@parados,
Parados, there is alot of evidence he was offered to us, but then again if you wish to believe later parsing of his own words by a man that made that a common practice, such as once talked about the meaning of the word, "is," then of course you will defend any Democrat, regardless of the overwhelming common sense conclusion of the matter. As George said, your debate style requires the discarding of common sense at times, and I think that this is clearly a clearcut case of that. Also, the problem that the 9/11 Commission also has is that we can actually go to the evidence ourselves and make common sense judgements by connecting the obvious dots alot better than a few partisan hacks who had high on their list as defending their own lousy party even when the guilt was obvious. The chance for Clinton to get Osama Bin Laden is but one example, another huge one was Jamie Gorlick who whitewashed the fact that she was involved in "the Wall," which hindered the sharing of intelligence between agencies, which also can be traced to our failure of identifying the conspirators. And Obama is now repeating one of the basic mistakes made by Clinton leading up to 9/11, terrorists were treated as garden variety criminals instead of enemy conspirators or terrorists as they should be. Such is not only stupid, it defies common sense, so I have to wonder if Parados is any different than alot of liberals including those making policy in the Whitehouse right now, they lack basic common sense about alot of things, including the economy, terrorism, energy, climate, and the list goes on.
The only way to straighten this out is to have enough people to see the light so that this bunch will be thrown out of office next election.
