"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Kind of makes you want to puke. The POTUS and Vice POTUS, unwilling to
appear alone, unwilling to tell the truth, unwilling to let the voters
know how slime-coated they are.


Clinton's testimony was not under oath and was conducted behind closed
doors
with two others, his lawyer Bruce Lindsey and his National Security
Advisor
Sandy Berger.





1. Clinton was not POTUS when 9-11 took place.

But, he was POTUS for the previous eight years when the terrorists kept
hitting us without us hitting back.

2. Clinton is not POTUS now.

But, he wants to be.

Why is his book coming out this year of all years and just prior to the
Democratic National Convention?

Straw dog.

Clinton sure like dogs.

If Clinton had followed up on WTC Bombing 1, the Cole, the US Embassy
bombings while he was in office, there never would have been a 911
terrorist attack.

Clinton's inaction to the previous terrorist attacks is the reason 911 was
planned and the pilots were trained while he was the president..


Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Kind of makes you want to puke. The POTUS and Vice POTUS, unwilling to
appear alone, unwilling to tell the truth, unwilling to let the voters
know how slime-coated they are.


Clinton's testimony was not under oath and was conducted behind closed
doors
with two others, his lawyer Bruce Lindsey and his National Security
Advisor
Sandy Berger.





1. Clinton was not POTUS when 9-11 took place.
2. Clinton is not POTUS now.

Straw dog.

On Mon, 03 May 2004 02:58:00 +0000, John Smith wrote:

If Clinton had followed up on WTC Bombing 1, the Cole, the US Embassy
bombings while he was in office, there never would have been a 911
terrorist attack.

Clinton's inaction to the previous terrorist attacks is the reason 911 was
planned and the pilots were trained while he was the president..

Not to defend Clinton, but I seem to recall bin Laden is still been
missin'. Perhaps if this administration wasn't distracted by Iraq, the
SOB wouldn't be.

"John Smith" wrote in message news:Yyilc.19023$0H1.1840410@attbi_s54...
If Clinton had followed up on WTC Bombing 1, the Cole, the US Embassy
bombings while he was in office, there never would have been a 911
terrorist attack.

How do you know this? What proof do you have of this?

"Joe" wrote in message .. .
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Kind of makes you want to puke. The POTUS and Vice POTUS, unwilling to
appear alone, unwilling to tell the truth, unwilling to let the voters
know how slime-coated they are.

Clinton's testimony was not under oath and was conducted behind closed doors
with two others, his lawyer Bruce Lindsey and his National Security Advisor
Sandy Berger.

Is Clinton our current president? Is Clinton the person who sent our
troops to Iraq under more than one utter lie?

We're talking about the President of the United States of America, so
I would hope the President is treated with respect not for the man he
is (because anyone can question that), but for the position he
represents. Whether it's George Bush, Bill Clinton, or whoever, the
office is to be respected.

If the commission finds that the President is responsible and/or
liable for what happened on 9/11, at that point in time he should be
subject to a complete hearing. Requiring the President to be subject
to a complete hearing with a sworn oath and in front of the public is
disgraceful to our country, especially in the eyes of other countries
that hate us. I'm not saying it should never be done, but there's a
process in reaching that point that requires a lot of data gathering
and parsing of those results (which we're doing now).

And you suggest our latest war is worse than Vietnam? Well, I think
it's way too premature to decide that, because we don't know what
events will unfold. But you're right, over time we may find this
whole war on terror to be much greater than the Vietnam War.

Nonetheless, the region and world religion you're worried about
upsetting is responsible for several attempts at blowing up the world
trade center, the USS Cole, several embassies around the world, etc.
I'm not too worried about upsetting them, because I think they already
are.

-Dustin

On Sun, 02 May 2004 22:44:43 GMT, "Jim" wrote:

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnis...7122823.column

Extract

He couldn't even watch Bush and Cheney at the 9/11 hearing yesterday
because they wouldn't show their faces in public at a hearing that was
supposed to be investigating how we in New York were hit. Bush and Cheney
have been saying that they didn't have even a troubling dream that the
attack was coming.

In the meeting yesterday, neither were under oath.

They should have been, for the only way they have out is to cheat and lie.

They also wanted no recordings; how can you insist that you never said it
this way or that way if they have it on tape?

Their testimony was behind closed doors, with no record, on a day during the
American crusade against Muslims in the Middle East. Ten U.S. dead, as last
night fell on New York.

These are the people running your country and a war that could have no end.
The new Vietnam? Of course not. Vietnam was only one country. This time, we
are up against a world religion. And your president and vice president would
not appear where they could be seen, their smirks, their glares, and they
would not speak under oath because that is obvious: if they lied, they could
be charged with perjury. They are yours. Good morning, suckers.

On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:15:31 +0000, Dustin wrote:


We're talking about the President of the United States of America, so I
would hope the President is treated with respect not for the man he is
(because anyone can question that), but for the position he represents.
Whether it's George Bush, Bill Clinton, or whoever, the office is to be
respected.

That is easily overlooked after the damage several of our recent office
holders have done to the office, but I would agree that there is something
demeaning to the office by the act of swearing to tell the truth. We
should be able to assume the President is telling the truth.

Heh yeah in a sense you're right, this ideal view of the presidency is
definitely not the same as it was many years ago. I think it weakens
the country when our president is seen on television being forced to
answer questions in an interrogation, no doubt. But the true fault
lies in the people who put these characters in office. I was one who
voted for Bush because I felt the alternative was much, much worse
(picturing Al Gore handling 9/11 is extremely scary), but lets face
it, we haven't had a reasonable candidate to vote for since the US
population became truly incompetent and elections started being
decided based on who has the "presidential look" on television and of
course the media bias.

On Sun, 02 May 2004 21:32:37 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:15:31 +0000, Dustin wrote:


We're talking about the President of the United States of America, so I
would hope the President is treated with respect not for the man he is
(because anyone can question that), but for the position he represents.
Whether it's George Bush, Bill Clinton, or whoever, the office is to be
respected.

That is easily overlooked after the damage several of our recent office
holders have done to the office, but I would agree that there is something
demeaning to the office by the act of swearing to tell the truth. We
should be able to assume the President is telling the truth.

thunder wrote:

On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:15:31 +0000, Dustin wrote:


We're talking about the President of the United States of America, so I
would hope the President is treated with respect not for the man he is
(because anyone can question that), but for the position he represents.
Whether it's George Bush, Bill Clinton, or whoever, the office is to be
respected.


That is easily overlooked after the damage several of our recent office
holders have done to the office, but I would agree that there is something
demeaning to the office by the act of swearing to tell the truth. We
should be able to assume the President is telling the truth.


Not of the POTUS is Busn, and not when he is dissembling about his war
mongering.

Jim ,,,

Your not too smart are you?









"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnis...7122823.column

Extract

He couldn't even watch Bush and Cheney at the 9/11 hearing yesterday
because they wouldn't show their faces in public at a hearing that was
supposed to be investigating how we in New York were hit. Bush and Cheney
have been saying that they didn't have even a troubling dream that the
attack was coming.

In the meeting yesterday, neither were under oath.

They should have been, for the only way they have out is to cheat and lie.

They also wanted no recordings; how can you insist that you never said it
this way or that way if they have it on tape?

Their testimony was behind closed doors, with no record, on a day during
the
American crusade against Muslims in the Middle East. Ten U.S. dead, as
last
night fell on New York.

These are the people running your country and a war that could have no
end.
The new Vietnam? Of course not. Vietnam was only one country. This time,
we
are up against a world religion. And your president and vice president
would
not appear where they could be seen, their smirks, their glares, and they
would not speak under oath because that is obvious: if they lied, they
could
be charged with perjury. They are yours. Good morning, suckers.