Geoduck:

[To Teribus]: You can argue with these idiots for the rest of your life and they will still read things to suit their mindset. If someone mentions two words in the same sentence they can ignore everything else and say "that is what he meant".

I notice you shut up and went away pretty quickly after my last two posts in reply to you concerning Cheney's repeated claims about an Atta/Iraqi agent meeting. Care to respond now to those now, or are you going to emulate Teribus here and pretend I never said anything in reply and didn't blow your little attempt at obfuscation concerning the Dubya maladministration's little propaganda campaign right out of the water?

You can pretend that you're 'winning' the 'discussion' here all you want, but deep in your heart you know that you're being as dishonest as the day is long. What I'd like to know, Geoduck, is why??? Why do you think it important to engage in dishonest defence of the maladministration here (when even Dubya seems to be admitting some "mistakes" nowadays [but nothing that he's responsible for])? Why not argue (as Dubya seems to be doing) that even with the bad 'intelligence' (which Cheney and his WHIG cooked up and then pushed as hard as they could), that the Iraq war (and the $1/4 trillion price tag and the 2150+ soldiers dead) was nonetheless a good thing? Why not just a simple 'the ends justify the means' argument? It seems to be Dubya's tack currently, surely that can't be wrong?

Cheers,