This is a response to John Nance Garner [DRC, July 16] that is a response to my letter [DRC, June 28].
I said, “If you have watched and listened to the congressional scandal hearings and not believe that all of those being questioned have not received the same ‘talking points’ from your king, your credibility just went to zero.”
I “believe” is the word here. I do believe he is responsible but did not say I had any proof in the article. If you believe that he is not responsible, where is your proof that he is not?
I also went to the dictionary and looked up the words “circumstantial evidence”: It is evidence consisting of circumstances that furnish reasonable grounds for believing or dictating as to the existence of fact, for the guilt or innocence of an accused person.
Your last quote comes from a California Democrat. Ho, ho, ho. He blames all of it on Bush.
From an ignorant lifetime resident, businessman of Denton, graduate of UNT and a proud “Teapot” conservative, and a customer of yours. Am I ignorant because of that and do I have a choice?