GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

Quote:

Documented ad nauseum? Really? Alright, tell us just one of the lies. Do not post a link to 100 alleged lies. Tell us just one in your own words. If you cannot do this, then they have not been "documented ad nauseum."

A brandonism to be sure, possibly the best.

Tell us just one in your own words. If you cannot do this, then they have not been "documented ad nauseum."

JTT wrote:

Quote:

Documented ad nauseum? Really? Alright, tell us just one of the lies. Do not post a link to 100 alleged lies. Tell us just one in your own words. If you cannot do this, then they have not been "documented ad nauseum."

.....

...

Btw, everyone literate and numerate on this site has already put this clown on ignore - just so you waste no more time.

Quote:

Documented ad nauseum? Really? Alright, tell us just one of the lies. Do not post a link to 100 alleged lies. Tell us just one in your own words. If you cannot do this, then they have not been "documented ad nauseum."

A brandonism to be sure, possibly the best.

So very true, DJJD6! The thread thanks you for your honesty - the entire topic is completely BEYOND YOUR MODEST UNDERSTANDING, and there is no remedy for this. Try and keep that in your mind before you get any further hypergraphia attacks - most other posters will be grateful

At the very least you should notice her spelling of "ad nauseam", and know beyond doubt that anyone who can't spell Latin phrases and still persists in using them is a pitiable flake.

why bother interacting with the ebonics-afflicted (by her own admission),

JTT wrote:

Quote:

Documented ad nauseum? Really? Alright, tell us just one of the lies. Do not post a link to 100 alleged lies. Tell us just one in your own words. If you cannot do this, then they have not been "documented ad nauseum."

A brandonism to be sure, possibly the best.

What if I link to about a thousand lies? Would that be okay? But, in my own words, Bush told a lie in his speech alluding to Iraq's effort to get yellowcake in Niger. He knew very well this was untrue. (I know you will quibble this to death, which shows your dishonesty.)

please, let's don't be hypergraphic

"Hyperlexia is a syndrome in which the main characteristics are an above normal ability to read coupled with a below normal ability to understand spoken language. Hyperlexia appears to be different from what is known as hypergraphia [...] Often, hyperlexic children will have a precocious ability to read but will learn to speak only by rote and heavy repetition, and may also have difficulty learning the rules of language from examples or from trial and error, which may result in social problems.

Brandon9000 wrote:

JTT wrote:

Quote:

Documented ad nauseum? Really? Alright, tell us just one of the lies. Do not post a link to 100 alleged lies. Tell us just one in your own words. If you cannot do this, then they have not been "documented ad nauseum."

.....

...

Brandon - why bother interacting with the ebonics-afflicted (by her own admission), delusional (evidence abounds on this forum), JTT? At the very least you should notice her spelling of "ad nauseam", and know beyond doubt that anyone who can't spell Latin phrases and still persists in using them is a pitiable flake. Btw, everyone literate and numerate on this site has already put this clown on ignore - just so you waste no more time.

Excellent point as always. Thank you.

Quote:

Excellent point as always. Thank you.

Logic isn't even your short suit, Brandon.

Documented ad nauseum? Really? Alright, tell us just one of the lies. Do not post a link to 100 alleged lies. Tell us just one in your own words. If you cannot do this, then they have not been "documented ad nauseum."

They have been documented by leftwing whackos that hate Bush,

Author of 9/11 Commission Report: Don't Believe Us

The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11
by John Farmer
Riverhead Books (division of Penguin), New York, 2009

...

9/11 reporting has been divided between those on the fringe who charge a massive government cover-up, and those in the mainstream who decry the former as ‘conspiracy theorists', maintaining that any such widespread deception would require too broad a network of cooperation to be plausible. The odd thing about this book is the way it breaches this divide. On the one hand, Farmer is the establishment. He was a Republican US Attorney, then Attorney General of New Jersey, [you know, a Bush hater] before being tapped by the Kean Commission in 2002. In his capacity as Senior Council to the Commission, he wrote the 600-page9-11 Commission Report that defines the official government version. On the other hand, Farmer tells us that theReport was falsified in some crucial respects. He charges a cover-up of exactly the kind that the mainstream has said is implausible on its face.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Author-of-9-11-Commission-by-Josh-Mitteldorf-091123-11.html

On the surface, the book is a scathing indictment of lethal government incompetence, and of the Bush Administration in particular. It charges ineptitude and a kind of blindness to reality at the highest levels of government. But, to turn a phrase, the book may be praising the Administration with faint damnation. As Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, Farmer was in as good a position as anyone on the planet to pursue a competent and thorough investigation, to get to the “Ground Truth” behind the terror attacks and the government's response. And yet he chose to play softball, to settle for the testimony that he was offered, and base his conclusions on a partial and contradictory record. The Commission made no use of Congressional subpoena power or the Capitol Police. They did not recall witnesses whose testimony had been discredited. Every forensic investigator from the local police sergeant to the Special Prosecutor knows that if you jail the underling who is lying to protect his boss, he will often break under pressure and tell the truth that passes responsibility up the chain. And yet, empaneled to investigate this greatest crime of the nation's history, the 9/11 Commission forswore such tactics, sat back and scratched their heads when offered contradictory testimony.

Ibid

The book climaxes in a chapter titled, “Whisky Tango Foxtrot”, which, Farmer explains, was the Commissioners' constant refrain as the misleading testimony unfolded.
The official version first put forward by Paul Wolfowitz had attained the status of national myth... This official version departed from the facts of the day in four critical respects. First, the official version indicated that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to American 77, and thus omitted completely the pivotal report of the morning and the source of the Langley scramble: the report that American 11, the first hijack, was still airborne and heading for Washington. Second, the administration version insisted that the military was tracking United 93 and, as a consequence, was positioned to intercept the flight if it approached Washington. This was untrue; the military could not locate the flight to track it because it had crashed by the time of notification. Third, the official version insited that PresidentBush had issued an authorization to shoot down hijacked commercial flights, and that the order had been processed through the chain of command and passed to the fighters. This was untrue.
Fourth, the administration version implied, where it did not state explicitly, that the chain of command had been functioning on 9/11, and that the critical decisions had been made by the appropriate top officials. Thus the presideent issued the shoot-down order; top FAA Headquarters officials coordinated closely with the military; Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta issued the order to land all airplanes; NORAD Commanding General Eberhart monitored closely the decisions taken at NEADS and CONR; and so on. None of this captures how things actually unfolded on the day.

Ibid

What was the Secretary of Defense doing on the Morning of 9-11?

Secretary Rumsfeld also stated that he was giving a lecture to members of Congress, in the Pentagon, on the morning of 9-11 and warned them to expect the unexpected with future terrorist attacks. Shortly after that he was handed a note stating that the North Tower was struck. Shortly after that he was told the second tower was hit.

He then claims he continues with this lecture until the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. This makes absolutely no sense. If the Secretary of Defense was lecturing to Congressmen about surprise terrorist attacks when he is told two planes have hit both World Trade Towers, it is beyond belief that he continues this presentation without reacting to this ‘unexpected’ terrorist attack. The fact that not one member of the Commission chose to scrutinize this statement speaks volumes.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAN403A.html

A voice rises from the steamin' little pile of excrement.

Quote:

They have been documented by leftwing whackos that hate Bush,

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Author of 9/11 Commission Report: Don't Believe Us
...