1. Clearly you're not sharp enough to understand that he can't say what's in and not in the classified reports. So you have to read between the lines. Of course, you don't need to read what he's got to say about the situation - you already know everything! All he's had in his hands is the sum of all evidence, but you have better insight than that, right?! Pathetic.
3. So some insipid bumper-sticker slogan from you somehow invalidates his analysis? There was a character on an old sitcom that would wave his arms and declare that he was invisible... and obviously remain in plain view. You've decided to model your logic after his and it's just as strong.
4. Sounds like your "I'm morally offended and someone will pay!" trumps all reason. Your outrage is so impressive!
5. Others are apparently less impressed with the evidence.
6. So for your tortured logic to work, you're saying that Ukraine (or one of the "certain foreign countries") has a right to bomb Houston in order to kill bush. Because that's the only way the comparison works. Taking someone into custody when on their soil and putting them on trial is whole lot less of an act of war than summarily executing acts of war. I'm surprised the concept is lost on you - but there it is.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment