I am anxious to hear the right-wing spin on this tid-bit of truth.

[hnumpah]

Nope.

Ignored it. Why bother?

[sirs]

Ignored it. Why bother?

It appears, you maded a baseless/meritless claim.   I don't consider you of the likes of Tee, Brass, & Lanya, and have much more credibility to be making such baseless claims.  Is that how you wish to leave it?  Were you simply in error?   

[hnumpah]

Can you look back and see where Ami, then you, intimated as much? Though no doubt you'll try to put some other spin on it, which is why I asked, 'Why bother?'

You should also know by now, that I don't jump just because you say so. You're 'I'm waiting oh so impatiently' crap bears no weight with me.

I disagreed with the original NIE (the one that you oh-so-agree with) for the reasons I've given - it cherry picked information that bolstered the case for war with Iraq, and ignored the intelligence that didn't. We'll just have to wait to see what this one says, since Dubya has apparently agreed to declassify it.

BTW, as for Ami's and your snark that these are the same folks that produced the original NIE that was wrong about WMDs, they may be different folks altogether - or do you have a personnel roster for the agencies and people involved in drawing up both NIEs?

[sirs]

Can you look back and see where Ami, then you, intimated as much?

I looked back.  I can't speak for Ami, but dare I say you're "assuming" something that never was?  I never intimated anything of the sorrt.  However, sounds quite familiar to charges being levied at me, during our saloon days, when you'd get all bent out of shape for me daring to assume what you were "intimating".  Best stick with "I errored, my bad" vs "why bother".  More credibility with that tact.

Though no doubt you'll try to put some other spin on it, which is why I asked, 'Why bother?

Naaa, that's more likely your ego being unable to acknowledge you were wrong, since you have been unable to provide an answer to a very simple charge, so best just pretend it never happened

[hnumpah]

So you just stick with being an ass.

And again I ask, 'Why bother?'

Told you I was blunt.

[sirs]

And again I ask, 'Why bother?'

And again I'd respond that you maded a baseless/meritless claim.   I don't consider you of the likes of Tee, Brass, & Lanya, and have much more credibility to be making such baseless claims.  If that's how you wish to leave it however, fine by me

[hnumpah]

You wanted an answer, I gave you one. If you feel it was in error, perhaps you can explain how. Without the feeble attempt at making fun of my vocabulary would be nice. It might go a long way toward dispelling my belief that you are an insufferable ass.

[sirs]

You wanted an answer, I gave you one. If you feel it was in error, perhaps you can explain how

Easy enough.  The baseless claim was "Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted"

Now, going back to my posts prior, I quote "I was about to say the same thing Ami (This is a NIE produced by the same groups that estimated that Iraq had WMDs, right?).  Their conclusions were denounced as not amounting to anything credible or substantive.  So much for the Bush lied diatribe"

If you notice I'm referencing (intimating if you wish) how the Anti-war & anti-Bush clans, with the most verbosity coming from Tee as I recall, were the ones denouncing the NIE's reports regarding WMD.  In other words, couldn't be trusted.  Of course here they're praising it because it happens to fit their anti-war or anti-Bush agenda.  Basically validating your claim, but for the other side I'm afraid, as I've been consistently supporting the NIE's conclusions.

See where your baseless accusation aimed at Ami & myself was actually backwards?

[Plane]

That Iraq is makeing terrorism worse is a slam dunk.

[hnumpah]

The baseless claim was...

Not a claim at all, simply throwing back at Ami (and by extension, you) the silly snark you were trying to lay on others.

See where you're not really telling me anything I don't already know? I just figure what's fair for the goose, turnabout is fair play, et cetera, et cetera, and so on. If you don't like it thrown back at you, well, you can refrain from throwing it at others. Nah, that would be too easy.

Accusation aimed at you and Ami? Where did I make such? I don't recall accusing anyone of anything, let alone mentioning names. I did speculate a bit, though.

You really have to get over this persecution complex. Have you looked into professional help?

[Amianthus]

Not a claim at all, simply throwing back at Ami (and by extension, you) the silly snark you were trying to lay on others.

What silly snark?

[hnumpah]

What silly snark?

Whatsamatter, you use up all your mental energy making up Smileys that call people 'stupid' and 'troll'?

I'll narrow it down for you. You've made three posts on this thread. It isn't the one this is in reply to. That leaves one, or both, of the others.

[Amianthus]

I'll narrow it down for you. You've made three posts on this thread. It isn't the one this is in reply to. That leaves one, or both, of the others.

Must be where I agreed with Knutty when he said I was right.

The other two lines were questions.

[hnumpah]

Miss.

Tsk, tsk. I gave you so much more credit than that.

[sirs]

Not a claim at all, simply throwing back at Ami (and by extension, you) the silly snark you were trying to lay on others.  See where you're not really telling me anything I don't already know?

Define "silly snark"?  I just demonstrated how your baseless accusation was actually applicable to your side.  Not Ami or I

I just figure what's fair for the goose, turnabout is fair play, et cetera, et cetera, and so on

Ahhhh, so some truth comes out.  All that victim outrage in the saloon about how dare anyone make bogus assumptions about you, is no big deal when you do it.  Gotcha

Accusation aimed at you and Ami? Where did I make such?
"Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted"

You have yet to demonstrate where anyone's even implied such

You really have to get over this persecution complex. Have you looked into professional help?

Ahhh, so the tactic when you're being mis-assumed or supposeedly misrepresented is to feign outrage.  But if someone brings it to your attention of you doing preceisly the same, they're simply having a "persecution complex".  Would have been so much easier if you just fessed the fact you were wrong in your original erroneous assumption.  No help necessary, though I do get periodic professional physical therapy on my shoulder.  Old tennis injury, but thanks for asking