Dana - I seriously hope that you are tongue in cheek here. What do you call what you just did? A serious debate of the issues?
Frankly, what I see in most debates on GWB is a smoldering anger at not being able to steal the election from Bush. Just get over it. Move on with your life. If Gore had won because of a State Supreme court ruling or through not counting Solders votes, would you be yelling loudly or laughing over the gamesmanship? Bush won the election according to all of the rules in play. He won because Gore didn't have what it takes. Is GWB as smart as Clinton, no. Is he more honest. Definitely. By the way, how much did you complain, or any of you who are challenging Bush's honesty complain, when Clinton looked you in the eye and said he had not had sex with Monica? Yikes. Clinton makes Nixon look honest. My guess is that you looked the other way, made some equivocating comment like "they all do it", then quickly avoided further discussion on the moral side that his inability to own up to his actions showed. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:40 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Operation Iraqi Eradication Bushites are good at deriding the opposition. Got them the white house as I recall... On Wed, 28 May 2003 14:21:20 -0500, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry if that response of mine seemed a bit harsh. I just recall strongly > arguing about the red-herring argument about the WMD well before the war > started, but I was repeatedly derided and given the brush-off. Now, I'm > just > generally sitting back and eating my popcorn with a bit of wistful > sadness > for the gullibility of the US people. > > Bottom line: GWB makes Nixon look honest. > > -Kevin > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:33 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: RE: Operation Iraqi Eradication >> >> >> Perhaps. Having a selective memory if part of being human. And the one >> thing we all should admit is that we were and continue to be all poorly >> informed. We will probably not know what really happened and was >> known for >> some time. >> >> Peace. >> Andy >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:23 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: RE: Operation Iraqi Eradication >> >> >> > Also, I don't remember any of the other countries challenging >> > that Iraq had >> > Wad's. I just remember them asking for more time to negotiate them >> away >> > from Sadaam. >> >> Then you're either choosing to not remember, or you were sorely >> uninformed >> about the debates leading up to the war. I recall several cases where >> countries early on tried to challenge the existence of WMD. I'm >> pretty sure >> I even gave links here before the war started. >> >> What happened though is that the Bush administration controlled the >> entire >> playing field. Just like when Kevin Schmidt here stated that >> anyone who said >> it was about oil had no credibility, Bush controlled the >> situation such that >> any country that tried to say it wasn't about the WMD had no >> credibility. So >> in order for _any_ discussion to take place, the countries had to >> pretend >> that they agreed that there were WMD. Heck, even Powell early on was >> publicly unsure of their existence and didn't even support going to war >> because he was concerned it would destabilize the region. Hm... >> >> -Kevin >> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
