Yep... instead of god being on our side, I think I'd
rather be on god's side. Besides, she's cute.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:41:06 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Joe the humanitarian....

I think the term they use these days is "compassionate conservative"


.... some democrats that I see are.

K-mart wearin, Welfare cheese eating, Koolaid drinking, baby
murdering, Tax Rasing, Hanoi Jane lovin, UN controlled, Barbra S.
listening, prison populating, Al Sharpton Jessie & Micheal Jackson
worshiping, unemployable, beggin, welfare check cashing, food stamp
spending, VW, yugo driving, tree huggin, French smellin, gay
supporting, project or trailor living, crack addicted, flag burning,
un-educated, lazy good for nothing protestors that rather spit on a
sailor, that support him. Poopin babies out as fast as they can to
increase the welfare check so they can buy more crack.


Joe

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:07:07 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

It might seem like it, but it isn't or at least if it is, the
sour grapes are factual.

In fairness, we should consider the facts presented by Bush & Cheney
before drawing a conclusion.

Oh, wait. They reluctantly agreed to meet with the 9/11 Commission
only if they could appear together, not under oath, in private with no
transcript or record of what they said. Now that inspires confidence.

On 3 Aug 2004 15:54:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:39:35 GMT, felton said:


Thanks. As I suspected there were no facts there to back up your
claims. The Republicans *claim* his stories differed, the Democrats
say they don't, the Republicans don't want to declassify the reports
or charge him with perjury, but we are supposed to take their word for
it that it happened.

I've read that US reading skills have deteriorated badly, buy I would have
thought you went through the system earlier.

Which part of this first sentence of the AP report do you not understand:

I believe I understood the report quite well. Your charge that Clarke
told two different stories, both under oath, is supported by a *claim*
by Republicans Frist and Hastert. At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury. Democrats who attended both the public and the nonpublic
testimony of Clarke contend there was no substantive difference.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

"Key Republicans in Congress want to declassify 2002 testimony by former
counterterrorism official Richard Clarke,..."

....so they say. Why don't they?


And which part of this are you having problems comprehending:

"Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., want to make public
Clarke's classified testimony in July 2002 before a joint House-Senate
intelligence inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Ray Charles could have seen through that. If Clarke gave
substantially different testimony, on the record and under oath, then
we would have had something other than a Frist/Hastert press
conference. I am certain that this administration would love nothing
better than to discredit Clarke, but they haven't because they
can't....not because they have chosen not to.

I am surprised that you are so gullible.

He's not gulible... he's just stoooopid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Aug 2004 15:54:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:39:35 GMT, felton said:


Thanks. As I suspected there were no facts there to back up your
claims. The Republicans *claim* his stories differed, the Democrats
say they don't, the Republicans don't want to declassify the reports
or charge him with perjury, but we are supposed to take their word for
it that it happened.

I've read that US reading skills have deteriorated badly, buy I would
have
thought you went through the system earlier.

Which part of this first sentence of the AP report do you not understand:

I believe I understood the report quite well. Your charge that Clarke
told two different stories, both under oath, is supported by a *claim*
by Republicans Frist and Hastert. At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury. Democrats who attended both the public and the nonpublic
testimony of Clarke contend there was no substantive difference.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

"Key Republicans in Congress want to declassify 2002 testimony by former
counterterrorism official Richard Clarke,..."

...so they say. Why don't they?


And which part of this are you having problems comprehending:

"Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., want to make public
Clarke's classified testimony in July 2002 before a joint House-Senate
intelligence inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Ray Charles could have seen through that. If Clarke gave
substantially different testimony, on the record and under oath, then
we would have had something other than a Frist/Hastert press
conference. I am certain that this administration would love nothing
better than to discredit Clarke, but they haven't because they
can't....not because they have chosen not to.

I am surprised that you are so gullible.

So convenient that you didn't bother reading the rest of the
article... It was pretty balanced I thought....
To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or
contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week,"
said Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee.

Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence
Committee, also wants to see more information disclosed. She said that
includes 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's report addressing the
involvement of a foreign government in supporting some of the 19 hijackers -
an item of dispute with the Bush administration.

"This is selective declassification, in my view, and it is all about
discrediting an administration critic," Harman said.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:09:42 GMT, felton said:

At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

Lessee:

"Goss [Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] said he ...... plans
to
request the declassification in case a need for public hearings or other
disclosure arises."

and

"The allegations against him [Clark] could linger for weeks as the
declassification request winds through the appropriate agencies to ensure
sensitive national security information isn't revealed. Often most
protected
are the "sources and methods" of gathering intelligence."

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

Lessee here. You figure that because the votes are there they'll just vote
on the matter without any particular study of just what it is they're
releasing. And you find it outrageous that with the evidence still
classified Frist isn't yet ready to label one of Clark's two versions of
the
facts perjury. But with the evidence still classified you are in a
position
to conclude, on the basis of one Democrat's "best recollection," that
there
exists not a scintilla of evidence of a fib. I get it.

Gee, that was easy!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:37:41 GMT, felton said:

Well, it is a bit tiring when anyone strays from the party line we see
the same tactics time and again.

Yes. I've pointed this out several times in relation to certain of the
posts
here. Tactic 1: the gratuitous insult. Tactic 2: call the speaker names.
Tactic 3: try to change the subject.

On 3 Aug 2004 16:32:16 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:09:42 GMT, felton said:

At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

Lessee:

"Goss [Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] said he ...... plans to
request the declassification in case a need for public hearings or other
disclosure arises."

and

"The allegations against him [Clark] could linger for weeks as the
declassification request winds through the appropriate agencies to ensure
sensitive national security information isn't revealed. Often most protected
are the "sources and methods" of gathering intelligence."

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

Lessee here. You figure that because the votes are there they'll just vote
on the matter without any particular study of just what it is they're
releasing. And you find it outrageous that with the evidence still
classified Frist isn't yet ready to label one of Clark's two versions of the
facts perjury. But with the evidence still classified you are in a position
to conclude, on the basis of one Democrat's "best recollection," that there
exists not a scintilla of evidence of a fib. I get it.

I am just a bit surprised that without *any* evidence you have already
drawn your conclusion that the charges *alleged* by Frist and Hastert
are anything other than political damage control. You appear to find
it plausible that Clarke would commit perjury, on the record and under
oath in order to sell his book. That would seem to be the easiest
thing to prove, and yet there is NO proof.

So I guess it makes sense to you to just accept their charges as fact
and sit patiently by waiting for things to play out. How long do you
think that might take? Late November? I really have to shake my head
that people just accept what they are told with absolutely no support
offered.

Having read the book and listened to his sworn testimony, I'll accept
what he said over Frist and Hastert until proven otherwise. Let me
know when you have anything other than a smear campaign to back the
version you choose to believe.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:00:22 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

He's not gulible... he's just stoooopid.

I was being compassionate

Perhaps the President and Vice President have
classified information they don't want on the
record. I can think of several things that if revealed
would compromise our intelligence gathering
capabilities.

Keep in mind, President Clinton has not be critical
of President Bush. Perhaps Clinton is aware of these
same factors.

"felton" wrote

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:07:07 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"

It might seem like it, but it isn't or at least if it is, the
sour grapes are factual.

In fairness, we should consider the facts presented by Bush & Cheney
before drawing a conclusion.

Oh, wait. They reluctantly agreed to meet with the 9/11 Commission
only if they could appear together, not under oath, in private with no
transcript or record of what they said. Now that inspires confidence.

So, what you're saying is that you only listen to the Republican
point of view. This is pretty typical of a right-wing freakazoid.
Thanks for clarifying for us.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:02:00 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So convenient that you didn't bother reading the rest of the
article...

I read it, but discounted the Dems' obvious efforts to put their spin on
the
facts.

Of course if I'd adopted your usual tactics I'd simply have yelled "Clark
lied."