the Moore film I agree with every word of it. It does contain
something close to that allegation. But I, shall we say, would like to
think it is not true. It does seem pretty paranoid. But I don't
consider it disproven yet either. Unproven, the Scottish verdict, is
still my best guess on it. And that is why I was asking questions
about some of what Moore says.
Under the circumstances I will say that sloppy phrasing on my part was
perhaps at least part of the problem. If I am going to make reference
to controversial allegations I should probably make it clear what
exactly I am (or am not) saying about them. So yeah Sam, you read it
kind of wrong, and possibly I could have been clearer.
Although... if it were my opinion that Bush deliberately did not catch
bin Laden, I would feel entitled to say so and back it up if
challenged. I hope that is ok with everyone? If so, no harm done and I
have already forgotten the matter.
Dana
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:30:13 -0500, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "can not" covers the fact that he's not able to
> > find him. Adding "will not" would be redundant unless
> > it was meant as an intentionaly will not.
> > At least that's how I read it. If I read it wrong ,
> > again sorry.
>
> "Won't" in this context could mean either an active choice (I will do
> something.) or a result (what will happen). But even if it is the
> active choice, she doesn't attribute a reason. We all know that there
> are many reasons for things that happen in Washington that are never
> made public. To jump to the extreme conclusion that it meant an active
> collaboration with bin Laden or in planning 9/11 borders on paranoia.
>
> -Kevin________________________________
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
