Originally Posted By Dabob2 Since the fired attorneys themselves (most, if not all, Republicans) are questioning the legitimacy of the reasons for their dismissals, that at the very least merits an investigation to look for such evidence.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Claiming something happened when there is no evidence to back you up is a little foolish.** I agree. And you do it constantly, Doug.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, you do. And when called on it, you evade and change the subject. Pretty shifty, and everyone here knows you are doing it. You do your position no credit with these tactics. The only thing you are accomplishing is making the right wing position even more discredited.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And when called on it, you evade and change the subject.> Show me where I've done it once.
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't have to. It's basically what your M.O. is, and it's pretty commonly understood.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I provide evidence all the time. You just ignore it. You can't provide evidence to back up your claims against me because they're baseless. Like many of your claims.
Originally Posted By Mr X "show me where I've done it once" Doug, I'll do better than that. * there was ample evidence that Saddam was pursuing WMD's and had ties with terrorism * just because something isn't widely reported doesn't mean it's not happening * there's a difference between saying something is possible even if there is no evidence, and saying that something happened, when there is no evidence that it did * Saddam may not have had the stockpiles of WMD's that we thought he did, but he was trying to conceal a nuclear program, and trying to obtain uranium from Niger, and trying to keep his WMD programs as intact as possible DouglasDubh, 2007
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <there was ample evidence that Saddam was pursuing WMD's and had ties with terrorism> <Saddam may not have had the stockpiles of WMD's that we thought he did, but he was trying to conceal a nuclear program, and trying to obtain uranium from Niger, and trying to keep his WMD programs as intact as possible> I've shown the evidence for these claims, over and over. <just because something isn't widely reported doesn't mean it's not happening> <there's a difference between saying something is possible even if there is no evidence, and saying that something happened, when there is no evidence that it did> I'm not claiming something that there's no evidence for in either of these two statements.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Doug, I'll do better than that." You do realize you are wasting your time, right? "I've shown the evidence for these claims, over and over." People have "evidence" of all sorts of things. However, it's actually been shown that none of what you have supposedly shown evidence, which I simply believe is more falsehood on your part, was not true. "I'm not claiming something that there's no evidence for in either of these two statements." No, you're just trying to have it both ways in your bunker defense of the Bush Admin.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <However, it's actually been shown that none of what you have supposedly shown evidence, which I simply believe is more falsehood on your part, was not true.> The falsehood is not on my part.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You're the one that said I claim things happen when there was no evidence to back me up and when called on it, evade and change the subject. And yet, when asked to provide one instance, refused. Why don't you show some evidence, or give up?
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm the one telling you to present evidence. You produce none. If you produce some, I'll look at it. I've not seen you do that, therefore your arguments are of little interest. The fact is you likely have no evidence to support what you have to say, so you resort to schoolyard taunts. Produce something tangible, and stop evading as you do in post 154. Simply put something here that contains solid information. When you do, people will look at it, consider the source of your information, and see if your position has any merit. Whether it does or not is another matter. But at least your opinions will garner a bit of respect at least.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Specter and Hagel question Gonzales' credibility. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/25/fired.attorneys.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/03/25/fired.attorneys.ap/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Two of the attorneys (and Specter, and Sen. Durbin) were on Meet the Press today. Very interesting show. The more emails that come out, the worse Gonzalez and others look. And I think there's still that "16-day gap" that they mysteriously haven't released any emails from yet.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The justice department is made up almost entirely of attorneys. They already know what crimes were committed, when, and by whom. At this point the administration is going to be hard-pressed to enact a 'cover-up' so the only alternatives they have left are what they're doing - stalling, bluffing, redacting, and refusing to submit to questioning under oath. How long do they think they can drag this out? January 20, 2008.
