| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT Texas Republicans
Texas candidate loses after photos showed him in dresses, one of Texas
GOP runoff elections MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, April 14, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (04-14) 07:04 PDT HOUSTON (AP) -- A candidate who stuck to his campaign despite photos showing him wearing dresses has lost his bid for office in Texas runoff elections that also picked GOP candidates for five congressional elections. Sam Walls, 64, who sought a seat in the Texas House, had said he would not give in to "blackmail" from whoever circulated the photos, saying they tried to use "very old, personal information" to force him out of the race. Walls, a businessman, had seemed the favorite over real estate broker Rob Orr, but GOP leaders urged him to withdraw after the pictures surfaced, and on Tuesday Orr won with 4,630 votes, or 60 percent, to Walls' 3,031. "Some people have said they feel sorry for me, but let me tell you how wonderful it has been for me," Walls said after his loss. "If you have not had the opportunity to find out that all your friends are true friends, then I feel sorry for you." He has said his family had "dealt with" the dress issue, and he apologized to supporters for any embarrassment caused by "a small part of my personal past." In the Republican congressional runoffs, the 10th District contest was the most expensive congressional race in the country as political rookies Ben Streusand and Michael McCaul spent a total of $5 million. |
OT Texas Republicans
I suppose it is a bad thing, but certainly not on the level of a current
Senator killing a young lady named Mary Jo Kopechne then running away from the accident. Or perhaps not on the same level as a POTUS having oral sex with an intern. "basskisser" wrote in message om... Texas candidate loses after photos showed him in dresses, one of Texas GOP runoff elections MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, April 14, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ (04-14) 07:04 PDT HOUSTON (AP) -- A candidate who stuck to his campaign despite photos showing him wearing dresses has lost his bid for office in Texas runoff elections that also picked GOP candidates for five congressional elections. Sam Walls, 64, who sought a seat in the Texas House, had said he would not give in to "blackmail" from whoever circulated the photos, saying they tried to use "very old, personal information" to force him out of the race. Walls, a businessman, had seemed the favorite over real estate broker Rob Orr, but GOP leaders urged him to withdraw after the pictures surfaced, and on Tuesday Orr won with 4,630 votes, or 60 percent, to Walls' 3,031. "Some people have said they feel sorry for me, but let me tell you how wonderful it has been for me," Walls said after his loss. "If you have not had the opportunity to find out that all your friends are true friends, then I feel sorry for you." He has said his family had "dealt with" the dress issue, and he apologized to supporters for any embarrassment caused by "a small part of my personal past." In the Republican congressional runoffs, the 10th District contest was the most expensive congressional race in the country as political rookies Ben Streusand and Michael McCaul spent a total of $5 million. |
OT Texas Republicans
What year did you live in Naples basskisser? |
OT Texas Republicans
If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late
80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. "Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.844e1d7c1ae2e7e90bbc8c284ef604be@108 1964749.nulluser.com... jim-- wrote: I suppose it is a bad thing, but certainly not on the level of a current Senator killing a young lady named Mary Jo Kopechne then running away from the accident. Or perhaps not on the same level as a POTUS having oral sex with an intern. Sins, indeed, but they pale in comparision to Presidunce Bush lying to get us into a war with Iraq, and causing the deaths of thousands of people, including many non-combatant civilians. |
OT Texas Republicans
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:32:27 +0000, John Smith wrote:
If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD. So far, his error has cost us close to 700 American lives, 10,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and $150 billion. Your choice, a liar or an incompetent. |
OT Texas Republicans
What about the past presidents, including Bill Clinton and the majority of
congressman, including democrats and republicans who strongly believe Iraq had WMD? Where all of them incompetent? Who is to blame for reducing our intelligence in the field who could have provided the CIA, the NAS, Congress and the president with better information? Whoever voted to reduce the budget for these important resources are responsible for 9/11. Even though we have not found WMD in Iraq, both Clinton and Bush both believed Iraq was a stronghold for Terrorist Training. from The Center for Cooperative Research: According to US intelligence sources, Farouk Hijazi, the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, visits Afghanistan in late 1998 after US cruise missiles are fired on al Qaeda training camps following the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Hijazi, who is also a longtime intelligence officer, meets Osama bin Laden in Kandahar and extends an offer from Baghdad to provide refuge for him and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Bin Laden reportedly rejects the offer because he doesn't want his organization dominated by Saddam Hussein. After the 9/11 attacks, proponents of invading Iraq will claim the visit makes Hijazi a key link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Hijazi will be captured by US troops in late April 2003 after the US/British invasion of Iraq begins. When interrogated by US authorities, he will deny any Iraq-al-Qaeda ties. [Guardian, 2/16/99; Associated Press, 9/27/01; Knight Ridder, 10/7/02; Associated Press, 4/25/03; USA Today, 7/13/03] People and organizations involved: Farouk Hijaz, Mullah Mohammed Omar, Osama bin Laden Late 2001-May 2002 Jordanian Muslim militant Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi flees Afghanistan and heads to Iran where he continues to run his terrorist organization, al-Tawhid, using telephones and a network of couriers to maintain contact with his operatives in Europe. Al Zarqawi's organization establishes another poison and explosive training center camp in northeastern Iraq in an area controlled by Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist group opposed to Saddam Hussein. In May 2002, Zarqawi goes to Baghdad and has an amputation performed on his leg, which had been injured when he was fleeing US forces in Afghanistan. According to the Bush administration, Al Zarqawi stays in Baghdad for two months, during which time some two dozen "al-Qaeda affiliates" establish a base of operations in the city. The group presumably "coordinate[s] the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network." Then Zarqawi reportedly travels to the Ansar al-Islam-controlled region in Northern Iraq, before eventually returning to Iran. [Newsweek, 6/25/03; Knight Ridder Newspapers, 1/28/03; Independent, 2/6/03] In an effort to justify military action against Iraq, the Bush administration will later claim that Saddam Hussein is aware of Al Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad and therefore is guilty of knowingly harboring a terrorist (see September 26, 2002). The administration will also allege-falsely-that Al Zarqawi is a senior al-Qaeda agent and that his visit is evidence that Saddam's regime has ties to Osama bin Laden. [Newsweek, 6/25/03; Independent, 2/6/03; Guardian, 10/9/02 Sources: Shadi Abdallah] But the administration never offers any conclusive evidence to support this allegation. The claim is disputed by intelligence analysts in both Washington and London. [Telegraph, 2/4/03] People and organizations involved: Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein Additional Info Statements Unnamed US Intelligence Officials a.. "Some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks." - October 7, 200 [White House, 10/7/02] b.. The intercepts provided no evidence that Al Zarqawi was working with Saddam Hussein's or that he was working on a terrorist operation. - July 2003 [Knight Ridder Newspapers, 10/7/02] Unnamed US official a.. "Because someone makes a telephone call from a country, does not mean that the government of that country is complicit in that. _ When we found out there was an al-Qaeda cell operating in Germany, we didn't say 'we have to invade Germany, because the German government supports al-Qaeda.' ... There was no evidence to indicate that the Iraqi government knew about or was complicit in Zarqawi's activities." - July 2003 [United Press International, 7/23/03] Commentaries Jason Burke, London Observer a.. "Al-Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq but was not, as a thick sheaf of reports of interrogations of his close associates open on my desk make clear, an ally of bin Laden. His group, al-Tawhid, was actually set up in competition to that of the Saudi. To lump them together is either a wilful misrepresentation or reveals profound ignorance about the nature of modern Islamic militancy. Either way, there's no link there. Nor has any evidence for one surfaced since the end of the war." - July 2003 [Observer, 7/27/03] April During a National Security Council deputy principals meeting, Paul Wolfowitz is challenged by White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke after asserting that Iraq is involved in terrorism. Recalling the meeting, Clarke tells The Guardian in a March 2004 interview: "April was an initial discussion of terrorism policy writ large and at that meeting I said we had to talk about al-Qaeda. And because it was terrorism policy writ large [Paul] Wolfowitz said we have to talk about Iraqi terrorism and I said that's interesting because there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States. There hasn't been any for 8 years. And he said something derisive about how I shouldn't believe the CIA and FBI, that they've been wrong. And I said if you know more than I know tell me what it is, because I've been doing this for 8 years and I don't know about any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the US since 1993. When I said let's start talking about bin Laden, he said bin Laden couldn't possibly have attacked the World Trade Center in '93. One little terrorist group like that couldn't possibly have staged that operation. It must have been Iraq." [The Guardian, 3/23/04] People and organizations involved: Richard Clarke, Paul Wolfowitz from: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...=terroristTies "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:32:27 +0000, John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD. So far, his error has cost us close to 700 American lives, 10,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and $150 billion. Your choice, a liar or an incompetent. |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.844e1d7c1ae2e7e90bbc8c284ef604be@108 1964749.nulluser.com... jim-- wrote: I suppose it is a bad thing, but certainly not on the level of a current Senator killing a young lady named Mary Jo Kopechne then running away from the accident. Or perhaps not on the same level as a POTUS having oral sex with an intern. Sins, indeed, but they pale in comparision to Presidunce Bush lying to get us into a war with Iraq, and causing the deaths of thousands of people, including many non-combatant civilians. How is your sockpuppet pal Creaky these days? And Harry Hope, how is he doing? Invite Creaky on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat lately? |
OT Texas Republicans
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:09:35 +0000, John Smith wrote:
What about the past presidents, including Bill Clinton and the majority of congressman, including democrats and republicans who strongly believe Iraq had WMD? Where all of them incompetent? If they had invaded Iraq, yes they would have been incompetent. There is a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief. Before one puts lives at risk, it is prudent to be sure. Going to war is not an "Ooops, sorry!" proposition. To paraphrase, how would *you* ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake? |
OT Texas Republicans
|
OT Texas Republicans
jps wrote:
In article , says... How is your sockpuppet pal Creaky these days? And Harry Hope, how is he doing? Invite Creaky on your custom made 36 foot lobster boat lately? Dennis has turned into a stateside Karen of Oz. Dennis is a dissatisfied-with-life sorry ass. And boatless, too. |
OT Texas Republicans
John Smith wrote:
If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. Bush and his fellow Bush-****ters made a conscious decision to ignore intel that didn't play into their rationale, and then went on to deceive the American public about it. The chickens are coming home to roost for Bush now. With any luck, the American voters will toss the ignorant, incompetent, lying son of a bitch out this fall. |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.844e1d7c1ae2e7e90bbc8c284ef604be@108 1964749.nulluser.com... jim-- wrote: I suppose it is a bad thing, but certainly not on the level of a current Senator killing a young lady named Mary Jo Kopechne then running away from the accident. Or perhaps not on the same level as a POTUS having oral sex with an intern. Sins, indeed, but they pale in comparision to Presidunce Bush lying to get us into a war with Iraq, and causing the deaths of thousands of people, including many non-combatant civilians. Yea why don't you and Asskisser go to Iraq and live since you don't like this country so much. If Clinton had done his job we would not be in the mess we are now. You can say what you want about Bush But you can not deny the truth that this is all Clinton's fault. He should be the one saying he was sorry to the American people. You can not say Clinton didn't lied either, their are court recorders stating the facts. Or are you going to say the Judge Lied to. Everyone lies except for Democrats. Yea that funny that demo don't lie....ha ha ha |
OT Texas Republicans
Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c3dhc2g=.844e1d7c1ae2e7e90bbc8c284ef604be@108 1964749.nulluser.com... jim-- wrote: I suppose it is a bad thing, but certainly not on the level of a current Senator killing a young lady named Mary Jo Kopechne then running away from the accident. Or perhaps not on the same level as a POTUS having oral sex with an intern. Sins, indeed, but they pale in comparision to Presidunce Bush lying to get us into a war with Iraq, and causing the deaths of thousands of people, including many non-combatant civilians. Yea why don't you and Asskisser go to Iraq and live since you don't like this country so much. Ah, yes, the typical right-wing bulldork response. Thanks... |
OT Texas Republicans
"thunder" wrote in message ... LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD. You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find 'em eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately, I believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen until Bush's 2nd term. |
OT Texas Republicans
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD. You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find 'em eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately, I believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen until Bush's 2nd term. They are on a truck right now, being driven by a Halliburton employee, eh? |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Bush's comment about mustard gas recently found at a turkey farm in Libya should be proof that he hasn't given up the search. Every intelligence agency in the Western world knew Saddam had 'em. There were numerous reports before the war by Israeli intelligence (and others) that large convoys were leaving Iraq and heading to Syria. Although they haven't talked about it very much publicly, the Administration believes that Syria is hiding the WMD's. Just watch. |
OT Texas Republicans
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Bush's comment about mustard gas recently found at a turkey farm in Libya should be proof that he hasn't given up the search. Every intelligence agency in the Western world knew Saddam had 'em. There were numerous reports before the war by Israeli intelligence (and others) that large convoys were leaving Iraq and heading to Syria. Although they haven't talked about it very much publicly, the Administration believes that Syria is hiding the WMD's. Just watch. I heard it was Guildens mustard sauce... If we find WMD, it'll be because we've planted them. Bush has no credibility on this issue. |
OT Texas Republicans
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on a second term. bb |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd, I am sounding like asskisser) |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Bush's comment about mustard gas recently found at a turkey farm in Libya should be proof that he hasn't given up the search. Every intelligence agency in the Western world knew Saddam had 'em. There were numerous reports before the war by Israeli intelligence (and others) that large convoys were leaving Iraq and heading to Syria. Although they haven't talked about it very much publicly, the Administration believes that Syria is hiding the WMD's. Just watch. I heard it was Guildens mustard sauce... If we find WMD, it'll be because we've planted them. Bush has no credibility on this issue. If we find WMD you will say they were planted. If we find Osama you will say he was already found but held in prison until the election. We can't win with you libs no matter what happens (except we will win at the election booth this fall). |
OT Texas Republicans
bb wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on a second term. bb The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters, but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant, arrogant ass. The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead man. |
OT Texas Republicans
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd, I am sounding like asskisser) They've been publicized over the known solar system, Dennis. What point is there in pointing them out to you? |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... bb wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on a second term. bb The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters, but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant, arrogant ass. The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead man. He had nothing to apologize for. And the liberal media was pretty tough on the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question. Clinton would have ducked out after 5 minutes of hard questions, most likely with a quivering lip and telling everyone he could feel their pain. His message was consistent....we will stay in this till it is won. And here is a clue for you....a great orator does not make a good president. Einstein and Edison both shunned the media and stumbled when speaking. Using your logic these were a couple of losers. I bet you believe that "clothes make the person" also. Such a shallow person you are. |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... jim-- wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd, I am sounding like asskisser) They've been publicized over the known solar system, Dennis. What point is there in pointing them out to you? Because you cannot. LOL! |
OT Texas Republicans
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... bb wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on a second term. bb The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters, but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant, arrogant ass. The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead man. He had nothing to apologize for. And the liberal media was pretty tough on the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question. Clinton would have ducked out after 5 minutes of hard questions, most likely with a quivering lip and telling everyone he could feel their pain. His message was consistent....we will stay in this till it is won. And here is a clue for you....a great orator does not make a good president. Einstein and Edison both shunned the media and stumbled when speaking. Using your logic these were a couple of losers. You really truly are dumb as dirt. Neither Edison nor Einstein went into lines of work where oration was important. Stephen Hawking can't even speak with the aid of a machine, yet no one thinks the less of him. It isn't important that he speaks normally. Bush is a politician, not a oood president. He is a terrible president. And he can't speak very well, either. = I expect a president of the us to be able to speak competently in public. Bush cannot. |
OT Texas Republicans
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... jim-- wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd, I am sounding like asskisser) They've been publicized over the known solar system, Dennis. What point is there in pointing them out to you? Because you cannot. LOL! Please, dennis, wave your little fish hook in front of someone down at your level of intellectuality. Try Tuuk, Wally, or Henry Blackdoor. |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... jim-- wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... jim-- wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd, I am sounding like asskisser) They've been publicized over the known solar system, Dennis. What point is there in pointing them out to you? Because you cannot. LOL! Please, dennis, wave your little fish hook in front of someone down at your level of intellectuality. Try Tuuk, Wally, or Henry Blackdoor. Thanks for proving my point. |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... jim-- wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... bb wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on a second term. bb The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters, but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant, arrogant ass. The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead man. He had nothing to apologize for. And the liberal media was pretty tough on the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question. Clinton would have ducked out after 5 minutes of hard questions, most likely with a quivering lip and telling everyone he could feel their pain. His message was consistent....we will stay in this till it is won. And here is a clue for you....a great orator does not make a good president. Einstein and Edison both shunned the media and stumbled when speaking. Using your logic these were a couple of losers. You really truly are dumb as dirt. Neither Edison nor Einstein went into lines of work where oration was important. Stephen Hawking can't even speak with the aid of a machine, yet no one thinks the less of him. It isn't important that he speaks normally. Bush is a politician, not a oood president. He is a terrible president. And he can't speak very well, either. = I expect a president of the us to be able to speak competently in public. Bush cannot. |
OT Texas Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... jim-- wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... bb wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on a second term. bb The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters, but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant, arrogant ass. The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead man. He had nothing to apologize for. And the liberal media was pretty tough on the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question. Clinton would have ducked out after 5 minutes of hard questions, most likely with a quivering lip and telling everyone he could feel their pain. His message was consistent....we will stay in this till it is won. And here is a clue for you....a great orator does not make a good president. Einstein and Edison both shunned the media and stumbled when speaking. Using your logic these were a couple of losers. You really truly are dumb as dirt. Neither Edison nor Einstein went into lines of work where oration was important. Stephen Hawking can't even speak with the aid of a machine, yet no one thinks the less of him. It isn't important that he speaks normally. Bush is a politician, not a oood president. He is a terrible president. And he can't speak very well, either. = I expect a president of the us to be able to speak competently in public. Bush cannot. The *point* escaped you, as expected. |
OT Texas Republicans
NOYB wrote in message ink.net... Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Bush's comment about mustard gas recently found at a turkey farm in Libya should be proof that he hasn't given up the search. Every intelligence agency in the Western world knew Saddam had 'em. There were numerous reports before the war by Israeli intelligence (and others) that large convoys were leaving Iraq and heading to Syria. Although they haven't talked about it very much publicly, the Administration believes that Syria is hiding the WMD's. Just watch. Possible, but you would thing Israel would be very nervous of Syria having all those WMD and strike first. |
OT Texas Republicans
"Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote in message ink.net... Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Bush's comment about mustard gas recently found at a turkey farm in Libya should be proof that he hasn't given up the search. Every intelligence agency in the Western world knew Saddam had 'em. There were numerous reports before the war by Israeli intelligence (and others) that large convoys were leaving Iraq and heading to Syria. Although they haven't talked about it very much publicly, the Administration believes that Syria is hiding the WMD's. Just watch. Possible, but you would thing Israel would be very nervous of Syria having all those WMD and strike first. ...........ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM..... Did you here that Don? It flew right over your head. |
OT Texas Republicans
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:43:21 -0400, "jim--" wrote:
And the liberal media was pretty tough on the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question. I must have missed his answer about his biggest mistake. What did he finally come up with? I have to say, on a personal basis, I felt sorry for Bush up there. The guy was clearly out of his league. The unfortunate truth is this is the guy supposedly leading our country and he's made a royal mess out of everything he's touched, with the notable exception being tax breaks for the wealthy. bb. |
OT Texas Republicans
"John Smith" wrote in message news:%sffc.144028$JO3.84998@attbi_s04... You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Here's the thing: A) Clinton didn't use that information to invade Iraq, Bush did. B) Just because there "were" weapons in Iraq in 1991 and maybe in the late 1990's does not mean there were any weapons there in 2002 or 2003. Just last night Bush said something like, "We know Saddam had those weapons, we know because he used them on his own people." True enough. But that was HOW many years ago? 10? Does that mean he still has them? Does that mean that the best way to get them (if they are there at all) is to send our troops in to invade? |
OT Texas Republicans
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the Western World was wrong about their existance. Galileo and I had a good laugh over this... |
OT Texas Republicans
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:16:03 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: Possible, but you would thing Israel would be very nervous of Syria having all those WMD and strike first. 'cept that they don't exist. But, you gotta keep up the cover up. bb |
OT Texas Republicans
Did Bill Clinton lie when he stated Iraq had WMD?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since the First Gulf War. You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD. Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq. Bush and his fellow Bush-****ters made a conscious decision to ignore intel that didn't play into their rationale, and then went on to deceive the American public about it. The chickens are coming home to roost for Bush now. With any luck, the American voters will toss the ignorant, incompetent, lying son of a bitch out this fall. |
OT Texas Republicans
"thunder" wrote in message LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD. Let's stick to facts. What is known is that there were NBC weapons in Iraq. These facts are documented, and are incontrovertible. What is not known is where these weapons are now. Strong indications are that the bulk of the arsenal is in Syria. An expatriate Syrian journalist documented same in an article in one of the European newspapers (name escapes me) some months ago. Recent reports suggest ongoing shipments of unaccompanied, unprotected NBC material from Syria to Sudan aboard civil airliners. Had we acted in 10/02 instead of tap dancing around the UN, the point would likely be moot. |
OT Texas Republicans
"thunder" wrote in message ....There is a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief. Yes -- that difference is called "courage". Before one puts lives at risk, it is prudent to be sure. In a shooting war, one often does not have the luxury of being sure. You go with the best intelligence available, and calculate risk. No one ever won a war with a good defensive posture; a battle, perhaps, from time to time, but not the war. |
OT Texas Republicans
Poor (FAS)kisser, never had a chance. Fried before birth. |
OT Texas Republicans
John Gaquin wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ....There is a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief. Yes -- that difference is called "courage". Not in Bush's case. In his case, it was pigheadedness, stupidity, and politics. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com