wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:45 pm, HK wrote:
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.










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


No, it is because I believe the FBI is a corrupt agency.





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

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
"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





Because he thought doing so would be...stupid?

BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know
that, right?

The point remains.



The point remains that the whole damn thing is a massive screw-up and the
"blame" (if that's what it's called), should be shared equally between
political parties and administrations. I am not excusing Bush for screwing
things up, but I also don't believe for a moment that all the blame should
be directed to him or his administration.

That's one reason I respect Joe Lieberman. He was one of the Democrats,
pre-Bush, who talked about the threat Iraq posed and potential action. He,
unlike the rest of his Democratic associates who sang the same tune but now
waffle or deny, stuck to his guns.

Eisboch

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




Because he thought doing so would be...stupid?


Then why did he order the launch of missiles into Iraq, including on a baby
formula factory?



Because it was smarter than sending in a couple of hundred thousand
troops over five years, blowing nearly two trillion dollars, and seeing
nearly 4000 Americans come home in body bags, and all for naught?



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

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

Eisboch wrote:
"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




Because he thought doing so would be...stupid?

BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know
that, right?

The point remains.



The point remains that the whole damn thing is a massive screw-up and the
"blame" (if that's what it's called), should be shared equally between
political parties and administrations. I am not excusing Bush for screwing
things up, but I also don't believe for a moment that all the blame should
be directed to him or his administration.

That's one reason I respect Joe Lieberman. He was one of the Democrats,
pre-Bush, who talked about the threat Iraq posed and potential action. He,
unlike the rest of his Democratic associates who sang the same tune but now
waffle or deny, stuck to his guns.

Eisboch


The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.







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

"HK" wrote in message
...



The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.



Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your
extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within
your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll
have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



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


You just crossed the line of any future consideration to credibility in
your posts.
You have absolutely no knowledge of your accusation.

Eisboch



You may have heard the saying "When you live in a glass house, don't throw
stones." Newt lived in a glass house, and he threw stones. If his
self-awareness was so lacking that he didn't realize that, he had no
business being in a position of power.

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


The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.



Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your
extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within
your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll
have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k.

Eisboch




I doubt it. Romney will be easy to beat and McCain, though a decent guy,
favors a hundred year war, is old, is disliked by much of the GOP base,
and...well, that's enough.

Romney likes to talk about his life as a businessman, but not his
failure as a governator and the boatloads of user fees (aka taxes) he
imposed. Add to that his flop-flops and they add to loser.



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

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


The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.



Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war,
your extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even
within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short
order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k.

Eisboch


I doubt it. Romney will be easy to beat and McCain, though a decent guy,
favors a hundred year war, is old, is disliked by much of the GOP base,
and...well, that's enough.

Romney likes to talk about his life as a businessman, but not his failure
as a governator and the boatloads of user fees (aka taxes) he imposed. Add
to that his flop-flops and they add to loser.




Too close to call right now, even for the "pros". My gut feeling is if
Obama gets the nomination, the odds favor the Dems. If Hillary gets it, the
odds shift to the Republicans. It's an interesting election this time, for
sure.

Eisboch

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

The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.


Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war,
your extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even
within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short
order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k.

Eisboch

I doubt it. Romney will be easy to beat and McCain, though a decent guy,
favors a hundred year war, is old, is disliked by much of the GOP base,
and...well, that's enough.

Romney likes to talk about his life as a businessman, but not his failure
as a governator and the boatloads of user fees (aka taxes) he imposed. Add
to that his flop-flops and they add to loser.



Unless something changes it will be Romney vs.. Hillarity with Romney
winning. End of story.



Well, that should be a laugh. Romney. I can't wait for the fun to start.
Ever watch him when he's closely questioned? He folds up like a
balsawood model airplane.


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

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

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

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
m...
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:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4a x.com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@ 4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60 ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5ik ...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojin ...
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.