Re: Something to think about...
Reg
location: back to the wilderness
listening to: static
registered: 1999.11.22
On March 11, 2004 four bombs went off in a commuter trainyard in Madrid killing 191 people. Spanish President Aznar immediately pointed his finger at the Basque terror group ETA. He continued to accuse ETA until it was determined Al Qaeda was responsible.
Was Aznar lying?
Quite possibly, yes. I've read some items on the reaction in Spain and he has been accused there of lying and staging a coup. It was obvious there as soon as that happened he would be in a fight for his political life, so the motive was there.
The thing is I think you are focusing too much on the idea that people have called Bush a liar...almost as if this is something that is a cardinal sin. Looking at all the evidence available to the general public it certainly appears that this administration has been dishonest.
Are you saying you see no trace of that what so ever? Or are you saying you think it's best to give the president the benefit of the doubt in the face of evidence against him? And if so why would you say we should do that?
–--
'The only way to avoid getting crushed by absurdity, is to humbly include the absurd in our calculations.'
Reg
(view)
On March 11, 2004 four bombs went off in a commuter trainyard in Madrid killing 191 people. Spanish President Aznar immediately pointed his finger at the Basque terror group ETA. He continued to accuse ETA until it was determined Al Qaeda was responsible.
Was Aznar lying?
Quite possibly, yes. I've read some items on the reaction in Spain and he has been accused there of lying and staging a coup. It was obvious there as soon as that happened he would be in a fight for his political life, so the motive was there.
The thing is I think you are focusing too much on the idea that people have called Bush a liar...almost as if this is something that is a cardinal sin. Looking at all the evidence available to the general public it certainly appears that this administration has been dishonest.
Are you saying you see no trace of that what so ever? Or are you saying you think it's best to give the president the benefit of the doubt in the face of evidence against him? And if so why would you say we should do that?
–--
'The only way to avoid getting crushed by absurdity, is to humbly include the absurd in our calculations.'
[
login] |
[
register]
you need to be logged in to post and reply to message board posts
