Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

JohnH wrote:

Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

No one has to "twist things" to make the Bush adminstration look bad. It
may well be the most incompetent administration in US history.



--
Email sent to will never reach me.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

Which issue is most important to you in the 2004 election?
Economy 55%
War on Iraq 34%
Other 11%

How vulnerable is Bush?
Very 43%
Somewhat 34%
Not at all 23%

Who would you most like to see jump in the race?
No one -- the right candidates are already in the race 47%
Hillary Clinton 20%
Al Gore 14%
Everyone who lost in the California recall 10%
Ralph Nader 5%
Ross Perot 4%
Total Votes: 38,698

Note on Poll Results

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:16:37 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

No one has to "twist things" to make the Bush adminstration look bad. It
may well be the most incompetent administration in US history.

Then why, Harry, do so many of you exert so much effort in your attempts to do
so? Wouldn't fishing be more fun? Speaking of which, I caught a nice striper
trolling out by #83 today.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

No one has to "twist things" to make the Bush adminstration look bad. It
may well be the most incompetent administration in US history.

Compared to what, the Clinton administration? You must be joking. . .

Steve

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

JohnH wrote in message . ..
Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

So, do you think Hannity is honest? I just LOVE the way the guy cries
and whines about how the Dems are saying bad things about the BushCo,
calling him a liar and such. Then listen to him when he starts bashing
a dem. He's nothing more nor less than a two faced pig.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"Steve" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

No one has to "twist things" to make the Bush adminstration look bad. It
may well be the most incompetent administration in US history.

Compared to what, the Clinton administration? You must be joking. . .

Steve

Yeah, although it's true that Bush has flubbed up the economy, made
everybody in the world resent us, distanced us from the U.N., attacked
a nation unprovoked, made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,
etc., etc, that damned Clinton wanted a blow job.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On 5 Nov 2003 04:19:45 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message . ..
Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

So, do you think Hannity is honest? I just LOVE the way the guy cries
and whines about how the Dems are saying bad things about the BushCo,
calling him a liar and such. Then listen to him when he starts bashing
a dem. He's nothing more nor less than a two faced pig.
Hannity's honesty is not in question. Read the memo!

"We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we
have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

"1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to
major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by
administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

"For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech,
the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of
the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as
Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

"The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these
offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and
potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects
for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing
of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads
we are pursuing.]

"2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any
interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules
provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

"In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements
on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the
most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence
estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will
also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit
the scope of the inquiry.

"The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question
of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

"3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear
we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the
majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the
administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so
once.

"The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

"A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim
report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our
case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The
announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional
views on the final investigation. Or:

"B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue,
we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that
context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation
based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

"In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent
investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter
footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger
investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We
have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are
preparing further independent requests for information.

"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's
concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role
to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest,
methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case
for unilateral preemptive war.

"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for
exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...4/165925.shtml
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message

Yeah, although it's true that Bush has flubbed up the economy

Translation: "flubbed up" = 1. was in office when the country was
attacked, starting a war and decimating the airline industry, with multiple
associated downline ripple effects; 2. concurrently inherited an ongoing
economic recession; 3. had to deal with a corporate fraud scandal that had
been building for 5+ years

... made everybody in the world resent us

Most of the world already resented us politically. Comes with being #1.
Note, however, that in spite of the official whining rhetoric, US of A is
still far and away the #1 destination for immigrants seeking opportunity.

...distanced us from the U.N.

And this is a bad thing? "Distancing" ourselves from a third-world country
club whose main interest is preserving their individual New York residences
and expense accounts?

... attacked a nation unprovoked

Which nation was that? You couldn't be referring to Afghanistan, a nation
that had turned over virtually it's entire land mass and administration to
be used as a training/staging area by an organization that had publicly
declared itself at war with the US. Nor could you be referring to Iraq, a
nation that knowingly, willfully, and publicly violated treaty provisions
with the US and others that it publicly agreed to and signed in 1991. We
must have attacked some other country while no one was looking.


... made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,

A protocol is a set of procedures or behaviors voluntarily followed by
persons involved, with the aim of having affairs run smoothly and fairly and
beneficially for all concerned. You'll need to be more specific as to
exactly where and/or when such a set of circumstances was in place that the
US subsequently "shambled".

etc., etc, that damned Clinton wanted a blow job.

You still don't quite grasp reality, do you? Clinton got laughed at (but
not embarrassed - and that speaks volumes) because of the blow jobs. He got
impeached because he looked the country in the eye seventeen times in
succession, and lied. Not once or twice -- people can shake that off.
Seventeen effing times.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

... made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,

A protocol is a set of procedures or behaviors

One more thing -- I believe the word you were seeking is "accepted", a
"...commonly accepted protocol...". A "commonly excepted protocol" would
be one routinely disregarded by parties involved, so it would be difficult
to make a shambles of that, no?

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:22:09 GMT, "John Gaquin" wrote:

... made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,

A protocol is a set of procedures or behaviors

One more thing -- I believe the word you were seeking is "accepted", a
"...commonly accepted protocol...". A "commonly excepted protocol" would
be one routinely disregarded by parties involved, so it would be difficult
to make a shambles of that, no?

I believe he was referring to the protocol by which nations heed resolutions
passed by the UN. In Iraq's case, this was a "commonly excepted protocol". Yes,
Bush made a shambles of it.

So, for once, basskisser was correct. You probably don't owe him an apology,
however.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.


Right. Maybe that investigation can begin as soon as the Justice Department
is finished with its "inquiry" into who leaked the identity of the CIA
agent.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.


Right. Maybe that investigation can begin as soon as the Justice
Department
is finished with its "inquiry" into who leaked the identity of the CIA
agent.

But not until the White House ordered commision on 911 is actually given the
materials requested from the White House. What an incredible case of
footdragging there.

When Bush says something, you can fairly well predict he means exactly the
opposite.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:51:03 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.


Right. Maybe that investigation can begin as soon as the Justice
Department
is finished with its "inquiry" into who leaked the identity of the CIA
agent.

But not until the White House ordered commision on 911 is actually given the
materials requested from the White House. What an incredible case of
footdragging there.

When Bush says something, you can fairly well predict he means exactly the
opposite.

You're not trying to change the subject, are you?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:51:03 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign
demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.


Right. Maybe that investigation can begin as soon as the Justice
Department
is finished with its "inquiry" into who leaked the identity of the CIA
agent.

But not until the White House ordered commision on 911 is actually given
the
materials requested from the White House. What an incredible case of
footdragging there.

When Bush says something, you can fairly well predict he means exactly
the
opposite.

You're not trying to change the subject, are you?\

No, just expanding the list of "findings" we're not likely to find.

Hey, as you can tell I'm all about finding a way to get Bush out of office.
The "memo" actually causes me to have a higher view of the democrats in
congress, since they're thinking similarly.

At this point, everything is political fodder and I think all Bush's lies,
missteps, fanatical thinking, obfuscation, cold heartedness, etc. should be
heaped in a giant pile that he can't see over. If the dems are doing their
part in congress, halle****inglujah!!!

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"jps" wrote in message
...

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

Paybacks, eh?

Sorry, but your guy made an easier target by being a lying sleazeball.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

NOYB wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

Paybacks, eh?

Sorry, but your guy made an easier target by being a lying sleazeball.


Bush lies about far more important subjects than his sex life.


--
Email sent to will never reach me.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

... made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,

A protocol is a set of procedures or behaviors

One more thing -- I believe the word you were seeking is "accepted", a
"...commonly accepted protocol...". A "commonly excepted protocol" would
be one routinely disregarded by parties involved, so it would be difficult
to make a shambles of that, no?

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:43:01 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:51:03 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign
demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.


Right. Maybe that investigation can begin as soon as the Justice
Department
is finished with its "inquiry" into who leaked the identity of the CIA
agent.

But not until the White House ordered commision on 911 is actually given
the
materials requested from the White House. What an incredible case of
footdragging there.

When Bush says something, you can fairly well predict he means exactly
the
opposite.

You're not trying to change the subject, are you?\

No, just expanding the list of "findings" we're not likely to find.

Hey, as you can tell I'm all about finding a way to get Bush out of office.
The "memo" actually causes me to have a higher view of the democrats in
congress, since they're thinking similarly.

At this point, everything is political fodder and I think all Bush's lies,
missteps, fanatical thinking, obfuscation, cold heartedness, etc. should be
heaped in a giant pile that he can't see over. If the dems are doing their
part in congress, halle****inglujah!!!

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

It figures.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:38:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

Paybacks, eh?

Sorry, but your guy made an easier target by being a lying sleazeball.


Bush lies about far more important subjects than his sex life.

Not!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:38:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

Paybacks, eh?

Sorry, but your guy made an easier target by being a lying sleazeball.


Bush lies about far more important subjects than his sex life.

Not!


Oh, puh-lease. He's lied about 9-11, he's lied about the wars he's
started, he's lied about the environment, he's lied about health
insurance. If Bush opens his mouth, he's lying.

To paraphrase another bush lie: we're winning in Iraq because the
opposition is getting tougher and deadlier.

What a lie.

--
Email sent to will never reach me.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

It figures.

You can't be surprised, eh???

To repeat an oft-used refrain from the right, I doubt you were complaining
when Clinton was being impeded from the work of the country by a bunch of
pseudo-ethical prosecutors such as Henry Hyde and Ken Starr.

Your party set the tone with Clinton, why shouldn't the dems play the same?

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
... made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,

A protocol is a set of procedures or behaviors

One more thing -- I believe the word you were seeking is "accepted", a
"...commonly accepted protocol...". A "commonly excepted protocol" would
be one routinely disregarded by parties involved, so it would be difficult
to make a shambles of that, no?

That's okay John, I'll make sure to read your posts, and report any
spelling or grammatical errors to you, also, okay? What are those --
things? You stated "One more thing--" I don't believe that is proper
punctuation.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

JohnH wrote in message
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for
exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...4/165925.shtml
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Do you not think that Republicans take the same approach to partisan
politics? Do you not think that they scheme, and write memos to other
Republicans on how to oust a particular Democrat they want out?
Now watch, we'll have a Ken Starr like investigation, but CIA leaks
aren't worth and outside investigation, why?

Because it was the republicans that did that! Plain and simple, it's
okay if a republican leaks CIA confidential material, but if a
democrat rights a memo detailing how they plan to bring forth matters
of political importance to the people, the republicans then start
crying and whining....

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

Paybacks, eh?

Sorry, but your guy made an easier target by being a lying sleazeball.


Bush lies about far more important subjects than his sex life.


None of which allegations can be substantiated by anything more than
speculative tripe, by you raving bunch of "lunatic lefties".

Put up some facts or shut up.

Dave

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:38:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

Paybacks, eh?

Sorry, but your guy made an easier target by being a lying sleazeball.


Bush lies about far more important subjects than his sex life.

Not!


Oh, puh-lease. He's lied about 9-11, he's lied about the wars he's
started, he's lied about the environment, he's lied about health
insurance. If Bush opens his mouth, he's lying.

Prove it!

Dave

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Oh, puh-lease. He's lied about 9-11, he's lied about the wars he's
started, he's lied about the environment, he's lied about health
insurance. If Bush opens his mouth, he's lying.

Prove it!

Dave


You walk up to your car and you're jumped by 2 guys. They give you a pretty
good beating, but you're still standing. 5 of their friends come out of a
nearby bar with broken beer bottles and baseball bats and they begin
whomping on you. Are you winning?

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
JohnH wrote in message
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for
exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...4/165925.shtml
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Do you not think that Republicans take the same approach to partisan
politics? Do you not think that they scheme, and write memos to other
Republicans on how to oust a particular Democrat they want out?
Now watch, we'll have a Ken Starr like investigation, but CIA leaks
aren't worth and outside investigation, why?

Can you say "Iran-Contra scandal"???

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Oh, puh-lease. He's lied about 9-11, he's lied about the wars he's
started, he's lied about the environment, he's lied about health
insurance. If Bush opens his mouth, he's lying.

Prove it!

Dave


You walk up to your car and you're jumped by 2 guys. They give you a
pretty
good beating, but you're still standing. 5 of their friends come out of a
nearby bar with broken beer bottles and baseball bats and they begin
whomping on you. Are you winning?


Depends. How good is your attorney? How much money are the 7 guys worth?
How much money do you want? If you live...then you win.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:39:49 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

It figures.

You can't be surprised, eh???

To repeat an oft-used refrain from the right, I doubt you were complaining
when Clinton was being impeded from the work of the country by a bunch of
pseudo-ethical prosecutors such as Henry Hyde and Ken Starr.

Your party set the tone with Clinton, why shouldn't the dems play the same?

Did the folks on the right say, "I doubt you were complaining when Clinton was
being impeded from the work of the country by a bunch of pseudo-ethical
prosecutors such as Henry Hyde and Ken Starr"?

Or was it the folks on the left saying that? Did I ever say I was a Republican?
Have you ever seen any comments about Clinton from me?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:47:10 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:38:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

I feel the same way about Bush that you all felt about Clinton. It's our
turn to rip the asshole in charge apart.

Paybacks, eh?

Sorry, but your guy made an easier target by being a lying sleazeball.


Bush lies about far more important subjects than his sex life.

Not!


Oh, puh-lease. He's lied about 9-11, he's lied about the wars he's
started, he's lied about the environment, he's lied about health
insurance. If Bush opens his mouth, he's lying.

To paraphrase another bush lie: we're winning in Iraq because the
opposition is getting tougher and deadlier.

What a lie.

He lied about none of those.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:44:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Oh, puh-lease. He's lied about 9-11, he's lied about the wars he's
started, he's lied about the environment, he's lied about health
insurance. If Bush opens his mouth, he's lying.

Prove it!

Dave


You walk up to your car and you're jumped by 2 guys. They give you a pretty
good beating, but you're still standing. 5 of their friends come out of a
nearby bar with broken beer bottles and baseball bats and they begin
whomping on you. Are you winning?

Are they still standing?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On 6 Nov 2003 04:38:09 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for
exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...4/165925.shtml
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Do you not think that Republicans take the same approach to partisan
politics? Do you not think that they scheme, and write memos to other
Republicans on how to oust a particular Democrat they want out?
Now watch, we'll have a Ken Starr like investigation, but CIA leaks
aren't worth and outside investigation, why?

Because it was the republicans that did that! Plain and simple, it's
okay if a republican leaks CIA confidential material, but if a
democrat rights a memo detailing how they plan to bring forth matters
of political importance to the people, the republicans then start
crying and whining....

The info on the CIA agent was provided by the husband of the CIA agent in the
hopes of causing problems for the administration. This is as factual a statement
as your's.

No, I don't think the Republicans have stooped quite that low.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:44:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Oh, puh-lease. He's lied about 9-11, he's lied about the wars he's
started, he's lied about the environment, he's lied about health
insurance. If Bush opens his mouth, he's lying.

Prove it!

Dave


You walk up to your car and you're jumped by 2 guys. They give you a
pretty
good beating, but you're still standing. 5 of their friends come out of a
nearby bar with broken beer bottles and baseball bats and they begin
whomping on you. Are you winning?

Are they still standing?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Doesn't matter. A few at a time, more of them keep coming out of the bar, no
matter what you do.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The info on the CIA agent was provided by the husband of the CIA agent in
the
hopes of causing problems for the administration. This is as factual a
statement
as your's.

No, I don't think the Republicans have stooped quite that low.

That's a complete fabrication and has absolutely no basis in fact, Mr.
"No-Spin," since Novak has already said that the information came from two
"Senior White House officials" and Joe is clearly not a senior white house
official.

The Starr inquiry information was leaked by Starr's own legal team, as was
confirmed by reporters who broke that story.

So, you are incorrect in assuming your statement is as factual as
basskisser's.

By your own logic the Republicans have, in fact, stooped lower.

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:44:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Oh, puh-lease. He's lied about 9-11, he's lied about the wars he's
started, he's lied about the environment, he's lied about health
insurance. If Bush opens his mouth, he's lying.

Prove it!

Dave


You walk up to your car and you're jumped by 2 guys. They give you a
pretty
good beating, but you're still standing. 5 of their friends come out of a
nearby bar with broken beer bottles and baseball bats and they begin
whomping on you. Are you winning?

Are they still standing?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Doesn't matter. A few at a time, more of them keep coming out of the bar, no
matter what you do.

As long as they're going down, and I'm not, I'd say I was winning.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:48:36 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

The info on the CIA agent was provided by the husband of the CIA agent in
the
hopes of causing problems for the administration. This is as factual a
statement
as your's.

No, I don't think the Republicans have stooped quite that low.

That's a complete fabrication and has absolutely no basis in fact, Mr.
"No-Spin," since Novak has already said that the information came from two
"Senior White House officials" and Joe is clearly not a senior white house
official.

The Starr inquiry information was leaked by Starr's own legal team, as was
confirmed by reporters who broke that story.

So, you are incorrect in assuming your statement is as factual as
basskisser's.

By your own logic the Republicans have, in fact, stooped lower.

Oh, so you DO believe everything Novak says! (Either you or one of your cohorts
made some very unflattering comments about him recently.) Personally, I have
doubts about Novak's accuracy, or perhaps our interpretation of it.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Off Topic -- Has anyone seen the memo Hannity is discussing?
 

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:43:50 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:03:07 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:48:36 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The info on the CIA agent was provided by the husband of the CIA agent in
the
hopes of causing problems for the administration. This is as factual a
statement
as your's.

No, I don't think the Republicans have stooped quite that low.

That's a complete fabrication and has absolutely no basis in fact, Mr.
"No-Spin," since Novak has already said that the information came from two
"Senior White House officials" and Joe is clearly not a senior white house
official.

The Starr inquiry information was leaked by Starr's own legal team, as was
confirmed by reporters who broke that story.

So, you are incorrect in assuming your statement is as factual as
basskisser's.

By your own logic the Republicans have, in fact, stooped lower.

Oh, so you DO believe everything Novak says! (Either you or one of your cohorts
made some very unflattering comments about him recently.) Personally, I have
doubts about Novak's accuracy, or perhaps our interpretation of it.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Well, of course, John. You "have doubts" about anything, and I mean
anything, that shows your boy Bush or his cohorts in a bad way. You're
so far into denial about the Republicans you've fallen into a black
hole.

Hee, hee, hee!! (More chuckles!)

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD