makes a hell of a lot of sense.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...clinton-i.html

Love it - "Let's just saddle up and have an argument."

Heh - makes sense to me.

On Mar 26, 1:18*pm, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
makes a hell of a lot of sense.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...clinton-i.html

Love it - "Let's just saddle up and have an argument."

Heh - makes sense to me.

If nothing else, just for the quotes...

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if
'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If
it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now,
if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual
relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the
present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely
true." -Bill Clinton


-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Mar 26, 1:18 pm, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
makes a hell of a lot of sense.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...clinton-i.html

Love it - "Let's just saddle up and have an argument."

Heh - makes sense to me.

If nothing else, just for the quotes...

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if
'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If
it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now,
if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual
relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the
present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely
true." -Bill Clinton


-Robert


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.

"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

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?

"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?

What else matters? The future matters.

"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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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



Every politician..federal/provincial/municipal should be hooked up to a
reliable lie detector before they can open their mouths.
American politicians... two detectors in case they overwhelm the first. ;-)

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:16:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
m...


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



She claimed it was because she was tired. Later it was confirmed that the
claim
was written into her prepared speech before she gave it. It wasn't some
off the
cuff flub.



She has also told the "sniper" story at least twice before in recent weeks.
Must be very tired, I guess.

I mean, come on! I don't care how tired I was, but if at some point in my
life I landed in a war zone with reported snipers around had to "run" with
covered head to get from the airplane to the building ..... I'd remember
every single detail. So would anyone.

She's a deceitful liar who will say or do *anything* to get the nomination
...... and win the election.

BTW .... the "sniper" story is not the only one she as modified or
embellished recently for effect.
But, the party "faithful" just brush the lies off as being part of
"politicking".

Unless it's Bush.


Eisboch

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?

Eisboch