Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.


Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.


Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As
it was over sex, it didn't.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.


Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person. How
do you pick and choose dishonesty?
My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually dishonest
people I've ever seen with his wife a close second.

Eisboch

Eisboch

On Jan 26, 8:48*am, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.

Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

Why do you always find a justification for bad behavior. Anyone paying
attention knows the Clintons were into a lot more than just sex, it
does not matter that witnesses committed Arkansas Suicide and they
were never convicted.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.


Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.


Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person.
How do you pick and choose dishonesty?
My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually
dishonest people I've ever seen with his wife a close second.

Eisboch


I should add: Bush can't be intellectually dishonest for obvious reasons.

Eisboch

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person.
How do you pick and choose dishonesty?
My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually
dishonest people I've ever seen with his wife a close second.

I wouldn't dispute that about Bill. He's the consummate politician, and
there is something fundamentally dishonest about that.

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.
It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.

Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As
it was over sex, it didn't.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.


Forget the issue for a moment and consider the character of the person. How
do you pick and choose dishonesty?
My opinion is that Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually dishonest
people I've ever seen with his wife a close second.

Eisboch

Eisboch




Bush is far, far more dishonest, though I will give you this: Bush's
dishonesty is not based on intellectuality.

wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:48 am, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:
Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.
It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.
Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

Why do you always find a justification for bad behavior. Anyone paying
attention knows the Clintons were into a lot more than just sex, it
does not matter that witnesses committed Arkansas Suicide and they
were never convicted.


I find no justificaiton for the bad behavior of the BushAdmin.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:45:28 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:58:45 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


How exactly wasn't he convicted of perjury if his license to practice
law was revoked and he was fined for not telling the truth?

Come on - you are smarter than that.

Perjury is a crime, and as such, is defined in statute, not a
dictionary. I'm not defending Clinton's moral character, just stating he
was not convicted of perjury.

Remember, we are talking lawyers he

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clin...esperjury.html

That's the difference between you and I.

In the sense that he was "convicted" - if you are censored by a judge,
held in contempt of court and have your license to practice suspended
because of an attempt to lie, under judicial instruction not to, then
you are as good as "convicted" under the broadly acceptable definition
of a term.

The ability to redefine common English to suit purposes other than
those provided by common sense is not relevant.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote:

Come on - you are smarter than that.
Yup. Bill Lied About Sex.

It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it.

Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered.
As it was over sex, it didn't.

It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of
Dicsussion.

Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." Joe Lieberman, Dianne
Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry, October 9,
1998.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be
back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile
program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies." Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford,
& Tom Lantos.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and
some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he
has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger,
Feb 18, 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence
back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from
gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up
and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense
William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware
that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue
of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in
the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq
still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and
clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen
bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue
manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons
of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and
mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and
ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use
industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute
large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector
Scott Ritter in 1998

So, Harry, be honest.

Did all those people also lie?

On Jan 26, 9:01*am, JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:16:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:30:21 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:16:29 -0500, hk wrote:

JG2U wrote:
News for harry... Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a fat
chick.

Oh, and your "filter" is acting up again.
Sure he was. Oh, technically, it was related to "lying under oath"
about
sex. Y-A-W-N. The whole business was nothing more than a GOP witch
hunt
to "get" Clinton, and wasn't worth even an asterisk.

It was uncovering the tip of an iceberg, and that's just all they
could get him for. *He and Monica could have gone at it until they
were both blind, and if he had not committed perjury, there wouold
have been no impeachment. *Period.

Had the Repubs not been out to "get" Bill on "something," there would
have been no impeachment, period. After trying for years, all the
Repubs
could do was nail him because he lied about sex.

I can hardly wait for the subpoenas and grand juries next year. They
won't be about sex or lying about sex, either.

Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded because of
Liberal
lies.

You forgot this:

That wouold be great. *Their facilitators are Albright, Clinton, Dean,
Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were
beating the war drum for Iraq even before Bush was elected.

Remember this video?

Bush and Cheney lied, and thousands died, and for nothing.

Bush was pushed into it by Albright, Clinton, Dean,
Berger, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other libs who were
beating the war drum for Iraq. *And now they lie and say it was Bush.
Shame on them.

================

Bush's statements, in chronological order, we

snip

So? *As I said, the libs were beating the war drum for Iraq and Sadam
back in 1998, long before Bush even got into office. *Watch this
instructive video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE

You'll learn something.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pfffffttt.... They won't care, even if you show them. These are after
all far left secular progressives, they are self indulgent, mostly
spoiled baby boomers with little intellectual integerity. If the the
truth does not fit, and in this case the truth is clear, they will
just change it as they have, on an institutional level from the top
down in the party. And selfish, non-thinking democrats will fall into
line anyway... It's just easier for them that way I guess. Truth is
hard.