On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:28:51 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:34:37 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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,
I've seen all that crap a zillion times.
Just answer the question - it's simple.

Did all those people lie about the WMDs?

If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below,
then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.
I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President
Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs?

Yes or no.

I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home?

Hello?

Most of those you wonder about were supplied intel by the Bush Admin.
But you know what? It doesn't matter what they did. Bush is the one who
lied to get his war started.

Unfortunate. It would appear that you can't give a honest answer to
an honest question.

Thought better of you actually.

Oh well...

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:28:51 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:34:37 -0500, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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,
I've seen all that crap a zillion times.
Just answer the question - it's simple.

Did all those people lie about the WMDs?

If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below,
then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either.

Bush lied us into war. No way out of it.
I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President
Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs?

Yes or no.
I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home?

Hello?
Most of those you wonder about were supplied intel by the Bush Admin.
But you know what? It doesn't matter what they did. Bush is the one who
lied to get his war started.

Unfortunate. It would appear that you can't give a honest answer to
an honest question.

Thought better of you actually.

Oh well...


It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.

--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.



In 1998?

Eisboch

On Jan 26, 7:44*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..



It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.

In 1998?

Eisboch

hurmph...

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.



In 1998?

Eisboch



Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

You fellows keep missing the real points.

One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, even before he presumed office, and it was the Bush Admin that
cooked the books to "justify" an invasion, it was the Bush Admin that
decided to invade "light" of the necessary troops to handle the
aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about
everything in and about Iraq since.

And what have we learned about Bush bringing "democracy" to the Arab
world? When you give them elections, they elect Hamas.

Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to
prove it every day until he is out of office.





--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

On Jan 26, 7:55*pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.

In 1998?

Eisboch

Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

Because of Sandy Berger we will never know, could be he knew plenty
and did not have the nards to do what was right. So your point is
legitimatly debatable. What we do know is there was something worth
Berger's life and freedom that needed to be purged. For that much
risk, it must have been something big.


You fellows keep missing the real points.

One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, even before he presumed office,

Honestly debatable

and it was the Bush Admin that
cooked the books to "justify" an invasion,

Debatable

it was the Bush Admin that
decided to invade "light" of the necessary troops to handle the
aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about
everything in and about Iraq since.

An opinion you hold but still debatable. Before the war ever started I
said it would take a generation to end this war, 20 years. I remember
and you could probably google my analagy to the K*K here in the us,
who through mass communication and education, has been diminished to
no more than a pesky group of old diehards with no teeth... If we
continue to support freedom, spread the wealth (which means btw we
might have to all slim down a little (pretty progressive don'cha'
think?)), fundamentalist killers (these are not religeos men, no
matter what they say) can suffer the same fate. So again, are we
winning? Depends on your timeline, mine has always been a little more
forward looking if not as pleasant.. either way, it can succeed...


And what have we learned about Bush bringing "democracy" to the Arab
world? When you give them elections, they elect Hamas.

And Hamas will find itself in a positition of self advocacy, if they
only have free economys to deal with, they too will adapt. Look at
China


Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to
prove it every day until he is out of office.

Again, debatable, and this time, I think you are in a very slim
minority in the view of legitimate scholors of presidential history...
which, snerk you are not...

--
Billary, the most sold out Whitehouse in history....

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.



In 1998?

Eisboch



Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

Yet most of the influencial Democrats in Congress promoted such action at
the time, a fact you seem to refuse to recognize.



"You fellows keep missing the real points.

" One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, ......"


Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before Bush
took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.



".... and it was the Bush Admin that cooked the books to "justify" an
invasion,"

For the same justifications outlined by the Dems in 1998. Who cooked the
books?




"it was the Bush Admin that decided to invade "light" of the necessary
troops to handle the
aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about
everything in and about Iraq since."


Valid criticism, although it's tactical and not stragegic




Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to
prove it every day until he is out of office.

Keep repeating that Harry if it makes you feel good. Only history will tell
the real story.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.


In 1998?

Eisboch


Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

Yet most of the influencial Democrats in Congress promoted such action at
the time, a fact you seem to refuse to recognize.


"You fellows keep missing the real points.

" One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, ......"


Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before Bush
took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.



Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:


Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before
Bush took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.


Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.

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

On Jan 26, 8:45*pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
om...
It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.

In 1998?

Eisboch

Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

Yet most of the influencial Democrats in Congress promoted such action at
the time, a fact you seem to refuse to recognize.

"You fellows keep missing the real points.

" One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, *......"

Stop. * * *Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before Bush
took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.

Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.

--
Billary, the most sold out Whitehouse in history.
Harry (stinky) Krause


That's only cause you have the ear of the Supreme Overlord...