Dave wrote:
Strikes me that when you make a statement of fact you ought to be able to
support it.

True enough, if you care. OTOH, when one person presents logic and fact
and the other is raving about lemon-striped elephants or some such, then
there is really no point in continuing a discussion.


...the Kerry campaign is ... trying desperately to raise expectations of Bush in
the forthcoming debates, saying "George Bush is a very good debater. In
fact, he has never lost a debate in his political career."

And?



I can provide the full text of the message containing the quoted language,
including author, date and time of the message should you not believe me.

?? A straw man?

BTW you seem to want it both ways. Is Bush a good debater? Then why not
go the full three debates with Kerry? Did you think Bush won his debates
with Gore? A lot of people did.

Either Bush is intelligent enough to stand on his own two feet and
debate his positions on issues, and defend his record, in his own words
extemporaneously; in which case the Bush-Cheney campaign should proceed
with the debates. Otherwise, they shouldn't.

It sort of like how they didn't complain about how 527's should be
outlawed until after the Democrats got an advantage in 527 funding.

One of my largest objections to the Bush Administration is that his (and
most of his followers) have extremely flexible principles....



So now where's the support for your claim that O'Neill gave "testimony" that
he was with Kerry in Cambodia?

Ask O'Neill. He's sure to tell the truth on the subject, isn't he?