On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:43:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .



Bear in mind that slightly more than half of the party faithful aren't
exactly
under her spell at the present, and are hardly giving her a pass on this.

HClinton currently has a 37 percent "favorable" rating among Democrats.
Yet, over 40 percent say they will vote for her.

What the heck is wrong with this picture?

The Democrats are self-destructing.

Fun to watch.

I find it really interesting that the "super delegates" who are
supposed to be the leavening hand in the election are essentially
sitting this one out hoping against hope that they won't have to take
a stand and support one or the other. The supers all want to have to
not take a stand, yet they are going to have to.

Which means a brokered convention.

And that's going to be a war.

Finally - a fun political convention. Back room deals, cigar smoke
and a floor fight.

Plus, the movement to disrupt the convention on the Obaminions side if
Obama isn't nominated and the same from the Clintonistas.

WHOO HOO!!!

What's really fun is reading the left side of the blogosphere - both
sides are going apoplectic using language they usually reserve for GWB
for each other.

It's delicious.

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Whatever Clinton's lies about his sex life, their significance pale in
comparison to the Bush Administration's ongoing lies about its war
against Iraq.


Some of the outright lies being perpetrated by his hopeful successor puts
her in the same category. Very scary.

"Misspoken", my ass.

Eisboch




WMDs.

After that, what else matters?

Did you see the 60 minutes discussion with the FBI agent who interviewed
Saddam after his capture?
Among other things, Saddam acknowledged that the WMDs *had* been destroyed
either by his orders or by the UN inspection teams. However, he also
acknowledged that he maintained a pretense that some still existed, mainly
out of concern of some Arab neighbors, like Iran.

So, I propose this idea for your consideration:

Ask yourself if you believe the USA and other Coalition forces were
justified in attacking Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait in the first Gulf
War?



If your answer is "No", then you are truly anti-war, and against any
intervention in other country's affairs or aid to our allies with whom we
have treaties and promises to help protect.



However, if you answered, "Yes", please consider this POV:





Following the Gulf War, Saddam and his government remained in power.

Over time, Saddam began rejecting agreements made and agreed to in the UN
resolutions.

Saddam began firing on Coalition aircraft monitoring the compliance of those
resolutions.

Saddam began obstruction of the activities of UN weapons inspectors.

Eventually Saddam kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of the country.



Saddam became more and more defiant and boastful, making renewed threats to
neighboring countries.

He continued to threaten and murder dissenters within Iraq.

He continued to maintain the image of having WMDs. (this is important)



After his capture, he claimed all WMD's had been destroyed, either by the UN
inspectors or by his own government.

However, he acknowledged that he maintained a pretense of having WMDs
hidden, mainly to provide an image of capability due to the potential
threats of neighboring nations, including Iran.



The world's intelligence agencies .... repeat .... the world's intelligence
agencies, including those of the USA, and most members of Congress believed
those claims, because he refused to account for the total destruction of
all WMDs. Again, he *refused* to account for the destruction of all WMDs
while hinting around that he still had some.



Result?



Over six months of demands for him to come clean, allow the resumption of
inspections, compliance with UN Gulf War resolutions, all of which were
rejected, ignored or stalled upon.



That's why we invaded Iraq. Bush didn't "lie" in my opinion. He believed
what most all other people reading the intelligence believed, including
Congress, and did what he thought was necessary. What he thought was
necessary may be legitimately debated, but it's a cop-out to say, "Not my
fault, I was lied to."





Now, with that submitted, I also realize, as evidenced by the absolutely
ridiculous and childlike politicking that is going on right now, primarily
by the Dems, that reason, logic and common sense don't apply when it comes
to politics. It's ok to lie, create "stories" or facts, and change history
as long as it serves your agenda.



It's disgusting.





Eisboch




The first Gulf war was entirely different in every respect. I thought it
was a good idea because of the support it had, and because there was
never any idea of occupying Iraq.

I believe Bush lied, he manipulated the intel to support what he wanted
to do, and after it started unraveling, he just increased the number of
lies.

John H. wrote:

Heard them all on Rush's show.




Yup. Thought Herring was a Limbaugh retard.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...




WHOO HOO!!!

What's really fun is reading the left side of the blogosphere - both
sides are going apoplectic using language they usually reserve for GWB
for each other.

It's delicious.


Hey! One person suffering from logophilia in this NG is enough.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


The first Gulf war was entirely different in every respect. I thought it
was a good idea because of the support it had, and because there was never
any idea of occupying Iraq.

I believe Bush lied, he manipulated the intel to support what he wanted to
do, and after it started unraveling, he just increased the number of lies.


And that's fine for you to believe that.
It's also fine for others not to. As inept as he as proven to be in many
things, it's hard to believe he had the capability to convince world
intelligence, US intelligence, members of Congress, including those reading
the same damn data and reports that he had.

If you are correct, you've misjudged his mental capacity.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
John H. wrote:

Heard them all on Rush's show.




Yup. Thought Herring was a Limbaugh retard.


I heard the same thing. But not from Russ Limbaugh. (I've never listened
to him).

I heard it from ..... Keith Olbermann. Even he was in disbelief, given
his obvious leanings. He also reported on a number of other "fact
embellishments" regarding HClinton's claims of diplomatic experience.

Must have been a slow news night for Keith.

Eisboch

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

Heard them all on Rush's show.




Yup. Thought Herring was a Limbaugh retard.


I heard the same thing. But not from Russ Limbaugh. (I've never listened
to him).

I heard it from ..... Keith Olbermann. Even he was in disbelief, given
his obvious leanings. He also reported on a number of other "fact
embellishments" regarding HClinton's claims of diplomatic experience.

Must have been a slow news night for Keith.

Eisboch




Hmmm. I thought we were discussing the Bush Administrations
rationalizations for its war against Iraq. Did I miss a post?

"HK" wrote in message
news

Hmmm. I thought we were discussing the Bush Administrations
rationalizations for its war against Iraq. Did I miss a post?



No.

You've been Bush and GOP bashing for years in this NG on a daily basis. We
know what you think.
It's our turn to comment on lies and deceit of some of the Dems that you
admire so much.

Eisboch

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:06:20 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .




WHOO HOO!!!

What's really fun is reading the left side of the blogosphere - both
sides are going apoplectic using language they usually reserve for GWB
for each other.

It's delicious.

Hey! One person suffering from logophilia in this NG is enough.

Ahem...

Ok - I'll return to my normal dumbass persona.

Woops - did it again. :)

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
news
Hmmm. I thought we were discussing the Bush Administrations
rationalizations for its war against Iraq. Did I miss a post?



No.

You've been Bush and GOP bashing for years in this NG on a daily basis. We
know what you think.
It's our turn to comment on lies and deceit of some of the Dems that you
admire so much.

Eisboch



Oh. Well, have fun with it. Let me know when Obama's or Hillary's lies
lead to the deaths of 4000 Americans overseas, the wounding of about
40,000 others, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and a trillion
dollars flushed down the toilet.