"Jim" wrote in message
...


thunder wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:



Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political
agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the
reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of
the
fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk
about
simple...


Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found.
Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate
our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD.
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this
administration.

Couple more
*Clarke has worked in anti-terrorism for every president since Reagan.
*Bush has stonewalled the 9/11 commission ever since setting it up --
recently he has agreed to give them 1 hour. Rice refuses to
testify
*White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for FBI
counterterrorism funds in the weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks.
* NYC fire Dept. is down about 1000 men because of lack of funds


Now Jim you know this is a pack of lies. You must have been listen to Harry.
Maybe he has come out of the closet also..

Oh yea Jim is your Bayliner running Ok also...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
John H wrote in message
I sent a message to Russert asking why NBC didn't just give Kennedy a
free half hour to bash Bush.

John H


And what was his reply? Let me quess, he didn't bother answering such
a sophomoric question.

Oh I forgot about you Mr. asskisser you must have pulled your head out of
the sand bucket also. Lets see if we can get this straight. I IS FROM THE
LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA.

Oh by the way did you get your Bayliner running yet ??

Bill wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...


thunder wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:




Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political
agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the
reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of

the

fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk

about

simple...


Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found.
Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate
our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD.
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this
administration.


Couple more
*Clarke has worked in anti-terrorism for every president since Reagan.
*Bush has stonewalled the 9/11 commission ever since setting it up --
recently he has agreed to give them 1 hour. Rice refuses to

testify

*White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for FBI
counterterrorism funds in the weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks.
* NYC fire Dept. is down about 1000 men because of lack of funds



Now Jim you know this is a pack of lies. You must have been listen to Harry.
Maybe he has come out of the closet also..

Oh yea Jim is your Bayliner running Ok also...

Care to specifically refute the "lies?".
I sail an Irwin and am (slowly) restoring a Dorsett.

The reporters of the 60 minutes Kerry re-election team forgot to
mention during the book review that their parent company (Viacom) also
ownes the publisher of Clark's book. And why did the sales date change
to fit the testimony on Capital hill. Talk about biased and hiding it,
geeze, stop at nothing...

Backyard Renegade wrote:

The reporters of the 60 minutes Kerry re-election team forgot to
mention during the book review that their parent company (Viacom) also
ownes the publisher of Clark's book. And why did the sales date change
to fit the testimony on Capital hill. Talk about biased and hiding it,
geeze, stop at nothing...


The operators of the Bush Regime forgot to mention their ties to Big
Oil, Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family.

"Bill" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
John H wrote in message
I sent a message to Russert asking why NBC didn't just give Kennedy a
free half hour to bash Bush.

John H


And what was his reply? Let me quess, he didn't bother answering such
a sophomoric question.

Oh I forgot about you Mr. asskisser you must have pulled your head out of
the sand bucket also. Lets see if we can get this straight. I IS FROM THE
LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA.

Oh by the way did you get your Bayliner running yet ??

Ah, I take it you are a knee-jerk republican? One of those that makes
wild allegations and assumptions based on no fact? Please tell the
group, what in the hell makes you think I own a Bayliner? I don't.
Now, do you have an answer to my question about Russert's reply, or
are you just spewing crap out of your blow hole?

"Bill" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message
...


thunder wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:28:22 -0800, Backyard Renegade wrote:



Why are these facts so hard to see, could you be blinded by political
agenda? You will dismiss these facts, congressional testimony, and the
reports of the GAO, but beleive Clark, Moore, Kennedy, and the rest of
the
fat entertainers as they push admitted political agendas? Wow, talk
about
simple...


Fact: It's been over a year and still *no* WMD have been found.
Fact: There has been *no* link between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Fact: President Bush set up and "independent commission" to investigate
our faulty Iraq intelligence, i.e. *no* WMD.
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this
administration.

Couple more
*Clarke has worked in anti-terrorism for every president since Reagan.
*Bush has stonewalled the 9/11 commission ever since setting it up --
recently he has agreed to give them 1 hour. Rice refuses to
testify
*White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for FBI
counterterrorism funds in the weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks.
* NYC fire Dept. is down about 1000 men because of lack of funds


Now Jim you know this is a pack of lies. You must have been listen to Harry.
Maybe he has come out of the closet also..

Please provide any proof that the above are lies.

On 23 Mar 2004 04:24:39 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
John H wrote in message
I sent a message to Russert asking why NBC didn't just give Kennedy a
free half hour to bash Bush.

John H


And what was his reply? Let me quess, he didn't bother answering such
a sophomoric question.

Oh I forgot about you Mr. asskisser you must have pulled your head out of
the sand bucket also. Lets see if we can get this straight. I IS FROM THE
LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA.

Oh by the way did you get your Bayliner running yet ??

Ah, I take it you are a knee-jerk republican? One of those that makes
wild allegations and assumptions based on no fact? Please tell the
group, what in the hell makes you think I own a Bayliner? I don't.
Now, do you have an answer to my question about Russert's reply, or
are you just spewing crap out of your blow hole?

To whom did you address your question? You've got to pay attention.
Or, did Bill also send Russert an email?


John H

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

"DSK" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
The Miami Herald is far from being source of propaganda for Bush. Kerry
was
pandering to the Cuban population and got caught in a lie.

If he told the truth, which is that he voted for the bill, then how was
he 'caught in a lie?' Has it all gotten this Orwellian?

He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You
obviously missed this sentence:

"There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton
legislation)"

Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation in
its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual
legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:06:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You
obviously missed this sentence:

"There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton
legislation)"

Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation in
its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual
legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it.

You are spinning. Kerry voted for the original Senate Helms-Burton Act.
He voted against the final version after Title III was tacked on.
Apparently, GWB doesn't care for Title III either, as he has suspended
enforcement of it.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ar/...a/helmsbur.htm