.

No, I'm not. I'm going with the context thing, which makes Bush flatly correct as well as telling the truth.

Should have known.

Apparently you had your mind made up as to that prior to my answer--unless you simply had trouble mentally processing my reply. I'll assume for now that you're not lying.

Let's see you dodge this one, then:

President Bush: “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.” (03.25.04)

There's never an apology from you people. It's on from one failed accusation to the next.

Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which mentioned bin Laden’s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.”

Here's the URL for a transcript of the memo:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/...memo/index.html

And here's the relevant portion:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

You'll note that it says nothing about using aircraft to "attack" the United States at all. Clearly, it refers to the more typical pattern of terrorists hijacking planes to use the occupants as hostages to the secure some type of concession (the release of Rahman, in this case).

Moreover, the report had not been corroborated. Somehow that got left out of the account you cited (along with the date of the original intelligence: 1998).

Bush DID know what was coming (at the very least that it was a distinct possibility), and he did nothing. Two lies for the price of one, and the memo is absolutely damning. I can't wait to see how you attempt to rationalize this into anything but blatant dishonesty.

I can't defend the reporting of your source on that one.

(stuff along the lines of this:

http://www.bushlies.net/

Counting the one against Keith, that's three strikes. Shall I expect you to proceed as though you're entitled to an infinite number of strikes? You can call Bush a liar so long as you can make one more attempt to support the accusation?

[Guest Guest]

You can hardly type without trying to create a deliberate distraction, can you? My comment suggested bias, and you're trying to twist it to fabrication. But don't hang your head in shame, because I'm up to the challenge:

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Is Reagan supposed to be Bush's father?

Bush nominated two justices to the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas and David Souter. Souter dissented in the Bush v. Gore decision vacating the Florida Supreme Court's pro-Gore remedy.

http://www.footnotetv.com/mwsupct.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

How did you miss that one?

And just so you know (since you probably don't), if the Florida court's decision had stood, Bush almost certainly would have won.

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_wa...ecount_4-3.html

So, George H. W. Bush's court appointments were a wash: one for, one against for the key 5-4 decision, and neither vote was needed to win the 7-2 decision (W wins that case even if both voted for and both votes were reversed, which would have made the decision another 5-4 decision in Bush's favor).

No, I'm not. I'm going with the context thing, which makes Bush flatly correct as well as telling the truth.

Apparently you had your mind made up as to that prior to my answer--unless you simply had trouble mentally processing my reply. I'll assume for now that you're not lying.

There's never an apology from you people. It's on from one failed accusation to the next.

Here's the URL for a transcript of the memo:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/...memo/index.html

And here's the relevant portion:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

You'll note that it says nothing about using aircraft to "attack" the United States at all. Clearly, it refers to the more typical pattern of terrorists hijacking planes to use the occupants as hostages to the secure some type of concession (the release of Rahman, in this case).

Moreover, the report had not been corroborated. Somehow that got left out of the account you cited (along with the date of the original intelligence: 1998).

I can't defend the reporting of your source on that one.

(stuff along the lines of this:

http://www.bushlies.net/

Counting the one against Keith, that's three strikes. Shall I expect you to proceed as though you're entitled to an infinite number of strikes? You can call Bush a liar so long as you can make one more attempt to support the accusation?

Sorry Bryan I couldn't understand you. Did you have GW's %**% in your mouth?

[Guest Guest]

lol at your signature. Just can't resist spreading your shit as far as it can be smelled, can you, Bryan? Guess you're getting desperate since the registered posters already all have got you on ignore, huh?

I'll be sure to add "Bush isn't a liar" to your list of insane assertions, though.

[Guest a proud american]

It's definately ironic that the only thing you are actually an expert on is the subject of the pathetic. Unfortunately you just have to look in the mirror. You are a small and spineless wonder. You beat the drums of war as if it were some sort of quasi masturbatory spasm. You love it at distance. Perhaps only as a voyeur but never truly wanting to be involved. Involvement is for others. The only way that I could ever be bothered by your calling me pathetic would be to have even a micron of respect for your opinion. Pathetic Bryan? Pathetic indeed. Semper Fi, coward.

Keith, don't you get it. Bryan is an expert on everything. The chances of him ever joining the military are slim. I suspect its because he might not be able to pass the physical. My friends son, the one who was supposed to be there for a year but has been extended for an additional six months was due to be discharged in Dec 07. Maybe Bryan can takie his place and let him come home.

[Bryan]

Sorry Bryan I couldn't understand you. Did you have GW's %**% in your mouth?

Well, if you can't think of a reasonable response I guess you can always try a childish one like that.

lol at your signature. Just can't resist spreading your shit as far as it can be smelled, can you, Bryan? Guess you're getting desperate since the registered posters already all have got you on ignore, huh?

The only two that I know put me on ignore have a record of making big mistakes in their posts and not owning up to it (LaClair, with his ridiculous targeted boycott idea that he probably stole from a circulating e-mail in the first place, and Strife in occasions too numerous to mention).

So, apart from Keith and a few others, most of the folks on your side are too cowardly to answer me as other than "Guest"--plus it's likely that one or two (maybe more) people who ordinarily post under registered names post anonymously in reply to me in order to hedge their bets.

If only I could figure out how to change my signature line, what would you complain about? Three straight failures to make an even halfway respectable case in favor of one of the major public perceptions of our times (Bush supposedly a liar)?

I'll be sure to add "Bush isn't a liar" to your list of insane assertions, though.

It doesn't follow that because I defended Bush from some accusations of lying that therefore I assert that he doesn't lie at all. He may have told his daughters that Santa Claus really exists at some point in time for all I know. Thanks for playing, though. Good thing you remembered to post anonymously, eh?

[Guest Keith]

I wonder how many in this forum have acutally watched this documentary. I was nominated for an Oscar.