There Should Be Blood: Liberal Democrats Left Out in the Cold
Gandalf Grey
By Ted Rall
Created Feb 13 2008 - 10:18am
HOUSTON--"The truly undecided voter is rare, say those who study the
psychology of voting," Joe Garofoli wrote in The San Francisco Chronicle.
"Since neuroscientists say 90 percent of thought is unconscious, an
undecided voter may have already decided--he just hasn't revealed his pick
to himself yet."
Whether I'm a rare bird or a typical victim of self-denial, I didn't know
how I was going to vote until election day--or, to be more precise, a
election minute. Roughly 15 to 20 percent of 2008 primary voters have had
similar trouble getting their unconscious to talk to them.
Most of the electoral procrastinators are conservative Republicans and
liberal Democrats--party loyalists whose influence has been diluted by
independents who vote in their primaries. As has been widely discussed,
conservatives were unhappy with the entire field of Republican presidential
contenders. Less noted but no less significant has been the effect of John
Edwards' departure from the Democratic field.
Lefties don't have a candidate.
Like most hardcore liberals, I had planned to vote for Edwards. I'm a
registered Democrat. I live in New York, a "closed primary" state. That left
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
I studied the printed grid inside my mechanical voting machine, a steel
beast from the 1950s. New York keeps threatening to replace the classic
booths. I hope they keep them forever. Old-school machines have a feature I
treasure: you flip a switch to make an "X" appear next to your choice.
You're not committed until you pull the lever to open the curtain; you can
flip the switch back and go with someone else instead.
I moved the switch to Hillary, to see how it looked. Hillary. Ted Rall votes
for Hillary. I asked myself my usual test question: If she won, and I
watched her being sworn in next January, how would I feel?
Bored. And slightly depressed.
I thought about the experience issue, her biggest advantage. "I am offering
35 years of experience making change," she says. Though way overstated--35
years of what? being a lawyer?--living in the White House has to have left
her with some insights. Unlike Obama, Hillary wouldn't lose her way
searching for the restroom. But political dynasties suck.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would be a sad statement. A nation of 300 million
people shouldn't keep turning to the same few families for leadership.
A woman president is a couple of centuries overdue. But issues matter more
than affirmative action. I couldn't overlook Clinton's votes to go to war
and to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the never-ending horror show
of Iraq. Thousands of people are dead because of her.
Hillary Clinton didn't think Iraq had WMDs. No one smart did. The polls were
running for the war, and so was she. She pandered. It was disgusting. But I
was even more appalled by her lousy political skills. It ought to have been
evident, even then, that (a) the war wouldn't go well, (b) Americans would
turn against it, and (c) this would occur before she was up for reelection
in 2006. It was obvious to even me at the time, and it took me ten years to
get a bachelor's degree.
She was wrong. She had bad judgment. And her September 2007 vote for
possible war against Iran proves she still does. I moved the lever left. The
"X" disappeared from Clinton's box.
I made an "X" pop up next to Obama's name. "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do
solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of..." I wasn't
feeling it.
For what will soon have been eight long years, I reflected, left-of-center
Americans have endured an illegitimate administration of morons, thieves and
bullies. "[The press secretary's] job is to help explain my decisions to the
American people," Bush once said, describing how he interacts with people
who disagree with him. Bush stacked the Supreme Court by appointing
right-wing extremists to replace moderates. Compromise was an alien concept
to the Bushies. They did whatever they wanted--wars, torture, tax cuts for
the superrich, tapping political dissidents' phones--and Democrats did
nothing to stop them, even after they regained control of both houses of
Congress.
After 9/11 Republicans repeatedly screamed that liberals were pro-Islamist,
anti-American traitors. Right-wing opinion mongers--Ann Coulter, Andrew
Sullivan, James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal, William Kristol of The
Weekly Standard (and now The New York Times) accused me of treason. (Hey,
I'm not the one trying to get rid of the Bill of Rights.)
Former GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes suggested that I be imprisoned
or shot. And "mainstream" Republicans indicated their tacit agreement with
cricket-chirping silence. Not once did a Republican Congressman demand that
their neo-McCarthyite allies apologize for their statements. Not once did a
Republican opinion columnist take issue with equating the Democratic Party
with anti-Americanism. Not once. Compare that to the Democratic practice of
"Sister Souljah-ing" lefties who annoy the conservative hyenas.
"I want the Republicans to feel the way I did in 2004," an Iowa Democrat
told The New York Times. So do I. I want them to watch everything they care
about disassembled. Take Reagan and Bush's names off the airports,
nationalize major corporations, demolish Gitmo, gay marriage--anything that
pisses them off.
I want revenge. Obama preaches reconciliation. "I will create a working
majority because I won't demonize my opponents," says Obama. The Illinois
senator is an interesting politician and might make a good leader. But not
yet. Give me eight years of Democratic rule as ruthless and extreme and
uncompromising as the last eight years of Bush. Then we can have some
bipartisanship.
Obama's let's-tiptoe-through-the-tulips-with-the-GOP shtick amounts to
bargaining with yourself. If a vendor at a flea market offers to sell you a
lamp for $10 and you're willing to pay $8, you don't offer $8. Demonize,
Barack, demonize!
Oh, and Obama says he wouldn't have voted for the Iraq War. I say he's
lying. So do his votes for funding the war since he joined the Senate. His
voting record on Iraq is the same as Hillary's.
Hillary, no. Obama? Nobama. What to do?
"Hundreds of thousands of Democrats and independents who were motivated
enough to go and vote on February 5 did so for Edwards, knowing full well
that he was out of the running," reports The Nation. I was one of them.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
Jerry Okamura
"Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b47f20$0$20054$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Is that so? "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
GOP CHIMP EDEN
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47b4f1ea$0$17328$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Well I guess Bush's 'intel' had everyone fooled. Face it, Bush lied to the
World.
And got away with it, so far.
HarryNadds
wrote:
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47b4f1ea$0$17328$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please explain in detail where Bush lied.He made his decision to go to
war with Iraq on the same intel congress had when they gave him the
green light. You think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or did
he gas thousands of Kurds with rotten boiled egg/beer/jalapeno farts?
He had how many years to hide his stash? How many U.N resolutions
which he ignored? You,like most of your bedwetting, linguini spined
brethren on the left have let your blind hatred of Bush prevent you
from seeing the truth demonstrated by facts.Get over it.
Jeffrey Turner
Maybe you could look up the definition of "pandered"?
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
Jerry Okamura
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:13rc1sk...@corp.supernews.com...
fargo116
> Please explain in detail where Bush lied.
Well, okay. Just remember, you asked for it:
January 30, 2001 - "From the very beginning, there was a conviction
that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."
Saddam's removal is the first item of Bush's inaugural national
security meeting. Then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later tells
journalist Ron Suskind, "It was all about finding a way to do it. That
was the tone of it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do
this.'"
Bush also says the emphasis on Iraq will accompany a de-emphasis on
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Secretary of State Colin Powell says
US disengagement would give Ariel Sharon free rein and bring further
suffering upon the Palestinians. According to Suskind's later book,
"The One Percent Doctrine," Bush replies, "Sometimes a show of force
by one side can really clarify things."
September 21, 2001
President Bush is informed in a highly classified briefing that the US
intelligence community cannot link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks
and that there is little evidence pointing to collaborative ties
between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
November 21, 2001
According to Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack": "President Bush, after a
National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars
him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes
the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What
is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to
keep it secret.'" Woodward adds that, immediately after Rumsfeld and
[General Tommy] Franks work out a deal under which Franks can spend
any money he needs. "And so he starts building runways and pipelines
and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war
possible."
December 1, 2001
According to Bob Woodward, Rumsfeld orders Franks to begin work on an
Iraq war plan. Bush will meet with military leaders regarding the plan
on a regular basis starting late December, despite public assurances
that the administration is seeking a diplomatic solution to its
showdown with Saddam
February, 2002
A report from the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) informs top
officials that captured Al Qaeda operative al-Libi is likely a
fabricator. Periodically after this point, high-level members of the
Bush Administration, including the President, will cite al-Libi's
information in public appearances. Colin Powell relies heavily on
accounts provided by al-Libi for his speech to the United Nations
Security Council on February 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing "the
story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided
training in [the use of chemical] weapons to Al Qaeda."
The same DIA report states, "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and
is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements [like al Qaeda]. Moreover,
Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot
control."
February 8, 2002
Bush, citing the highly suspect testimony of captured Al Qaeda
operative al-Libi, says in a radio address, "Iraq has also provided al
Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."
May 18, 2002
Details of the President's daily briefing of August 6, 2001, are
revealed, including its title: "Bin Laden determined to strike in US."
The same day, another pre-9/11 memo is discovered revealing that an
FBI agent in Arizona had urged his superiors to more thoroughly
investigate Middle Eastern men enrolling in flight schools in the US.
Almost none of the information garnered by the FBI in monitoring
flights schools was shared with the CIA before 9/11.
In a news conference with Tony Blair, President Bush claims that an
IAEA report says Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon.
Because there is no new report from the IAEA saying this, most news
agencies interpret the President to be referring to a 1998 report.
When the IAEA objects and says that none of their 1998 reports argue
anything of the kind, Scott McClellan tries to clear up the confusion.
"He's referring to 1991 there. In '91, there was a report saying that
after the war they found out they were about six months away." There
are no IAEA reports from 1991 saying this.
September 12, 2002
Bush tells the UN General Assembly that Iraq is a "grave and gathering
danger," and that "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength
aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should
Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear
weapon within a year."
Cheney also says, "We will work with the UN Security Council for the
necessary resolutions." But author Ron Suskind will later write that
it was clear "to anyone in the innermost circle around the President
[that UN resolutions] would be a faithless exercise; an exercise for
show."
September 26, 2002
President Bush says in a Rose Garden speech, "the Iraqi regime
possesses biological and chemical weapons." A Defense Intelligence
Agency report distributed in the White House around the time of the
speech says there is "no reliable information on whether Iraq is
producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has or will
establish its chemical agent production facilities."
September 28, 2002
Bush addresses the nation: "The danger to our country is grave and it
is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical
weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to
the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack
in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has
long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are
al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear
bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."
October 2, 2002
President Bush: "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
October 5, 2002
George Tenet reads a draft of a speech George Bush is set to deliver
in Cincinnati on October 7. It includes the claim that Saddam has
"been caught attempting to purchase" uranium in Niger. The CIA tells
Stephen Hadley and others at the White House that the statement is
incorrect. Specifically, they say: "[R]emove the sentence because the
amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired
from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this
issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium
oxide in their inventory."
November 2, 2002
We know he's got chemical weapons." -- President Bush
November 7, 2002
"War is not my first choice, don't--it's my last choice." -- President
Bush
December 31, 2002
President Bush tells a reporter, "You said we're headed to war in Iraq--
I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq.
I'm the person who gets to decide, not you."
January 28, 2003
President Bush, in his State of the Union address, says the infamous
l6 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Various intelligence agencies know this to be false. The CIA made sure
the claim was removed from an October 2002 speech Bush gave in
Cincinnati.
Bush's speech contains other highly questionable claims: "[Saddam] has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for
nuclear weapons production." Iraq has "mobile biological weapons labs"
designed to produce "germ warfare agents." Saddam builds and keeps
"weapons of mass destruction."
According to a secret memo brought to light in early 2006, President
Bush tells British PM Tony Blair he plans to invade Iraq even if UN
inspectors find no evidence of banned Iraqi weapons programs. He also
says he will not need a second UN resolution condemning Iraq. Blair
gives assurances that he's "solidly with the president."
The memo has Bush telling Blair the US is casting around for a
stronger pretext to invade and that it once considered "flying U2
reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted
in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN
resolutions]."
Bush adds that he thinks it "unlikely that there would be internecine
warfare between [Iraq's] different religious and ethnic groups" after
the attack
Febrary 6, 2003
Bush follows Powell's presentation with a national address reiterating
the administration's standard claims: Iraq possesses weapons of mass
destruction, possesses "at least seven mobile factories" for germ
warfare, and harbors terrorist networks. Bush adds that Iraq has
developed spray devices for chemical and biological weapons that could
be attached to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). "A UAV launched from a
vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
The U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs, the Air
Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, wrote months
earlier in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "U.S.
Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily
intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare
(CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a
primary role of reconnaissance." A senior analyst with the Air Force
will express shock months later, saying, "We were pretty sure this
thing was dead."
March 8, 2003
President Bush tells the nation, "We are doing everything we can to
avoid war in Iraq."
May 6, 2003
George Bush touts the bio-lab trailer found at a Kurdish checkpoint:
"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of
Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. I will leave the
details... to the experts."
All of this was chronicled by several sources but it was drawn
together by Mother Jones magazine.
> He made his decision to go to
> war with Iraq on the same intel congress had when they gave him the
> green light.
Oh no he didn't. Congress doesn't have it's very own intelligence
service. It depends on the President to share what he gets from the
CIA and DIA and so-forth. The President does not share the President's
Daily Brief with Congress. Plus the National Intelligence Estimate was
given to Congress moments before the vote in question so they had
little time to think about it. Furthermore, the doubts about the
intelligence among professionals was not in the NIE given to Congress.
So basically, Bush pulled the wool over a bunch of people who trusted
their president to tell them the truth when their country was being
attacked.
> You think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or did
> he gas thousands of Kurds with rotten boiled egg/beer/jalapeno farts?
Gosh, this sure sounds terrible. But Saddam gassed the Kurds with the
OLDER WMDs. The ones the UN made him destroy earlier. We found some of
that junk in the desert a couple of years ago, which led weapons
inspector Daivd Kay to say he had more dangerous stuff beneath his
kitchen sink. Saddam never had any of the stuff the Drunken Frat Boy
CLAIMED he had.
> He had how many years to hide his stash?
Hmmm...Which stash are you talking about? The old Clorox stuff or the
supposed new stuff which he allegedly hid in Syria? This dumbass
argument never fails to make me laugh. It goes like this: Saddam's
getting invaded, so he calls up Syria and says, "Hey, the Americans
are kicking my ass. I've got all this poison gas and some nukes too
I'm not supposed to have. Can you hold 'em for me while the Americans
look around for them and then give them back later?" and the Syrian's
go, "Um, yeah sure." You're getting invaded and you send your most
powerful weapons out of the country. Yeah, that makes loads of sense.
How many years have we had to try and find it? Almost five now? Shit
that's longer than WWII.
>How many U.N resolutions
> which he ignored?
I don't think it really mattered, actually. He had to destroy them
anyway.
> You,like most of your bedwetting, linguini spined
> brethren on the left have let your blind hatred of Bush prevent you
> from seeing the truth demonstrated by facts.Get over it.
Hope you get over the elections in about nine months. You got a taste
of how we "get over it," in 2006. I hope you like the taste because
you're going to get it shoved down your throat again in about nine
months.
S. Olson
Jerry Okamura
go to war with Iraq, he would have had a real difficult time doing it, "if"
the United Nations Security Council, when they passed the Iraq War
Resolution had simply said, "no country has the authorization to use
military force" without the prior approval of the UN Security Council. The
President would have a hard time justifying an invasion of Iraq, "if" the US
Senate had not given him authorization to use force.
"fargo116" <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9b288b0-42a4-4b40...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Harold Burton
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> I will make this real simple. No matter how badly Bush may have wanted to
> go to war with Iraq, he would have had a real difficult time doing it, "if"
> the United Nations Security Council, when they passed the Iraq War
> Resolution had simply said, "no country has the authorization to use
> military force" without the prior approval of the UN Security Council. The
> President would have a hard time justifying an invasion of Iraq, "if" the US
> Senate had not given him authorization to use force.
Yep, US Senators like Hitlary Clinton are enablers, they voted for it.
Now if they want to claim they did vote for it but were stupid for doing
so, let's hear them say it, they haven't yet.
Snicker.
fargo116
> I will make this real simple....
Ok, me too. He lied to use to get us into a war.
S. Olson
fargo116
> In article <47b650fe$0$22815$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
I don't know what you're talking about, Harold. They've said they were
lied to. When are you going to say you are a post forger?
S. Olson
Harold Burton
<d351b801-c4f6-429a...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No surprise there, you're not too bright. What part of Hitlary voted
for the war in Iraq don't you understand?
Harold Burton
<a8b3a328-607b-44ac...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:57 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > I will make this real simple....
>
> Ok, me too. He lied to use (sic) to get us into a war.
And the idiot presidential candidate Hitlary was so stupid that she
bought it, and DemocRATs are actually "thinking" that such stupidity
qualifies her to be president. Gawd, gotta love the idiocy of leftards.
fargo116
What part of 'she was lied to,' don't you understand? Damn, you really
earned your sobriquet, didn't you?
S. Olson
fargo116
>
> fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 7:57 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > > I will make this real simple....
>
> > Ok, me too. He lied to use (sic) to get us into a war.
>
> And the idiot presidential candidate Hitlary was so stupid that she
> bought it, and DemocRATs are actually "thinking" that such stupidity
> qualifies her to be president. Gawd, gotta love the idiocy of leftards.
Aw.cm'on Harold. You still have a certificate saying you own the
Brooklyn Bridge.
S. Olson
Harold Burton
<cb58b543-ed5b-4ff5...@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What part of "she's stupid enough to buy it, and the Brooklyn Bridge"
don't you understand? And still idiot DemocRATs (oops, sorry for the
redundancy) are taking her seriously.
Snicker.
3960 Dead
The part where you're trying to smear her for supposedly supporting a
war you are in favor of.
Damn, but you're dumb!
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
fargo116
For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
understand?
S. Olson
bval...@aol.com
> > Is that so? "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
> > reports
> > show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
> > biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
> > nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
> > terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
> > left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
> > to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
> > develop nuclear weapons."
> > Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
> Well I guess Bush's 'intel' had everyone fooled. Face it, Bush lied to the
> World.
> And got away with it, so far.
You got a big problem if a Democrat get's into the White House.
They're not going to pull out of Iraq.
They won't do that, because to do so would be suicide.
bval...@aol.com
> > No surprise there, you're not too bright. What part of Hitlary voted
> > for the war in Iraq don't you understand?-
> What part of 'she was lied to,' don't you understand?>
The part where a US Senator, who had access to the same intelligence
as the President, COULD be lied to. Oh, and there's that little
matter of her making speeches insisting that Saddam was dangerous
before Bush took office.
.
bval...@aol.com
> For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> understand?
The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
the President, could be fooled.
fargo116
Since when? You can't do a retreat?
S. Olson
bval...@aol.com
> >> I don't know what you're talking about, Harold.
.
> >No surprise there, you're not too bright. What part of Hitlary voted
> >for the war in Iraq don't you understand?
> The part where you're trying to smear her for supposedly supporting a
> war you are in favor of.
We don't condemn her for voting (not "supporting", VOTING) for the
war. We condemn her for attacking others who voted for the war.
bval...@aol.com
> > I will make this real simple....
.
> Ok, me too. He lied to use to get us into a war.
How can a US Senator, who has access to the same intelligence as the
President, be fooled?
bval...@aol.com
> > And the idiot presidential candidate Hitlary was so stupid that she
> > bought it, and DemocRATs are actually "thinking" that such stupidity
> > qualifies her to be president. Gawd, gotta love the idiocy of leftards.
.
> Aw.cm'on Harold. You still have a certificate saying you own the
> Brooklyn Bridge.
Oops, looks like fargo ran out of Daily Kos talking points.
.
Foxtrot
>Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Yep, US Senators like Hitlary Clinton are enablers, they voted for it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Now if they want to claim they did vote for it but were stupid for
>> > > > > doing
>> > > > > so, let's hear them say it, they haven't yet.
>>
>> > > > > Snicker.
>>
>> > > > I don't know what you're talking about, Harold.
>>
>> > > No surprise there, you're not too bright. What part of Hitlary voted
>> > > for the war in Iraq don't you understand?-
>>
>> > What part of 'she was lied to,' don't you understand?
>>
>> What part of "she's stupid enough to buy it, and the Brooklyn Bridge"
>> don't you understand? And still idiot DemocRATs (oops, sorry for the
>> redundancy) are taking her seriously.
BJ knew whether or not Hussein had WMDs, Fartgoof. Do you really
think he would have allowed his wife to vote for an unnecessary war
without telling her the truth????
>> Snicker.-
>
>For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
>understand?
" ... for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction
[in Iraq]."
-- John Kerry, Face the Nation, 9/14/2003.
He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 to 2001. This
committee gets the same intel as the president.
Exactly how did Bush deceive Ketchup Boy into voting for the war,
Fartgoof? <Snicker>
Whiplash Edwards was on the Intel Committee at the time of the vote
on the war. He voted for it too. How can this be, Fartgoof?
Heh heh dumbass libs.
Foxtrot
Rabid Bush haters like Fartgoof who regurgitate talking points from
Daily Kooks and Moron.org don't know what to say when you remind
them that leftist British PM Tony Blair--confident with British intel--led
the UK into war too.
Heh, you can't get far when all you've got is hatred.
Harold Burton
<82ca4ec5-82fc-46e3...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> understand?
Of course she was lied to, probably thousands of times, after all she's
been married to Bill for over 30 years.
Harold Burton
<f88255dc-b52b-477f...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"bval...@aol.com" <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
And she's easily fooled, as her husband well knows.
Harold Burton
<6f7fbc03-3760-4352...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"bval...@aol.com" <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
If the US Senator is Hillery, very easily, ask her husband. :-)
Baldin Lee Pramer
> On Feb 14, 10:44 pm, "GOP CHIMP EDEN" <christo-li...@crawford.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:47b4f1ea$0$17328$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> > > "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > reports
> > > show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
> > > biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
> > > nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
> > > terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
> > > left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
> > > to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
> > > develop nuclear weapons."
> > > Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
> > World.
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Please explain in detail where Bush lied.He made his decision to go to
> war with Iraq on the same intel congress had when they gave him the
> green light.
What a load of crap. He has access to *every* bit of raw or cooked
intelligence. Congress does not. They have what the president allows.
BLP
bval...@aol.com
> > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> > > understand?
.
> > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
> > the President, could be fooled.
.
> And she's easily fooled, as her husband well knows.
"Easily fooled," huh? So, Hillary went from being The Smartest Woman
In The World to The Biggest Goober in the blink of an eye.
Tell me, why do you want a gullible idiot to have her finger on the
nukes? Simple bunny that she is, Bubbette might confuse the
activation code for a TV remote when Jerry Springer is on.
bval...@aol.com
> On Feb 16, 12:18 am, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > .> > Is that so? "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
> > > > reports
> > > > show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
> > > > biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
> > > > nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
> > > > terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
> > > > left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
> > > > to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
> > > > develop nuclear weapons."
> > > > Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
.
> > > Well I guess Bush's 'intel' had everyone fooled. Face it, Bush lied to the
> > > World.
> > You got a big problem if a Democrat get's into the White House.
.
> > They're not going to pull out of Iraq.
.
> > They won't do that, because to do so would be suicide.
.
> Since when? You can't do a retreat?
"Retreat" is such a loaded word, let's use the more neutral term
"surrender".
If we leave, Iran and the other terrorist states will throw everything
they have to tearing down a functioning democracy. This is not
wingnut speculation - the terrorists have had their PR people release
speeches which openly say this. If the terrorists get their hands on
Iraq, they will have access to hundreds of billions of dollars, an
entire nation to protect and train terrorists, and America will be
shown as a group of cowards who let their friends swing in the wind.
Right now, the surge is working. The terrorists are being crushed.
Why on Earth do you want to destroy a Democracy that America has spent
hundreds of billions and the lives of thousands of American lives?
Why?
Is it possible that you're such a petty asshole that you would court
disaster on an unprecedented scale simply to deny George Bush a
legacy?
Has your Bush Derangement Syndrome got that far?
3960 Dead
>.
>> > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
>> > > understand?
>.
>> > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
>> > the President, could be fooled.
>.
>> And she's easily fooled, as her husband well knows.
>.
>"Easily fooled," huh? So, Hillary went from being The Smartest Woman
>In The World to The Biggest Goober in the blink of an eye.
Amazing how you invent shit like that. Aside from sarky right wing
toads, who has said Hillary Clinton claimed to be the smartest woman
in the world.
Second: she did NOT have access to the information Putsch did. He
didn't want to share it at all, and only reluctantly agreed to show it
to the top four Republicans and two Democrats, and then provided only
that they didn't discuss specifics.
>
>Tell me, why do you want a gullible idiot to have her finger on the
>nukes? Simple bunny that she is, Bubbette might confuse the
>activation code for a TV remote when Jerry Springer is on.
3960 Dead
Bill, you surrendered years ago. Your national pride is an empty
vessel.
>
>If we leave, Iran and the other terrorist states will throw everything
>they have to tearing down a functioning democracy. This is not
>wingnut speculation - the terrorists have had their PR people release
>speeches which openly say this. If the terrorists get their hands on
>Iraq, they will have access to hundreds of billions of dollars, an
>entire nation to protect and train terrorists, and America will be
>shown as a group of cowards who let their friends swing in the wind.
>
>Right now, the surge is working. The terrorists are being crushed.
>Why on Earth do you want to destroy a Democracy that America has spent
>hundreds of billions and the lives of thousands of American lives?
>
>Why?
>
>Is it possible that you're such a petty asshole that you would court
>disaster on an unprecedented scale simply to deny George Bush a
>legacy?
>
>Has your Bush Derangement Syndrome got that far?
Falstaff
Presidents always have more information than Senators. Assuming
they stay awake during Cabinet meetings, that is.
Jerry Okamura
"3960 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:em9er31hssaf5v599...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:53:00 -0800 (PST), "bval...@aol.com"
> <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>.
>>> > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't
>>> > > you
>>> > > understand?
>>.
>>> > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
>>> > the President, could be fooled.
>>.
>>> And she's easily fooled, as her husband well knows.
>>.
>>"Easily fooled," huh? So, Hillary went from being The Smartest Woman
>>In The World to The Biggest Goober in the blink of an eye.
>
> Amazing how you invent shit like that. Aside from sarky right wing
> toads, who has said Hillary Clinton claimed to be the smartest woman
> in the world.
>
> Second: she did NOT have access to the information Putsch did. He
> didn't want to share it at all, and only reluctantly agreed to show it
> to the top four Republicans and two Democrats, and then provided only
> that they didn't discuss specifics.
>>
have made the right decision in any event?
robw
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5784c08b-8d68-4857...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
robw
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fc0b7761-7bb4-49b3...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
robw
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:301092cb-02c9-4359...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
robw
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e4e8e3cc-e88a-4263...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
bval...@aol.com
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:53:00 -0800 (PST), "bvall...@aol.com"
>
> <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >.
> >> > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> >> > > understand?
> >.
> >> > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
> >> > the President, could be fooled.
> >.
> >> And she's easily fooled, as her husband well knows.
> >.
> >"Easily fooled," huh? So, Hillary went from being The Smartest Woman
> >In The World to The Biggest Goober in the blink of an eye.
>
> Amazing how you invent shit like that.>
I WISH I could invent shit that crazy - I'd be a regular on the Daily
Show.
.
> Aside from sarky right wing
> toads, who has said Hillary Clinton claimed to be the smartest woman
> in the world.
I never said that Hillary made that claim - that honor is reserved for
Democrat water carriers like the New York Times and Newsweek.
.
> Second: she did NOT have access to the information Putsch did. He
> didn't want to share it at all, and only reluctantly agreed to show it
> to the top four Republicans and two Democrats, and then provided only
> that they didn't discuss specifics.
Nope.
.
> "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both.
.
And yet, under Bush, we've had both.
Jeffrey Turner
> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There Should Be Blood: Liberal Democrats Left Out in the Cold
>>>>
>>>> By Ted Rall
>>>>
>>>> Created Feb 13 2008 - 10:18am
>>>>
>>>> polls were
>>>> running for the war, and so was she. She pandered. It was
>>>> disgusting. But I
>>>> was even more appalled by her lousy political skills. It ought to
>>>> have been
>>>> evident, even then, that (a) the war wouldn't go well, (b) Americans
>>>> would
>>>> turn against it, and (c) this would occur before she was up for
>>>> reelection
>>>> in 2006. It was obvious to even me at the time, and it took me ten
>>>> years to
>>>> get a bachelor's degree.
>>>
>>>
>>> intelligence reports
>>> show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
>>> biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
>>> nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
>>> terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
>>> left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
>>> to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
>>> develop nuclear weapons."
>>> Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>>
>>
> No, I prefer to use what they actually said...
Honestly, you're so dense the military should look into using your skull
as a replacement for depleted uranium.
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
Jerry Okamura
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:13rf205...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura
"Falstaff" <jaxfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45c1b16e-983c-469c...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Senators do not generally sit in on cabinet meetings.
Jerry Okamura
democracy...
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Mpedndpzkqopsyra...@comcast.com...
fargo116
> > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> > understand?
>
> .
>
> The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
> the President, could be fooled.
But she doesn't, Valley Girl. So, for the third time, what part of
'she was lied to,' is mystifying to you?
S. Olson
fargo116
> In article
> <f88255dc-b52b-477f-9dfb-817765c8f...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> > > understand?
> > .
>
> > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
> > the President, could be fooled.
>
> And she's easily fooled, as her husband well knows.
But she doesn't have access to the same information as the President,
Harold. So, for the fourth time, what part of 'she was lied to' don't
you understand?
S. Olson
fargo116
Well, we have one now who invaded the wrong country.
S. Olson
fargo116
wrote:
> "3960 Dead" <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
She didn't think the President of the United States would out and out
lie to her, Jerry.
S. Olson
fargo116
> On Feb 16, 10:11 am, 3960 Dead <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:53:00 -0800 (PST), "bvall...@aol.com"
>
> > <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >.
> > >> > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> > >> > > understand?
> > >.
> > >> > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
> > >> > the President, could be fooled.
> > >.
> > >> And she's easily fooled, as her husband well knows.
> > >.
> > >"Easily fooled," huh? So, Hillary went from being The Smartest Woman
> > >In The World to The Biggest Goober in the blink of an eye.
>
> > Amazing how you invent shit like that.>
>
> .
> I WISH I could invent shit that crazy - I'd be a regular on the Daily
> Show.
Nope. Well, you aren't working for them, now, Valley Girl. Just goes
to show you have to have talent. You're just crazy.
> .> Aside from sarky right wing
> > toads, who has said Hillary Clinton claimed to be the smartest woman
> > in the world.
>
> .
> I never said that Hillary made that claim - that honor is reserved for
> Democrat water carriers like the New York Times and Newsweek.
Excuse me, but I have never seen this. Could you tell us all where
this can be found?
> .> Second: she did NOT have access to the information Putsch did. He
> > didn't want to share it at all, and only reluctantly agreed to show it
> > to the top four Republicans and two Democrats, and then provided only
> > that they didn't discuss specifics.
>
> .
> Nope.
If you are arguing that The Senator had the same information that the
Drunken Frat Boy did, you are simply wrong. The Senator does not get
the President's Daily Brief and the Drunken Frat Boys minions edited
out dissent in the National Intelligence Estimates the senators DID
get.
> .> "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both.
>
> .
> And yet, under Bush, we've had both.- Hide quoted text -
LOL...what was a barrel of oil going for under Big Bill the last year
he was in office, Valley Girl? $48 wasn't it? What's it now?
What was a gallon of gas going for when Big Bill was in the Big Chair,
Valley Girl? What's it now?
S. Olson
fargo116
> >> > > > > Yep, US Senators like Hitlary Clinton are enablers, they voted for it.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Now if they want to claim they did vote for it but were stupid for
> >> > > > > doing
> >> > > > > so, let's hear them say it, they haven't yet.
>
> >> > > > > Snicker.
>
> >> > > > I don't know what you're talking about, Harold.
>
> >> > > No surprise there, you're not too bright. What part of Hitlary voted
> >> > > for the war in Iraq don't you understand?-
>
> >> > What part of 'she was lied to,' don't you understand?
>
> >> What part of "she's stupid enough to buy it, and the Brooklyn Bridge"
> >> don't you understand? And still idiot DemocRATs (oops, sorry for the
> >> redundancy) are taking her seriously.
>
> BJ knew whether or not Hussein had WMDs, Fartgoof. Do you really
> think he would have allowed his wife to vote for an unnecessary war
> without telling her the truth????
LOL....The info Big Bill had was for the OLD WMD's Foxy. Not the new
ones the Drunken Frat Boy claimed Saddam had.
> " ... for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction
> [in Iraq]."
> -- John Kerry, Face the Nation, 9/14/2003.
>
> He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 to 2001. This
> committee gets the same intel as the president.
No it does not, Foxy. And Kerry was talking about the OLD WMD's not
the new ones the Drunken Frat Boy claimed he had.
> Exactly how did Bush deceive Ketchup Boy into voting for the war,
> Fartgoof? <Snicker>
Just told you, Foxy. See above.
> Whiplash Edwards was on the Intel Committee at the time of the vote
> on the war. He voted for it too. How can this be, Fartgoof?
He was lied to.
> Heh heh dumbass libs
[Shrug] We figure that the President of the United States, when out
country is being attacked, would at least be trustworthy and reliable
enough to tell Americans the truth about it before he sends our kids
off to war. Well, now we know the Drunken Frat Boy and the GOP
cocksuckers simply cannot be trusted.
S. Olson
fargo116
>
> fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> > understand?
>
> Of course she was lied to, probably thousands of times, after all she's
> been married to Bill for over 30 years.
Isn't there a difference between Big Bill lying about a blowjob and
the Drunken Frat Boy lying about Iraq and getting 3,960 kids killed
for nothing?
S. Olson
fargo116
> > > No surprise there, you're not too bright. What part of Hitlary voted
> > > for the war in Iraq don't you understand?-
> > What part of 'she was lied to,' don't you understand?>
>
> The part where a US Senator, who had access to the same intelligence
> as the President, COULD be lied to. Oh, and there's that little
> matter of her making speeches insisting that Saddam was dangerous
> before Bush took office.
So Saddam's dangerous. Well, that was big news.
And the Senator DIDN't have the same intelligence as the Drunken Frat
Boy, Valley Girl. She didn't have access to the President's Daily
Brief and the National Intelligence Estimate the Drunken Frat Boy DID
share with senators didn't have dissenting opinions in it. How is this
'the same?'
S. Olson
fargo116
> > >> I don't know what you're talking about, Harold.
> > >No surprise there, you're not too bright. What part of Hitlary voted
> .
> > The part where you're trying to smear her for supposedly supporting a
> > war you are in favor of.
>
> .
> We don't condemn her for voting (not "supporting", VOTING) for the
> war. We condemn her for attacking others who voted for the war.
LMAO! You condemn the Senator because you had Big Bill practically
with his dick in another woman's mouth and you STILL couldn't get him.
LMAO!
Now you figure that since you weren't smart enough to get Big Bill
you'll go after his wife and it'll be easier cause she's a GIRL.
Here's a well-known fact. Should The Senator make it out of the
primaries, she'll kick the shit out of anyone from your side you send
against her.
And there is nothing you can do about it. LOL
S. Olson
fargo116
> .> > And the idiot presidential candidate Hitlary was so stupid that she
> > > bought it, and DemocRATs are actually "thinking" that such stupidity
> > > qualifies her to be president. Gawd, gotta love the idiocy of leftards.
> .
> > Aw.cm'on Harold. You still have a certificate saying you own the
> > Brooklyn Bridge.
>
> .
> Oops, looks like fargo ran out of Daily Kos talking points.
> .
I really don't follow the Daily Kos, Valley Girl. Let's face it,
Harold admits that HIS president lies to get us into a war in the
wrong country, lies to the Congress and he thinks that makes us just
as guilty as him. In other words, "Hey, vote for me!. I can lie
bettter than the Democrats."
This is a slogan for victory?
fargo116
> "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > And the idiot presidential candidate Hitlary was so stupid that she
> >> > bought it, and DemocRATs are actually "thinking" that such stupidity
> >> > qualifies her to be president. Gawd, gotta love the idiocy of leftards.
> >.
> >> Aw.cm'on Harold. You still have a certificate saying you own the
> >> Brooklyn Bridge.
> >.
> >Oops, looks like fargo ran out of Daily Kos talking points.
>
> Daily Kooks and Moron.org
I get a tad upset when our troops get treated like props and when they
are sent off to fight, the guy responsible doesn't even take the
trouble to get the right country. I am surprised, you don't, Valley
Girl.
Never saw the Daily Kos's or MoveOn.org's talking points. Valley Girl.
> don't know what to say when you remind
> them that leftist British PM Tony Blair--confident with British intel--led
> the UK into war too.
That's because it's a weird interpretation. Blair was notified as
early as Jan, 31, 2003 that the Drunken Frat Boy intended to invade
Iraq even if no WMDs were found. What Blair's motivations were, I
cannot say, but British intelligence didn't support Iraq as having
WMDs nor did it support Iraq being responsible for the World Trade
Center attacks.
S. Olson
Harold Burton
<56c738fe-9053-4054...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> She (Hillary) didn't think the President of the United States would out and out
> lie to her...
Are you kidding, Slick Willie had been lying to her for years. Remember
Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski? Hell, he lied to us too, remember
when he pointed his finger at us on national TV and said "I didn't have
sex with that woman." Bill Clinton lied more than he told the truth.
Sheeesh.
fargo116
> > > I will make this real simple....
> .
> > Ok, me too. He lied to use to get us into a war.
>
> .
> How can a US Senator, who has access to the same intelligence as the
> President, be fooled?
Simple, Valley Girl. U.S. Senators DON'T get the same intelligence the
President of the United States has. They expect hin to be straight
with them.
S. Olson
fargo116
>
> "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > I will make this real simple....
> > .
> > > Ok, me too. He lied to use to get us into a war.
> > .
> > How can a US Senator, who has access to the same intelligence as the
> > President, be fooled?
>
Could you tell us all how a blowjob is the same thing as September 11?
S. Olson
Harold Burton
<9340132e-3686-43b5...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But she (Hillary) doesn't have access to the same information as the
> President...
And Bill used that to his advantage, it's how he kept screwing everyone
but his wife, and she was clueless. Yeah, just the trait you want in a
president.
Harold Burton
<1c028236-380b-449f...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 12:23 am, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> > > understand?
> >
> > .
> >
> > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
> > the President, could be fooled.
>
> But she doesn't...
But she did.
robw
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47b797d1$0$16660$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Harold Burton
<de7d7b39-6dad-4c99...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Simple, Valley Girl. U.S. Senators DON'T get the same intelligence...
If they're Hitlary, or fat Teddy, they don't have much intelligence at
all. Look at how Hitlary fucked up the health care initiative she was
given, and you idiots want to make her president. Hahahahahahahaha.
Harold Burton
<c0511c6f-ffc8-4863...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
fargo116 <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Could you tell us how that relates to how Hitlary is so easily fooled?
Harold Burton
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Meaning what?
Meaning leftards are idiots.
Gandalf Grey
"Harold Turdton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-7C3F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Coming from a moron like yourself, that's a compliment, Turdton.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> BJ knew whether or not Hussein had WMDs, Fartgoof. Do you really
>> think he would have allowed his wife to vote for an unnecessary war
>> without telling her the truth????
>
>LOL....The info Big Bill had was for the OLD WMD's Foxy. Not the new
>ones the Drunken Frat Boy claimed Saddam had.
LOL the contortions you Bush haters make are hilarious Fartgoof.
There are exactly two viable arguments about Iraq and WMDs.
1) Bush and Clinton both lied.
2) Bush and Clinton were both mistaken for reasons including the
fact that Hussein didn't comply with inspections he had previously
agreed to allow.
If you had stuck with #1 or #2 you'd have a case. But you didn't,
proving that you are nothing but a partisan mudslinger.
>> " ... for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction
>> [in Iraq]."
>> -- John Kerry, Face the Nation, 9/14/2003.
>>
>> He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 to 2001. This
>> committee gets the same intel as the president.
>
>No it does not, Foxy. And Kerry was talking about the OLD WMD's not
>the new ones the Drunken Frat Boy claimed he had.
I described you Bush haters' argument perfectly last week. I shall
repeat:
The Bush haters' argument goes like this. Hussein did in fact have
WMDs when BJ was in office. He had them and was a threat to us
until January 20, 2001 when he magically turned into an angel.
After January 20, 2001 when Hussein turned into our pal, Bush lied
when he said the exact same thing about him having WMDs as
Billy and his flunkies said prior to January 20, 2001. After January
20, 2001, Dems indeed said that Neo-Saint Hussein had WMDs,
but they only said it because Bush lied to them about it.
Do you now see how stupid you sound Fartgoof?
>> Exactly how did Bush deceive Ketchup Boy into voting for the war,
>> Fartgoof? <Snicker>
>
>Just told you, Foxy. See above.
>
>> Whiplash Edwards was on the Intel Committee at the time of the vote
>> on the war. He voted for it too. How can this be, Fartgoof?
>
>He was lied to.
>
>> Heh heh dumbass libs
>
>[Shrug] We figure that the President of the United States, when out
>country is being attacked, would at least be trustworthy and reliable
>enough to tell Americans the truth about it before he sends our kids
>off to war. Well, now we know the Drunken Frat Boy and the GOP
>cocksuckers simply cannot be trusted.
So now you're saying that three of the supposedly most brilliant
Democrat minds in the US--Ketchup Boy, Whiplash Edwards and
Battleax Clinton--were all STUPID and GULLIBLE enough to be
DUPED by a drunken frat boy?!?!
When it comes to brains and national security, your party doesn't
have much to offer the nation does it Fartgoof? LOL
Mitchell Holman
news:qiffr3h5vlj5p8snk...@4ax.com:
"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
George Bush, 5/31/03
vs.....
"It turns out that we have not found weapons
of mass destruction."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
bval...@aol.com
> > I WISH I could invent shit that crazy - I'd be a regular on the Daily
> > Show.
;
> Nope. Well, you aren't working for them, now, Valley Girl. Just goes
> to show you have to have talent. You're just crazy.
.
.
> > .> Aside from sarky right wing
> > > toads, who has said Hillary Clinton claimed to be the smartest woman
> > > in the world.
.
> > I never said that Hillary made that claim - that honor is reserved for
> > Democrat water carriers like the New York Times and Newsweek.
.
> Excuse me, but I have never seen this. Could you tell us all where
> this can be found?
.
"Feminaut explores gender cosmos. The most fabulous woman in U.S.
history?!?!?!"
Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom Watch", Feb 15, 1993
"(We) are in the middle of a primal American saga and the important
part is yet to come. Bill Clinton may be merely the prequel, the
President of lesser moment - except, so to speak, as the horse she
rode in on... I think I see a sort of Celtic mist forming around
Hillary as a new archetype (somewhere between Eleanor and Evita,
transcending bother) at a moment when the civilization pivots, at
last, decisively - perhaps for the first time since the advent of
Christian patriarchy two millenniums ago - toward Woman."
Time magazine essayist Lance Morrow, July 12, 1999
> If you are arguing that The Senator had the same information that the
> Drunken Frat Boy did, you are simply wrong. The Senator does not get
> the President's Daily Brief and the Drunken Frat Boys minions edited
> out dissent in the National Intelligence Estimates the senators DID
> get.
.
Senators may not get daily access, but the Senate most definitely has
access to every ounce of information the President has - to say
otherwise is a condescending lie.
> > .> "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both.
.
> > And yet, under Bush, we've had both.-
.
> LOL...what was a barrel of oil going for under Big Bill the last year
> he was in office, Valley Girl? $48 wasn't it? What's it now?
.
Yup. And to keep the price that low, he released the oil reserves we
keep in case of a national emergency. Of course, had there been an
actual emergency, America would have been screwed. But that's Clinton
all over, isn't it?
Had Clinton done what he should have done, America could have Arctic
drilling right now, lowering our dependence on oil. But in a choice
between doing what's right for America, and raising his popularity
numbers, there is no real choice, is there?
bval...@aol.com
Except that we now have troops in the first Democracy that part of the
world has ever seen.
bval...@aol.com
Regardless of whatever information your imaginary wife tells you, the
Senate most certainly does have access to every scrap of intelligence
the President has.
bval...@aol.com
> On Feb 16, 12:23 am, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> > > understand?
.
> > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
> > the President, could be fooled.
> But she doesn't, Valley Girl. So, for the third time, what part of
> 'she was lied to,' is mystifying to you?
.
So, this is where you make your stand - pretending that the Senate
doesn't have access to intelligence? This is the objective lie that
you will say over and over and over until people agree just to get rid
of you?
robw
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6209e050-15fa-4df6...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
robw
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c65c57b1-c0f3-4a0a...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Mitchell Holman
news:c65c57b1-c0f3-4a0a...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Prove it.
bval...@aol.com
> A horribly damaged democracy.
.
Not all that damaged, and certainly a democracy.
bval...@aol.com
> > Regardless of whatever information your imaginary wife tells you, the
> > Senate most certainly does have access to every scrap of intelligence
> > the President has.
> Prove it.
3960 Dead
At least you admit that Israel is no longer a democracy.
It's impressive how gallently you shoulder the white man's burden...
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
fargo116
LOL. No it doesn't Valley Girl, no matter how much you screm
otherwise.
S. Olson
fargo116
>
> fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But she (Hillary) doesn't have access to the same information as the
> > President...
>
> And Bill used that to his advantage, it's how he kept screwing everyone
> but his wife, and she was clueless. Yeah, just the trait you want in a
> president.
And Harold's says he's NOT obsessed by The Bowjob [rolls eyes].
S. Olson
Mitchell Holman
a14ea4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Bin Laden Determine to Strike In US.
Report from Nat't Sec Advisor to the President, Aug 5, 2001
"For the President Only"
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
Did you catch the part about "For the President only"?
3960 Dead
He's cornered, Mitch, and when he's cornered, he just starts shouting
lies.
David Johnston
>
>> > I WISH I could invent shit that crazy - I'd be a regular on the Daily
>> > Show.
>;
>> Nope. Well, you aren't working for them, now, Valley Girl. Just goes
>> to show you have to have talent. You're just crazy.
>.
>Tell me, what have YOU done with your life?
> .
>> > .> Aside from sarky right wing
>> > > toads, who has said Hillary Clinton claimed to be the smartest woman
>> > > in the world.
>.
>> > I never said that Hillary made that claim - that honor is reserved for
>> > Democrat water carriers like the New York Times and Newsweek.
>.
>> Excuse me, but I have never seen this. Could you tell us all where
>> this can be found?
>.
>
>"Feminaut explores gender cosmos. The most fabulous woman in U.S.
>history?!?!?!"
> Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom Watch", Feb 15, 1993
That sounds like mockery of Hillary Clinton.
>
>"(We) are in the middle of a primal American saga and the important
>part is yet to come. Bill Clinton may be merely the prequel, the
>President of lesser moment - except, so to speak, as the horse she
>rode in on... I think I see a sort of Celtic mist forming around
>Hillary as a new archetype (somewhere between Eleanor and Evita,
>transcending bother) at a moment when the civilization pivots, at
>last, decisively - perhaps for the first time since the advent of
>Christian patriarchy two millenniums ago - toward Woman."
> Time magazine essayist Lance Morrow, July 12, 1999
Not a hint that Hillary Clinton is herself exceptionally intelligent.
In fact she only seems important of a symbol of female access to
power.
>
>
>> If you are arguing that The Senator had the same information that the
>> Drunken Frat Boy did, you are simply wrong. The Senator does not get
>> the President's Daily Brief and the Drunken Frat Boys minions edited
>> out dissent in the National Intelligence Estimates the senators DID
>> get.
>.
>Senators may not get daily access, but the Senate most definitely has
>access to every ounce of information the President has - to say
>otherwise is a condescending lie.
How does it get that access?
David Johnston
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Falstaff" <jaxfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:45c1b16e-983c-469c...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 16, 1:23 am, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
>> > understand?
>>
>> .
>>
>> The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
>> the President, could be fooled.
>
>
> Presidents always have more information than Senators. Assuming
>they stay awake during Cabinet meetings, that is.
>
>Senators do not generally sit in on cabinet meetings.
Which is why Presidents generally have more information than Senators.
Mitchell Holman
news:9n0hr3d9ki2s5h9fc...@4ax.com:
Still waiting for his version of when the Senate
got a copy of Condi Rice's "Bin Laden Determined to
Srike in US" report. Bush got in on Aug 5 2001 and
responded by going on the longest presidential vacation
in US history.
fargo116
> > > I WISH I could invent shit that crazy - I'd be a regular on the Daily
> > > Show.
> ;
> > Nope. Well, you aren't working for them, now, Valley Girl. Just goes
> > to show you have to have talent. You're just crazy.
>
> .
> Tell me, what have YOU done with your life?
Run my own business. How YOU doin'?
> .> > .> Aside from sarky right wing
> > > > toads, who has said Hillary Clinton claimed to be the smartest woman
> > > > in the world.
> .
> > > I never said that Hillary made that claim - that honor is reserved for
> > > Democrat water carriers like the New York Times and Newsweek.
> .
> > Excuse me, but I have never seen this. Could you tell us all where
> > this can be found?
>
> .
>
> "Feminaut explores gender cosmos. The most fabulous woman in U.S.
> history?!?!?!"
> Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom Watch", Feb 15, 1993
LOL...there is a combination of question marks and exclamation points
there, Valley Girl. That denotes skepticism. I don't see where
Newsweek is SAYING she's the most fabulous woman in the world. They
certainly don't claim she's the *SMARTEST,* like you did.
> "(We) are in the middle of a primal American saga and the important
> part is yet to come. Bill Clinton may be merely the prequel, the
> President of lesser moment - except, so to speak, as the horse she
> rode in on... I think I see a sort of Celtic mist forming around
> Hillary as a new archetype (somewhere between Eleanor and Evita,
> transcending bother) at a moment when the civilization pivots, at
> last, decisively - perhaps for the first time since the advent of
> Christian patriarchy two millenniums ago - toward Woman."
> Time magazine essayist Lance Morrow, July 12, 1999
I like this. You said the 'New York Times' said the Senator was the
"smartest woman in the world." Then when you're asked where the hell
that appeared, you post a quote from 'Time' magazine that doesn't even
SAY that." Time and New York Times are not the same thing, Genius.
> > If you are arguing that The Senator had the same information that the
> > Drunken Frat Boy did, you are simply wrong. The Senator does not get
> > the President's Daily Brief and the Drunken Frat Boys minions edited
> > out dissent in the National Intelligence Estimates the senators DID
> > get.
>
> .
> Senators may not get daily access, but the Senate most definitely has
> access to every ounce of information the President has - to say
> otherwise is a condescending lie.
Ah, so now they DON'T have the same information the President has a,
they just have to go and get it. And all this time you insisted they
did. What, they are supposed to automatically disbelieve their leader
when their country is attacked?
> > > .> "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both.
> .
> > > And yet, under Bush, we've had both.-
> .
> > LOL...what was a barrel of oil going for under Big Bill the last year
> > he was in office, Valley Girl? $48 wasn't it? What's it now?
>
> .
> Yup. And to keep the price that low, he released the oil reserves we
> keep in case of a national emergency. Of course, had there been an
> actual emergency, America would have been screwed. But that's Clinton
> all over, isn't it?
LOL...actually, to get right on the mark, oil was $37 a barrel BEFORE
Big Bill started lending from the stratregic petroleum reserve, Valley
Girl. Thirtyfuckingseven bucks a barrel. The Drunken Frat Boy's pushed
it over $100 a barrel..
> Had Clinton done what he should have done, America could have Arctic
> drilling right now, lowering our dependence on oil. But in a choice
> between doing what's right for America, and raising his popularity
> numbers, there is no real choice, is there?
LOL...'it's ALL Clinton's fault!' Meanwhile, you wanna drill for oil
in a national wildlife preserve. Hey, how about drilling for oil
offshore from your GOP cocksuckers in Florida, first? This wouldn't be
a big ol case of 'Not in my Backyard," would it?
S. Olson
fargo116
We have troops in Israel?
S. Olson
3960 Dead
<Noe...@comcast.com> wrote:
Look, this is Vallely. He'll be doing well if he even knows who Condi
Rice is.
3960 Dead
Fair's fair. Congress didn't read it.
But then, nor did the idiot in chief.
fargo116
No, what I say is that the president and the congress do not get the
same intelligence, which is true. As for the words 'having access,'
why should the Senate have to autotmatically disbelieve the president
of the United States when their mutual country is being attacked?
S. Olson
fargo116
>
> fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 12:23 am, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to' don't you
> > > > understand?
>
> > > .
>
> > > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same information as
> > > the President, could be fooled.
>
>
> But she did.
LOL...oh no she doesn't. She doesn't get the President's Daily Brief
and the National Intelligence Estimate the senators did get from the
White House has any dissenting opiniond deleted from it by the Drunken
Frat Boy administration. That doesn't sound like the same intelligence
to me
S. Olson
Steve
Irony anyone?
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, who claims to have been a business consultant.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
"Corporate income taxes are not deductible, and I was wrong about that.
That's why, as a business consultant, i always made sure my clients
hired an accountant."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/67262bc51f223155
Canyon Note: the irony lies in that someone who claims to have
been a business consultant would ever think corporate income taxes
were deductible..
"As a business consultant, I would never do anything beyond simple
daily bookkeeping"
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/305f3c9f66cb109c
Canyon Note: So Milt's career as a "business consultant" was really nothing
more than recording the store''s daily sales figures... something a sales
clerk does, usually for minimum wage..
Mitchell Holman
He thinks it is a side dish for gumbo or
shrimp etouffe'.
Jerry Okamura
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:ej1hr3hvbb5detie6...@4ax.com...
"If" Senators want the information they need to make a wise decision, all
they have to do is ask for that information.
robw
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8db6f48e-90d0-4a7d...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
bval...@aol.com
> "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote in news:cc01e59d-917c-4ea5-9a89-
> a14ea43e7...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> > Regardless of whatever information your imaginary wife tells you, the
> >> > Senate most certainly does have access to every scrap of intelligence
> >> > the President has.
> > .
> >> Prove it.
>
> >http://intelligence.senate.gov/
> Bin Laden Determine to Strike In US.
.
> Report from Nat't Sec Advisor to the President, Aug 5, 2001
> "For the President Only"
.
> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
.
> Did you catch the part about "For the President only"?
So what? No one denies that daily reports are for the president
only. That doesn't mean that the information is hidden from the
Senate.
bval...@aol.com
> Fair's fair. Congress didn't read it.
Where does it say that Congress was to be denied this information?
Oh, wait, it didn't. Just another casual lie from that lyin' sack of
shit, Zepp.
.
> But then, nor did the idiot in chief.
.
If the President of the United States is an "idiot", how is it that he
fooled the Smartest Woman In The World?
If Hitlery is gullible enough to buy the "lies" of an idiot, why does
she deserve to be president?
bval...@aol.com
> 3960 Dead <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote innews:9n0hr3d9ki2s5h9fc...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:20:31 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>
> >>"bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote in
> >>news:c65c57b1-c0f3-4a0a...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On Feb 16, 6:28 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 16, 7:27 am, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> > In article
> >>>> > <f88255dc-b52b-477f-9dfb-817765c8f...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>>> > "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> > > > For the second time, Harold, what part of 'she was lied to'
> >>>> > > > don't you understand?
> >>>> > > .
>
> >>>> > > The part where a US Senator, who has access to the same
> >>>> > > information as the President, could be fooled.
>
> >>>> > And she's easily fooled, as her husband well knows.
>
> >>>> But she doesn't have access to the same information as the President,
> >>>> Harold. So, for the fourth time, what part of 'she was lied to' don't
> >>>> you understand?
> >>> .
> >>> Regardless of whatever information your imaginary wife tells you, the
> >>> Senate most certainly does have access to every scrap of intelligence
> >>> the President has.
> >> Prove it.
.
> > He's cornered, Mitch, and when he's cornered, he just starts shouting
> > lies.
.
> Still waiting for his version of when the Senate
> got a copy of Condi Rice's "Bin Laden Determined to
> Srike in US" report. Bush got in on Aug 5 2001 and
> responded by going on the longest presidential vacation
> in US history.
.
And what, exactly, was the president supposed to do?
bval...@aol.com
> > Still waiting for his version of when the Senate
> >got a copy of Condi Rice's "Bin Laden Determined to
> >Srike in US" report. Bush got in on Aug 5 2001 and
> >responded by going on the longest presidential vacation
> >in US history.
.
> Look, this is Vallely. He'll be doing well if he even knows who Condi
> Rice is.
What, exactly, should the President have done?