"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Which generals?


This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he
just said, but you're assuming one or more things:

1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard
in the news. Not likely.

2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are in
the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted. This,
of course, is bull****.

3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has
the time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and
present you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar.

Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have names,
but those names are not important at the moment.

Why? The generals could just have an axe to grind. That is...if the
generals even exist.


And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people who go
"on the record" vs. those who don't.

As for me "addressing what he said", my response is this: The insurgency has
all but shriveled up and died...but now there's a cabal of terrorists from
other countries arbitrarily blowing people up so that it makes the evening
news...and gives people like you some ammunition to take pot shots at our
President.

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the PM of Iraq, and the VP of
the US...folks who are willing to "go on the record" with their opinions.