the wtc attacks were planned while clinton was worried about
getting his dick sucked by his employees.....maybe he should
have been better at "staying on task"....

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
the wtc attacks were planned while clinton was worried about
getting his dick sucked by his employees.....maybe he should
have been better at "staying on task"....

Hmmmm.
I thought Clinton did this in the White House. Are you implying it was
done on a boat?
I mean, why else would you post this in a boating forum?
Maybe you should be better at "staying on topic". It's simple:boating.

I know; don't feed the trolls. Sorry.

On 23 Dec 2004 01:49:01 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It's a well accepted fact that Republicans never have sex outside of
marriage, and even intramarital sex is for purposes of procreation only. :-)

You mean there's another reason?

I'll be damned.

Later,

Tom

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I wouldn't characterize the party as a mindless idiot, but I'm
flabbergasted
that anybody seriously believes Clinton's sex life was a factor in whether
Al
Qaida attacked us on 9-11.


But Harry is blaming Bush for the 9/11 attacks. I'm flabbergasted that you
would believe that. Bush had nothing to do with it, but I don't see your
indignation over Harry's remarks.

Typical two-faced liberal you are, Chuck.

Jack

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Let me guess, Chuck...you're picking up a quote from one of the mindless
rightwing idiots I filter...Fritz? Hertvik?



I wouldn't characterize the party as a mindless idiot, but I'm
flabbergasted
that anybody seriously believes Clinton's sex life was a factor in whether
Al
Qaida attacked us on 9-11.

Even if they were attacking us based on moral outrage over the whole
Lewinski
affair, they should have called it off in 2001 when Bush took office. It's
a
well accepted fact that Republicans never have sex outside of marriage,
and
even intramarital sex is for purposes of procreation only. :-)

You asked:

"So, if Clinton hadn't been blown in the Oval Office, Al Qaida would never
have
planned to attack the US??"

I said:

"Possibly. Can you prove otherwise? "

So how does that now translate into "seriously believes Clinton's sex life
was a factor in whether Al Qaida attacked us on 9-11"?

Quite a leap you made there Chuck.

"So, if Clinton hadn't been blown in the Oval Office, Al Qaida would never
have
planned to attack the US??"

I said:

"Possibly. Can you prove otherwise? "

So how does that now translate into "seriously believes Clinton's sex life
was a factor in whether Al Qaida attacked us on 9-11"?

Quite a leap you made there Chuck.

You seriously believe that it is a possibility, and challenge others to provide
proof that bin Ladin would never have attacked the US if Clinton wasn't
fiddling around with Monica.

That's not a leap, it's a short step.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
"So, if Clinton hadn't been blown in the Oval Office, Al Qaida would
never
have
planned to attack the US??"

I said:

"Possibly. Can you prove otherwise? "

So how does that now translate into "seriously believes Clinton's sex life
was a factor in whether Al Qaida attacked us on 9-11"?

Quite a leap you made there Chuck.

You seriously believe that it is a possibility, and challenge others to
provide
proof that bin Ladin would never have attacked the US if Clinton wasn't
fiddling around with Monica.

That's not a leap, it's a short step.

I never said I believe it. I said it was possible.

On 23 Dec 2004 01:49:01 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Let me guess, Chuck...you're picking up a quote from one of the mindless
rightwing idiots I filter...Fritz? Hertvik?



I wouldn't characterize the party as a mindless idiot, but I'm flabbergasted
that anybody seriously believes Clinton's sex life was a factor in whether Al
Qaida attacked us on 9-11.

Even if they were attacking us based on moral outrage over the whole Lewinski
affair, they should have called it off in 2001 when Bush took office. It's a
well accepted fact that Republicans never have sex outside of marriage, and
even intramarital sex is for purposes of procreation only. :-)

If Clinton's mind had not been focused on his sex life, and the
repercussions therefrom, do you suppose he may have done more to bring
Bin Laden down while he had the chance(s)?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

If Clinton's mind had not been focused on his sex life, and the
repercussions therefrom, do you suppose he may have done more to bring
Bin Laden down while he had the chance(s)?


Close, butt no cigar....(Clinton joke)

Clinton attacked bin Ladin a few times during his term, launching cruise
missles into his training camps, etc.

However, since the Republican witch hunters in congress had *their* minds on
using Clinton's sex life to try to hound him from office, he met with
resistance every step of the way.

He was accused of "wagging the dog" when he launched missles against Al Qaida,
- trying to divert the nation's attention from more important matters like
lying under oath about an extra marital sexcapede. When he listened to faulty
intelligence and clobbered an aspirin factory in the Sudan, he was reviled as
the dumbest piece of crap ever to set foot in the oval office. (A rather
different response than when a Republican got us into the current
mess.....supposedly as the result of faulty intelligence).

One could counter with the observation that if your witch hunters had let the
man alone to do his job, he might have been more effective at it.

On 23 Dec 2004 15:52:00 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If Clinton's mind had not been focused on his sex life, and the
repercussions therefrom, do you suppose he may have done more to bring
Bin Laden down while he had the chance(s)?


Close, butt no cigar....(Clinton joke)

Clinton attacked bin Ladin a few times during his term, launching cruise
missles into his training camps, etc.

However, since the Republican witch hunters in congress had *their* minds on
using Clinton's sex life to try to hound him from office, he met with
resistance every step of the way.

He was accused of "wagging the dog" when he launched missles against Al Qaida,
- trying to divert the nation's attention from more important matters like
lying under oath about an extra marital sexcapede. When he listened to faulty
intelligence and clobbered an aspirin factory in the Sudan, he was reviled as
the dumbest piece of crap ever to set foot in the oval office. (A rather
different response than when a Republican got us into the current
mess.....supposedly as the result of faulty intelligence).

One could counter with the observation that if your witch hunters had let the
man alone to do his job, he might have been more effective at it.


Our definitions of 'attack' differ.

One could counter your argument with the observation that if Clinton
had kept his pants zipped, the witch hunting wouldn't have started.

Are you suggesting that Bush hasn't been reviled?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes