"JG2U" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:16:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:30:21 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk
wrote:

JG2U wrote:
News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a
fat
chick.

Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again.
Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath"
about
sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch
hunt
to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk.

It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they
could get him for. He and Monica could have gone at it until they
were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold
have been no impeachment. Period.

Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would
have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the
Repubs
could do was nail him because he lied about sex.

I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They
won't be about sex or lying about sex, either.

Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of
Liberal
lies.

You forgot this:

That wouold be great. Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean,
Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were
beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected.

Remember this video?


Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.

Bush was pushed into it by Albright, Clinton, Dean,
Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were
beating the war drum for Iraq. And now they lie and say it was Bush.
Shame on them.

================


Bush's statements, in chronological order, we

snip

So? As I said, the libs were beating the war drum for Iraq and Sadam
back in 1998, long before Bush even got into office. Watch this
instructive video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE

You'll learn something.


I've seen that.

One day, Saddam had a nuclear facility. The next day, he didn't. I'm sure
you remember how and when this truth came to be.

Then, he had one again, and it was important to deal with it. And then, like
before, it became unimportant. If Saddam had a future, his nuclear facility
might've become important again. Same with Iran, although we and other
sellers of technology seem to have learned our lesson after we helped
Pakistan build nuclear weapons and gave them aircraft with which to deliver
them.

So, at least with regard to nuclear weapons, let's not have any double
standards. If it upsets you that he wanted to own that kind of WMD, you have
to view his efforts in the context of history. And that, unfortunately,
means you need to get to the library.

You will now be tempted to ask me if I think it was good that Saddam was
striving to own nuclear weapons. Please don't. It's a dumb question.