On Jan 26, 5:56�pm, "Eisboch" wrote:


Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch

Some non-YouTube items that might be of interest to you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3749494.shtml

***

Weapons inspectors, on the ground in Iraq from 1991-1998 (Clinton
years. mostly) were able to verify with "90-95% certainty that Iraq
had disarmed from the proscribed weapons", according to the chief
weapons inspector at that time. Obviously this intel was available to
Clinton, as well as to his successor.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

***

Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for four days in 1998, reportedly because
Hussein had suddenly refused the weapons inspectors access to certain
areas. At the time, he was *severely* criticized by the Republican
majority in congress- most of whom claimed he was "wagging the dog" to
divert attention from the impeachment proceedings. Obviously as
recently as 1998 the Republicans thought a blow job in the oval office
was a greater threat to national security than any potential weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

***********

It is popular to criticize Clinton for "doing nothing to combat Al
Qaida" during his term in office. It is not true that Clinton, "did
nothing". On August 20 1998, he ordered a cruise missle attack on Al
Qiada training camps in Afghanistan, and in a speech warned the
American public that Al Qaida was specifically planning to attack the
US. This was also the time that Clinton bombed a pharmacuetical
factory in the Sudan suspected of making or researching chemical
weapons. You undoubtedly remember all of the Sudanese protests (echoed
loudly by Limbaugh and the Republican party) that the factory was
actually producing aspirin. Once again, the majority of Republicans
were charging that there was no actual basis for these attacks and
that Clinton was "wagging the dog" to divert attention away from his
marital infidelity and the impending impeachment.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

**********

And finally, here's a good synopsis of conservative reaction to the
Clinton attacks on Iraq:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

I can't avoid smiling at the outraged comments that those cruise
missles "Cost $2-million apiece!". Don't we now spend $2million every
few minutes in Iraq?

*********************

Carry on, gentlemen. Just thought I'd toss a few facts into the mix.

On Jan 26, 9:03�pm, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:56:22 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took
office, trusted the intel and advocated action. �You've been provided
with a partial list. �The names are very familiar.

Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch

A better question is, why are Republicans so slow? �Clinton did attack
Iraq. �On 12/16/98, he launched 200 cruise missiles at Iraq. �What was
the Republican response? �Clinton's "Wagging the Dog" to avoid dealing
with the Lewinsky matter. �Fast forward 5 years, and the Republicans are
all on board invading Iraq. �Clearly there were no political motivations
as this was a matter of national security, so one just has to assume
Republicans are slow.

Almost forgotten by so many today is the situation described by
this broadcast in November of 1998. Clinton's response to Iraq went
far beyond lobbing a few cruise missles. And you are right, the
opposition
generally refused to consider that he could have any motivation beyond
"wagging the dog".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...raq_11-13.html

On Jan 27, 10:18*am, Chuck Gould wrote:
Obviously as
recently as 1998 the Republicans thought a blow job in the oval office
was a greater threat to national security than any potential weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.


*********************

Carry on, gentlemen. Just thought I'd toss a few facts into the mix.

Yeah, facts that are obvious to you and Harry.. You cry about
political rants, just because yours are subtile and hidden? Like Harry
and Joe, you have no idea what any of these folks really knew/know and
less of what their motivations were. At least you should admit to
putting on the suit and jumping in....

On Jan 27, 7:47�am, "JimH" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Jan 26, 5:56?pm, "Eisboch" wrote:



Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch

Some non-YouTube items that might be of interest to you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3749494.shtml

***

Weapons inspectors, on the ground in Iraq from 1991-1998 (Clinton
years. mostly) were able to verify with "90-95% certainty that Iraq
had disarmed from the proscribed weapons", according to the chief
weapons inspector at that time. Obviously this intel was available to
Clinton, as well as to his successor.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

***

Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for four days in 1998, reportedly because
Hussein had suddenly refused the weapons inspectors access to certain
areas. At the time, he was *severely* criticized by the Republican
majority in congress- most of whom claimed he was "wagging the dog" to
divert attention from the impeachment proceedings. Obviously as
recently as 1998 the Republicans thought a blow job in the oval office
was a greater threat to national security than any potential weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...cripts/clinton...

***********

It is popular to criticize Clinton for "doing nothing to combat Al
Qaida" during his term in office. It is not true that Clinton, "did
nothing". On August 20 1998, he ordered a cruise missle attack on Al
Qiada training camps in Afghanistan, and in a speech warned the
American public that Al Qaida was specifically planning to attack the
US. This was also the time that Clinton bombed a pharmacuetical
factory in the Sudan suspected of making or researching chemical
weapons. You undoubtedly remember all of the Sudanese protests (echoed
loudly by Limbaugh and the Republican party) that the factory was
actually producing aspirin. Once again, the majority of Republicans
were charging that there was no actual basis for these attacks and
that Clinton was "wagging the dog" to divert attention away from his
marital infidelity and the impending impeachment.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

**********

And finally, here's a good synopsis of �conservative reaction to the
Clinton attacks on Iraq:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

I can't avoid smiling at the outraged comments that those cruise
missles "Cost $2-million apiece!". Don't we now spend $2million every
few minutes in Iraq?

*********************

Carry on, gentlemen. Just thought I'd toss a few facts into the mix.
===============

I thought you were just blowing a gasket about political and OT posts here
Chuck. �Strange.

You're right, Jim. I get sucked in once in a while. 243 posts in this
thread and four of them are mine (including this one).

Eisboch is a pretty stand up guy who wouldn't deliberately make a
false statement to promote his political agenda. When he commented
that Big Bill didn't do anything about Iraq, I thought that perhaps it
would be a kind gesture to refresh his memory. Otherwise, I'm staying
out of this.

Let the name calling and personal attacks continue.....

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:18:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:57:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
news:tcdnp318b456aadm8h4lkdp83r8l6hinsp@4ax .com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hnjmp3ht9pue2tp4dv1imbqb0qrvl3c3en@4 ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a @4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4e ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9fl ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c ...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_o ...
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote:


Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you,
especially
hard
to
understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means
lying.
Believe
it
or
not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you
and
your
buddy
find
nothing wrong with that because it gains you
notoriety,
and
some
probably think it's right cool. But it isn't.

Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton
was
guilty
of
one, but we was not guilty of the other.

Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and
saying
"I
did
not
have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask
the
wives
if
a
blow
job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer.


I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with
anyone
they
want,
wherever they want.

I said ILLEGAL.


Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with
anyone
they
want, wherever they want. Period.

Do you think they can? If so, explain how.


I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound
pretty
sure
of
it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that?

As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject
better
discussed
with
your dad.


You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere?
Town
Square
at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy)
and
indecent
exposure.

Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy.

Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone,
anywhere
you
choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-)

Bye


You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using
that
technicality
to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I
meant
that
the
act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal
for
ANYONE.
You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point.

I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help
that
your
statement was poorly defined. My statement your original
statement stands as true.


Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with
Lewinski.
Do
it
now.

Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical,
sleazy,
immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of
a
moral
compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES.
Illegal,
no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said
otherwise.
You know that.




Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the
fake
saints
asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There
were
no
***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security.
Only
a
child
pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that
vanish.


He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral
activities.
Or
is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can
exist?


You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you
disagree,
please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve
of
what
he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response.


"Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous
question
only for political gain."

No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy,
and
immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to
question
his
behavior is horse****.


You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the
inquisition
belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the
time.
He
didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY
believe
Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only
conclude
that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his
opinion
of
Clinton's behavior.


How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are
way
too
full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****.
--
John H


Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of
course
not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable.


Gingrich's guilt or lack thereof has no bearing on your horse****
implication.
--
John H


My implication is perfect. Gingrich went after Clinton for only one
reason:
To make political hay because he needed to at the time. Nobody gave a
damn
about Clinton's sex life. Clinton simply provided them with a tool to
use
against him. That was his biggest mistake.


Other than the fact that his sex life was sleazy, unethical, and
immoral,
no one gave a **** about it.

But, he perjured himself. That's what gave 'them' the tool to use.
--
John H


Work backwards, John. He perjured himself because he was asked a question.
The question was asked because someone needed ammunition. The question
should never have been asked, particularly because the loudest proponent
of
the question was Gingrich, who was equally guilty AT THE VERY TIME THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED.


Backwards my ass. He perjured himself, regardless of your 'reason'. Your
implication remains horse****.
--
John H


It's obvious that he committed perjury. That is not my point. How many
repetitions do you need before you understand that we agree on the perjury
issue?


Good. Sex wasn't the issue. Perjury was.

QED
--
John H

On Jan 27, 10:56Â*am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 27, 7:47�am, "JimH" wrote:





"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Jan 26, 5:56?pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch

Some non-YouTube items that might be of interest to you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3749494.shtml

***

Weapons inspectors, on the ground in Iraq from 1991-1998 (Clinton
years. mostly) were able to verify with "90-95% certainty that Iraq
had disarmed from the proscribed weapons", according to the chief
weapons inspector at that time. Obviously this intel was available to
Clinton, as well as to his successor.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

***

Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for four days in 1998, reportedly because
Hussein had suddenly refused the weapons inspectors access to certain
areas. At the time, he was *severely* criticized by the Republican
majority in congress- most of whom claimed he was "wagging the dog" to
divert attention from the impeachment proceedings. Obviously as
recently as 1998 the Republicans thought a blow job in the oval office
was a greater threat to national security than any potential weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...cripts/clinton...

***********

It is popular to criticize Clinton for "doing nothing to combat Al
Qaida" during his term in office. It is not true that Clinton, "did
nothing". On August 20 1998, he ordered a cruise missle attack on Al
Qiada training camps in Afghanistan, and in a speech warned the
American public that Al Qaida was specifically planning to attack the
US. This was also the time that Clinton bombed a pharmacuetical
factory in the Sudan suspected of making or researching chemical
weapons. You undoubtedly remember all of the Sudanese protests (echoed
loudly by Limbaugh and the Republican party) that the factory was
actually producing aspirin. Once again, the majority of Republicans
were charging that there was no actual basis for these attacks and
that Clinton was "wagging the dog" to divert attention away from his
marital infidelity and the impending impeachment.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

**********

And finally, here's a good synopsis of �conservative reaction to the
Clinton attacks on Iraq:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

I can't avoid smiling at the outraged comments that those cruise
missles "Cost $2-million apiece!". Don't we now spend $2million every
few minutes in Iraq?

*********************

Carry on, gentlemen. Just thought I'd toss a few facts into the mix.
===============

I thought you were just blowing a gasket about political and OT posts here
Chuck. �Strange.

You're right, Jim. I get sucked in once in a while. 243 posts in this
thread and four of them are mine (including this one).

Eisboch is a pretty stand up guy who wouldn't deliberately make a
false statement to promote his political agenda. When he commented
that Big Bill didn't do anything about Iraq, I thought that perhaps it
would be a kind gesture to refresh his memory. Otherwise, I'm staying
out of this.

Let the name calling and personal attacks continue.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you read carefully, you will find that there is actually a lot of
non-namecalling going on, and even some discussion. Personally, I
always welcome your input, just wish you would admit to being
interested and wanting to participate.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:18:07 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

Hey Chuck - Stay out of the political ****.

After your rant the other day, you make yourself look the fool when you
chime in with your liberal crap.

Stay above it, although, if I remember correctly, you were on the political
bandwagon several months ago when Harry first started again.
--
John H

On Jan 26, 9:23*pm, wrote:
On Jan 26, 9:59*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 26, 1:42 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
messagenews:dppmp3pdv23mnd9vi1mb8icepan7qciei7@4ax .com...

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...

I've seen all that crap a zillion times.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.

Pretty much sums it up.

I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say
the right thing.

It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and
their main henchman in the process was George Tenant.

I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting
the
Pakistan nightmare.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, with my tin hat firmly pulled down I have always thought just
the opposite. Regan set up Carter with some kind of back room deal or
threat to Iran...

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

Reagan set up Carter? In what capacity (job) did Reagan do that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

none- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, maybe this.....
Might get all orgasmic too!
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_...27011009990008

On Jan 27, 8:32�am, Smoked Herring
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:18:07 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:

Hey Chuck - Stay out of the political ****.

After your rant the other day, you make yourself look the fool when you
chime in with your liberal crap.


Operation Desert Fox isn't "liberal crap" John, it's history.
Inconvenient for some who want to insist that "Clinton stood by and
did nothing", but history none the less.

You guys go ahead and argue politics. I simply wanted to inject some
historical perspective. Nothing more. Have a nice day, I'm off to the
Boat Show.


Stay above it, although, if I remember correctly, you were on the political
bandwagon several months ago when Harry first started again.
--
John H

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:18:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:57:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
news:rgenp3hlev85bolg14p383icee66l7jr0i@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
news:tcdnp318b456aadm8h4lkdp83r8l6hinsp@4a x.com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hnjmp3ht9pue2tp4dv1imbqb0qrvl3c3en@ 4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70 ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4 ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9f ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2 ...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ ...
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote:


Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you,
especially
hard
to
understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means
lying.
Believe
it
or
not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you
and
your
buddy
find
nothing wrong with that because it gains you
notoriety,
and
some
probably think it's right cool. But it isn't.

Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing.
Clinton
was
guilty
of
one, but we was not guilty of the other.

Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and
saying
"I
did
not
have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask
the
wives
if
a
blow
job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer.


I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with
anyone
they
want,
wherever they want.

I said ILLEGAL.


Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with
anyone
they
want, wherever they want. Period.

Do you think they can? If so, explain how.


I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You
sound
pretty
sure
of
it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that?

As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject
better
discussed
with
your dad.


You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere?
Town
Square
at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy)
and
indecent
exposure.

Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy.

Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone,
anywhere
you
choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-)

Bye


You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using
that
technicality
to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I
meant
that
the
act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal
for
ANYONE.
You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point.

I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help
that
your
statement was poorly defined. My statement your
original
statement stands as true.


Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with
Lewinski.
Do
it
now.

Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical,
sleazy,
immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack
of
a
moral
compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES.
Illegal,
no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said
otherwise.
You know that.




Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that
the
fake
saints
asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There
were
no
***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security.
Only
a
child
pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that
vanish.


He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral
activities.
Or
is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can
exist?


You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If
you
disagree,
please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I
approve
of
what
he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next
response.


"Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous
question
only for political gain."

No. They asked him the question because of his unethical,
sleazy,
and
immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to
question
his
behavior is horse****.


You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the
inquisition
belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at
the
time.
He
didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't
REALLY
believe
Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only
conclude
that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his
opinion
of
Clinton's behavior.


How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are
way
too
full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****.
--
John H


Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of
course
not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable.


Gingrich's guilt or lack thereof has no bearing on your horse****
implication.
--
John H


My implication is perfect. Gingrich went after Clinton for only one
reason:
To make political hay because he needed to at the time. Nobody gave a
damn
about Clinton's sex life. Clinton simply provided them with a tool to
use
against him. That was his biggest mistake.


Other than the fact that his sex life was sleazy, unethical, and
immoral,
no one gave a **** about it.

But, he perjured himself. That's what gave 'them' the tool to use.
--
John H


Work backwards, John. He perjured himself because he was asked a
question.
The question was asked because someone needed ammunition. The question
should never have been asked, particularly because the loudest proponent
of
the question was Gingrich, who was equally guilty AT THE VERY TIME THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED.


Backwards my ass. He perjured himself, regardless of your 'reason'. Your
implication remains horse****.
--
John H


It's obvious that he committed perjury. That is not my point. How many
repetitions do you need before you understand that we agree on the perjury
issue?


Good. Sex wasn't the issue. Perjury was.

QED
--
John H


They asked him about sex because he committed perjury? How can you be guilty
of lying about a question that hasn't been asked yet?