Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Um, I'm sorry, but did you even read your own link?  It directly contradicts your argument.  It's badly formatted, so I can see why someone who didn't read it terribly carefully might take it as supporting your argument, but it doesn't.

Here's a tip:  Perhaps a little more rigourous examination of one's sources might be in order if you're going to convince anyone of this stuff.

Anyway, you're the one who started talking about Chertoff's family, not me.  If you're going to complain about veering off course, perhaps you should make more of an effort to stay on the course yourself.

Regardless, it's interesting how people who can't challenge the actual research done by Popular Mechanics try to impugn it by "attacking" one of the researchers.

But hey, if you'd rather believe hearsay via a third-hand source regarding what his mother may or may not have said than the guy himself, I think perhaps it may be useless to appeal to your common sense.

Regardless, as your link so rightly pointed out, "The piece needs to be judged on its contents, not the surname of one of those involved."

But, um, judging it on its merits doesn't work out so well for the conspiracists, so never mind.

Look, I have no interest in re-examining the so-called "research" of your stable of conspiracy theorists for the 857th time.  Consider it considered and soundly rejected; I have found none of it convincing in the slightest, and much of it so astonishingly ignorant and unsupported that it really ought to be embarrassing for its proponents.  But go ahead, call me a Bush apologist because I don't agree with you.  Very effective rhetorical tool, that.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 12:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series