QUOTE]lol, yeah... okay crumpp.[/QUOTE]
So where are you taking this Nash? You could have responded to the debate in many ways. Like "I disagree with that and hear is what I think is a better solution". Instead this is your response? Sounds like whimper of someone whose reason has fled and their argument evaporated.
Can you step out from under Gscholz skirt and stand on your own?
You don't have a more articulate respond but to bring it down his level?
Saying "Prior to the Invasion of Iraq SEVERAL attempts at getting WMD into the US by AQ were foiled" is like saying "prior to Toyota's introduction of the Tacoma genetically altered strawberries hit the shelves of supermarkets."
No, in fact it answers the argument that the US has decreased it's security by going into Iraq and that WMD was some sort of "excuse". In fact, I have not thought about the foiled attempts since the invasion. Been focused on other things in my job. I was pleased to see that trend when I examined it! It's a response to your statement:
When Bush got backed into a corner wrt to bogus WMD claims, he tried to bamboozle everyone with all sorts of alternative reasons for the invasion.
Face it Nash, you don't want to discuss the issues. You want to convert others to your opinion and you are willing to twist the facts to suit your world instead allowing those facts to define it. Otherwise you would have seen thru Gscholz's claims of criminal conduct and at least waited til the discussion was complete to pass judgment. Maybe asked some questions to clarify peoples point of view. Instead you attacked every time a question was asked. Not even a bungled attempt at answering the question just an irritated outburst because a question was asked.
Unfortunately your decision was made before the thread even started.
With that said. There is no point in continuing this.
Crumpp
