No problem. This has been a fairly active thread. You and I can go on and on, tit for tat (don't go there ;-) ). We just fundamentally disagree. Only time will tell which is more right.
Have a good night. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:47 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Operation Iraqi Eradication sorry, just saw this. My comment is not a debate of the issues -- I am sure the election was thoroughly hashed out here --- just a statement of my personal opinion. As you say, get over it. In my personal opinion, it is pretty much demonstrated that Sandra Day O'Connor at least allowed personal issues to sway her vote. Much as I hate to say so, since she is a woman. I distinctly recall the Bush camp ridiculing the Gore camp for wanting the votes ot be counted Um, hello. Please feel free to disagree or remember otehrwise. As for Clinton -- I believe I have previously stated that he is a flawed egotist with a real problem about women. I think playing games with definitions is beneath a leader, but let's face it clinton was a consummate politician in all the senses of the word. But his dishonesty was a personal thing, that makes you kind of admire Hilary for not breaking out the gardening shears. He didnt gut the Constitution and tell us it was for our own good. He didn't send in the Marines to make his buddies money. Much as you may despise the guy you have to admit he didn't abuse his powers in that way. Dana On Wed, 28 May 2003 15:17:26 -0500, Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
