On 21 Nov 2004 23:50:29 GMT, ospam (Larry Cable) wrote:

...
I still like to know what he so bold faced lied about?

How about that night he went on TV in front of the nation and made some
reference to poker (I guess) when he said he wanted everyone in the UN to
lay their cards on the table, and vote on the second resolution. Then,
just days afterwards, the resolution was yanked from consideration and
people *couldn't* vote on it, whether they wanted to or not. I don't know
about you, but I'd consider someone who goes on national TV to say one
thing and then not even a week later to do almost the exact opposite to be
lying. Screw all the bad intelligence and the world courts and rules of
war. This man lied to you. He lied to hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Doesn't that bother you just a tiny bit?

...

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Guns don't kill people, religions do

in article , Galen Hekhuis at
wrote on 11/21/04 7:07 PM:

On 21 Nov 2004 23:50:29 GMT, ospam (Larry Cable) wrote:

...
I still like to know what he so bold faced lied about?

How about that night he went on TV in front of the nation and made some
reference to poker (I guess) when he said he wanted everyone in the UN to
lay their cards on the table, and vote on the second resolution. Then,
just days afterwards, the resolution was yanked from consideration and
people *couldn't* vote on it, whether they wanted to or not. I don't know
about you, but I'd consider someone who goes on national TV to say one
thing and then not even a week later to do almost the exact opposite to be
lying. Screw all the bad intelligence and the world courts and rules of
war. This man lied to you. He lied to hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Doesn't that bother you just a tiny bit?

If it was about sex, it would be a problem.

Going to war and killing thousands of people...not an issue.

Keenan Wellar

Message-ID: BDC6D50F.121E5%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@hotmai l.com

If it was about sex, it would be a problem.

Going to war and killing thousands of people...not an issue.

Since the President doesn't gather intelligence himself, one could very
legitimately state that the information was a mistake.

I doubt that such is the case when you have some intern blowing you in the Oval
Office.

I would point out that the Clinton Administration relieved and criminally
prosecuted Military Officers for the same behavior.

SYOTR
Larry C.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
Keenan Wellar

Message-ID: BDC6D50F.121E5%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@hotmai l.com

If it was about sex, it would be a problem.

Going to war and killing thousands of people...not an issue.

Since the President doesn't gather intelligence himself

That's for sure!

one could very
legitimately state that the information was a mistake.

It's easy to make such mistakes when the tail is wagging the dog.

I doubt that such is the case when you have some intern blowing you in the
Oval
Office.

Only in America would that be seen as a more serious offense than starting a
war on false pretenses.

Keenan Wellar"

Only in America would that be seen as a more serious offense than starting a
war on false pretenses.

You assume that because the intelligence didn't prove to be entirely correct
that it was a fabrication, but I've seen no evidence of that being true. I've
looked at the same intelligence, most of it is available at the UN or
www.globalintelligence.com, or even at the CIA website, and it all pointed to
the same conclusion, that Saddam was still pursueing programs to develop WMD.
The only difference in any of the was to the extent he was being successful and
how to deal with it.

Intelligence is often inaccurate. The bad guys are trying to keep you from
finding things out and often your source of information is indirect. Even
Humintel can get chancy, these sources often have scores to settle or their own
agenda.

The real offense Clinton committed was that the prejured himself when
questioned about the having oral sex. Even that really didn't go very far.

SYOTR
Larry C.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
Keenan Wellar"

Only in America would that be seen as a more serious offense than starting
a
war on false pretenses.

You assume that because the intelligence didn't prove to be entirely
correct
that it was a fabrication, but I've seen no evidence of that being true.
I've
looked at the same intelligence, most of it is available at the UN or
www.globalintelligence.com, or even at the CIA website, and it all pointed
to
the same conclusion, that Saddam was still pursueing programs to develop
WMD.
The only difference in any of the was to the extent he was being
successful and
how to deal with it.

Intelligence is often inaccurate. The bad guys are trying to keep you from
finding things out and often your source of information is indirect. Even
Humintel can get chancy, these sources often have scores to settle or
their own
agenda.

The real offense Clinton committed was that the prejured himself when
questioned about the having oral sex. Even that really didn't go very far.

SYOTR
Larry C.

Only in America could getting accurate confirmation of intelligence before
starting a war be of greater importance than telling the truth about who you
had oral sex with.

Only in America could getting accurate confirmation of intelligence before
starting a war be of greater importance than telling the truth about who you
had oral sex with.

Keenan, I think you meant ....Lesser importance .... in order to
maintain the sarcasm. We may not have our facts straight, but at least
you could keep your sarcasm straight!! TnT