"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 04:14:00 +0000, NOYB wrote:

I dunno Harry. This one has me totally perplexed. There is an
absolute
venom towards Bush on your side of the aisle. I've read articles from
writers who stated they hate even the way he walks. Yet, that
message
only seems to come to those liberals that have a strong interest in
politics. Obviously, the hate message isn't resonating with the great
majority of the country.

That venom has been with us for some time, and isn't limited to one
side
of the aisle. I never liked Clinton, but to this day, I am amazed at
the
rabid hatred he inspires in some. Personally, I don't think either
President is deserving of hatred, and find the polarization troubling
and
dangerous. I suspect the reasons lie in both sides perceptions that
Washington can not effectively run the country. Blame for this is
often
the "other side".

Actually, my feelings toward Bill Clinton had less to do with his
policies
and more to do with his immorality.

But Bush's immorality and his endless lies about really important
matters don't concern you, eh?

How is bush immoral, and what is he lying about?

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
news On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 04:14:00 +0000, NOYB wrote:

I dunno Harry. This one has me totally perplexed. There is an
absolute
venom towards Bush on your side of the aisle. I've read articles from
writers who stated they hate even the way he walks. Yet, that
message
only seems to come to those liberals that have a strong interest in
politics. Obviously, the hate message isn't resonating with the great
majority of the country.

That venom has been with us for some time, and isn't limited to one
side
of the aisle. I never liked Clinton, but to this day, I am amazed at
the
rabid hatred he inspires in some. Personally, I don't think either
President is deserving of hatred, and find the polarization troubling
and
dangerous. I suspect the reasons lie in both sides perceptions that
Washington can not effectively run the country. Blame for this is
often
the "other side".

Actually, my feelings toward Bill Clinton had less to do with his
policies
and more to do with his immorality.

But Bush's immorality and his endless lies about really important
matters don't concern you, eh?

How is bush immoral, and what is he lying about?



1. Oh, puh-lease.
2. Everything.

Here's a short and now out of date list of the lies of Bush and his
administration about one subject...WMD:




Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for
the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is
once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass
destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass
destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months
since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the
crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are
doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and
rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of
mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our
judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical
particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the
operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of
mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons
will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them
and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass
destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a
number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of
mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003


But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that
they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about
and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi
scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he
destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . .
.. so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and
the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction
in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam
Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and
find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean,
there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago --
whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're
still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to
be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating,
I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003


They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one
reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we
have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal
sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually
every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad,
but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I
think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003


--
Email sent to is never read.

The flow began from the GOP. Let's keep that in mind.

Simply untrue, Harry, but you already know that.

Puh-leeze. We'd need to go back a couple of hundred years to figure out who
"started it." Shame on you *and* Harry for insisting it was the other side.

Like the Hatfields and McCoys, after a generation nobody even remembers who
started it.

No person can honestly and accurately say the other side started it.
The conservatives have institutionalized it, however, with hate radio.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message

Puh-leeze. We'd need to go back a couple of hundred years to figure out
who
"started it." Shame on you *and* Harry for insisting it was the other
side.

My apologies, Chuck et al. I *do* agree with your point above. In the
original draft of my reply to Harry, there was a sentence referencing to the
"slime alley" as a two-way street. In editing it got cut, and I failed to
notice. Mea Culpa.


The conservatives have institutionalized it, however, with hate radio.

But let's not intentionally *******ize the language or the process with
loaded buzzwords like "hate radio". There's no hate, it is just
conservative talk radio. Most true conservatives are embarrassed by some of
the pompous rantings that go on, just as honorable Democrats are often
embarrassed by some of the drivel that occasionally spews from the far left.
Words have to mean something, or the whole process is pointless. If we use
words as triggers or weapons, credibility suffers.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:br0lft$27poe8

Here's a short and now out of date list

Since you unequivocally pronounce all these statements as administration
lies, we can presume that you have confirmed documentary evidence that there
are not now and were not then any NBC weapons in Iraq.

Sources, please?

John Gaquin wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message

Puh-leeze. We'd need to go back a couple of hundred years to figure out
who
"started it." Shame on you *and* Harry for insisting it was the other
side.

My apologies, Chuck et al. I *do* agree with your point above. In the
original draft of my reply to Harry, there was a sentence referencing to the
"slime alley" as a two-way street. In editing it got cut, and I failed to
notice. Mea Culpa.


The conservatives have institutionalized it, however, with hate radio.

But let's not intentionally *******ize the language or the process with
loaded buzzwords like "hate radio".


It's hate radio. The "hosts" are spewing hate. There's no other word to
describe it.


--
Email sent to is never read.

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:br0lft$27poe8

Here's a short and now out of date list

Since you unequivocally pronounce all these statements as administration
lies, we can presume that you have confirmed documentary evidence that there
are not now and were not then any NBC weapons in Iraq.

Sources, please?




WMD, please?

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

It's hate radio. The "hosts" are spewing hate. There's no other word to
describe it.

You make my point. QED

As expected.

Gary Warner wrote:
"K Smith" wrote in message:


the ones that returned lefty taxes to the tax payers so they can decide
for themselves how to live their lives?? instead of faceless unelected
cretins like you deciding what should be done with other peoples' money,

or


I'll just reply to your first idea and leave the other ones for others:
"Returning" taxes when running huge
deficits and increasing discretionary spending at an amazing rate is
not "returning" any money. Bush likes to say "it's your money" but
it's also "your" debt. Or, more probably, debt that you are passing
on to your kids. ~ How about I borrow $100 in your name and
give you $50 of it? Sounds good to me.




Thanks for the reply Gary;

Last first?? So long as I have to spend it at the same bank, which you
happen to also own; that's not as bad as it first appears:-)

I don't think anyone says the debt is a good thing & at the moment the
war is certainly a part of it.

The real trouble was your debt was rising at an alarming rate even
throughout the economic boom times under Clinton, as people's wages
increased so too the tax take. The trouble was the Dems were also
allowing a boom in Govt funded programs/spending, while I suspect most
of us think many laudable, the fact remains their growth was even
greater than the economy in those once in a life boom times.

Bush was confronted with a downturn in the cycle, it had been seen a
long time out, so those that simplistically blame him for it, are just
being opportunists.

The real issue is given the circumstances Bush had to deal with, the
downturn, 911 etc he has done the right thing, he's cut taxes so despite
a huge loss of apparent consumer wealth with the tech wreck stock
collapse etc, people have still been able to spend.

It's thanks to the resilience of the US consumer the world looks more &
more like averting an economic meltdown & thanks.

It's most likely that if Al the voters best pal were in, then the loss
of wealth, 911 jitters & continuing high taxes might have shut the US
consumer spending confidence down & then we're all in it, big time.

Once the left's spending programs are rained in next term then the debt
can be better managed.

However again don't think anyone is happy about the debt Clinton
allowed to build when you should have been clearing sovereign debt, we &
lots of other places actually paid debt down during the boom high tax
flow times of the 90s, Clinton just flitted it away on loony left
favours to supporters, unions etc.

K