Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
1) Bush gave several speeches in the summer and fall of 2002 in which he listed several argument unrelated to WMD This includes the speech in Sept 2002 before the UN... The fakery in your line of reasoning was and is that WMD was THE primary reason... It was A reason among many... 2) Again one can argue, as many do, an insufficient number of WMD, as defined by the UNSC exist to pose a threat, but to pretend that is the same as No WMD is a dishonest straw-man. 3) I note even now you can type the words Yes Saddam had WMD... I have often given you the factual line of reasoning honest debate requires, still you can not make that step... On Mar 16, 5:13 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: I refer to Bush speech to the US public and to congress nothing cited actually existed nor did the infrastructure to produce it in a time line that could possibly be construed a threat. I stiil say africanized bees hold a bigger threat along with everything else on my list. The invasion and reasons given was bullshit (final US senate report 2006) and the costs involved are no where in proportion to any other conflict in history. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: The WMD definition by the UNSC is the standard in discussing WMD in Iraq... And that is the definition used by the UNSC in their discussion... Now if you wish to alter it for debate purposes, well atleast make that PUBLIC... The WMD definition is the operational one within the UNSC during the time frame of 2002-2003... Again if you wish to revise it, make that choice PUBLIC... A missle with no fuel or payload is what ?? A banned WMD under the Cease fire treaty between Saddam and the UN... Sorry Mark, 1 element that is covered under the definition is a WMD which Saddam had --- and ANY WMD element in Saddam negates the statement Saddam had NO WMD... On Mar 16, 2:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Had and destroyed on request. Bush DID not use the UNSC definition for his invasion so what possible difference does this make ?? Your continued reach into past documents whose cases have been basicly set aside by more recent determinations means that any one can choose any past document and do what they will based on that. I applaud you and your nations trip through the Looking Glass. You better hope that no one else gets hold of the drug that allows yours skewed vision. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) Mark thank you for admitting Saddam had WMD as defined by the UNSC. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. 2) Then you make some faulty assumptions Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. a) the US did not go in Iraq unilaterally -- other countries were involved, so by definition it NEVER was or could be unilateral... b) you assume the UNSC had not already authorized the use of force in Iraq... In in fact, this was the position of the US and Britain BEFORE the Iraqi Resolution vote that passed in the fall/winter of 2002... That resolution, as I have pointed out before, was in fact written to be ambiguous concerning that points... Had the 1st Resolution not allowed force than it would have used the verb SHALL return for another vote rather than Shall consult... 3) I understand you see the right course of action as treating AQ as a police matter rather than a war issue... But that is a foundational difference of opinion here... On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: No, the mistaken belief was over the curveball report which was KNOWN false by the originators. The belief that saddam had bio chemical weapons was considered also a US problem as they had given harmless (supposedly) reagents to do the research. Hussein was in POSSESSION of yellowcake.. about 500 tons. He did not need to buy anything and the US absolutely knew this They GAVE it to him. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. They thought they did then and still some on some threads here think that an attack on an embassy gives them the right to militarily intervene on Sovereign land. It does not. An emabassy is only Sovereign as long as
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
One issue here, so often ignored, is the corruption at the UNSC, as exposed by Saddam's downfall... If one is wish for or want the UN to be the decider of when to invade ( as so many on the Left do) then it should be imperative from their POV that the UN clean up their corruption... Instead their ignore the Oil for Food corruption involving the highest officials at the UN, the sex for food scandals by their peace keepers, the gun racketeering by UN peace keepers, or the plain ineptness of UN troops (consider Bosnia)... On Iraq I would argue that if one was to break the corruption of problems of ME bad government (OBL was but one symptom), the ONLY place to do that was Iraq... Again this takes the long view... On Mar 16, 6:11 pm, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Looking back upon it, I think many Americans would agree, or at least partially agree, that the invasion of Iraq was ill conceived, for a number of reasons. Having said that, the solution was not as many on the far left were advocating for, which was a complete, total withdrawal, in mid-course of the military engagement. The objectives for going into Iraq needed to be accomplished, which they were. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: I refer to Bush speech to the US public and to congress nothing cited actually existed nor did the infrastructure to produce it in a time line that could possibly be construed a threat. I stiil say africanized bees hold a bigger threat along with everything else on my list. The invasion and reasons given was bullshit (final US senate report 2006) and the costs involved are no where in proportion to any other conflict in history. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: The WMD definition by the UNSC is the standard in discussing WMD in Iraq... And that is the definition used by the UNSC in their discussion... Now if you wish to alter it for debate purposes, well atleast make that PUBLIC... The WMD definition is the operational one within the UNSC during the time frame of 2002-2003... Again if you wish to revise it, make that choice PUBLIC... A missle with no fuel or payload is what ?? A banned WMD under the Cease fire treaty between Saddam and the UN... Sorry Mark, 1 element that is covered under the definition is a WMD which Saddam had --- and ANY WMD element in Saddam negates the statement Saddam had NO WMD... On Mar 16, 2:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Had and destroyed on request. Bush DID not use the UNSC definition for his invasion so what possible difference does this make ?? Your continued reach into past documents whose cases have been basicly set aside by more recent determinations means that any one can choose any past document and do what they will based on that. I applaud you and your nations trip through the Looking Glass. You better hope that no one else gets hold of the drug that allows yours skewed vision. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) Mark thank you for admitting Saddam had WMD as defined by the UNSC. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. 2) Then you make some faulty assumptions Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. a) the US did not go in Iraq unilaterally -- other countries were involved, so by definition it NEVER was or could be unilateral... b) you assume the UNSC had not already authorized the use of force in Iraq... In in fact, this was the position of the US and Britain BEFORE the Iraqi Resolution vote that passed in the fall/winter of 2002... That resolution, as I have pointed out before, was in fact written to be ambiguous concerning that points... Had the 1st Resolution not allowed force than it would have used the verb SHALL return for another vote rather than Shall consult... 3) I understand you see the right course of action as treating AQ as a police matter rather than a war issue... But that is a foundational difference of opinion here... On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: No, the mistaken belief was over the curveball report which was KNOWN false by the originators. The belief that saddam had bio chemical weapons was considered also a US problem as they had given harmless (supposedly) reagents to do the research. Hussein was in POSSESSION of yellowcake.. about 500 tons. He did not need to buy anything and the US absolutely knew this They GAVE it to him. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
One difference between you are I is that I do not demonize someone who makes different assumptions... It is called tolerance --- you might learn it... On Mar 15, 10:48 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Mommy, Mommy, the nasty lib is picking on me, he refuses to agree with my silly suppositions. On Mar 14, 12:13 pm, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Isn't this baiting? Wasn't I promised no more baiting, is their a moderator in the house??? On Mar 14, 11:35 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: gimme a break drama queen On Mar 14, 8:46 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Your lack of concern for lying under oath is what is amazing... Tell me, when is it ok to lie under oath??? Unlike most slippery slopes, this one is steeper by far... Is lying at a murder trail OK??? Or a divorce proceeding??? What about a bankruptcy??? Who gets to decide??? For Clinton to have done it so brazenly undermined the entire judicial system... I also note you shift the topic, seeking to justify Clinton's lying by claiming worse deeds by others... Typical Democratic strawman tactic... On Mar 13, 11:17 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Your sense of moral proportionality is truly astounding...let's see... hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed (including children) vs a blow job...if Clinton deserved impeachment bush and and many of his merry band of lying sack of scum criminals deserve public flogging to death. On Mar 13, 9:18 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Did US court provide an answer to the USS Cole, or the Kenya bombings??? The answer is no... On Mar 15, 3:40 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Clinton allowed the rule of law (not talking about him personally and the blow job) to handle things. There was a WTC attack on his watch as well, the defining difference was he jailed all those found to be involved (still there as well). Clinton prosecuted a much larger war (both territory and population) by gaining int'l agreement, all countries involved are now doing well are democratiic and NOT adding to the moslem problem any longer. While doing so he took what was then the largest deficit ever seen in the world and put the US in the black handing to his successor an economically healthy well respected (in the world) nation. As to the blow job incident The ONLY people that would have even thought twice about are Gringos and the ONLY people that did not read the DC statutes which then and now blatantly describe a blow job as sodomy, NOT in any way sex. He answered correctly by statute regardless of the prosecutors attempt to redefine the statute solely for these hearings. What a fucking joke !!! He plead out to save money and took the slap on the wrist. As to attacks on foreign soil that were NOT a direct threat to the US, Clinton wisely chose to allow the countries where the attacks took place to handle it. After all it is what the US demands of them when something occurs on US soil and involves their citizenry and property located in the US. Active law enforcement agencies and military forces are not permitted entry to the US. Why should there be a difference in this policy ?? The US, under Clinton, offered any and all assistance and allowed them to do their jobs. Piss and moan all you like but the goose and gander adage does apply and Clinton understood this. It was completely lost on Bush2 as was the ability to interact with any other government and take or heed their advise. This lead to a massive inability to sift intelligence reports and do what was necessary in a timely fashion. You are now starting to realize how deep the damage by Bush2 was he basicly bankrupted your nation and you are already laying blame on his successor who has been in office for less than two months. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think Gore might have handled Katrina? Wall Street plays by its own rules and wealth- not by national interests.The worst presidents will be Grant and Harding but all of them failed in certain ways- and so will Obama. On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Oh good, glad the neowhacks have finally admitted that NINE months into prez cretin's administration that he is fully responsible for ignoring Clinton's warnings and that he is fully culpable for the 9/11 attacks, add that to the Iraq quagmire, Katrina, and the complete collapse of the economy and the Worst President Ever is definitely a lock. On Mar 14, 2:42 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
1) Mark thank you for admitting Saddam had WMD as defined by the UNSC. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. 2) Then you make some faulty assumptions Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. a) the US did not go in Iraq unilaterally -- other countries were involved, so by definition it NEVER was or could be unilateral... b) you assume the UNSC had not already authorized the use of force in Iraq... In in fact, this was the position of the US and Britain BEFORE the Iraqi Resolution vote that passed in the fall/winter of 2002... That resolution, as I have pointed out before, was in fact written to be ambiguous concerning that points... Had the 1st Resolution not allowed force than it would have used the verb SHALL return for another vote rather than Shall consult... 3) I understand you see the right course of action as treating AQ as a police matter rather than a war issue... But that is a foundational difference of opinion here... On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: No, the mistaken belief was over the curveball report which was KNOWN false by the originators. The belief that saddam had bio chemical weapons was considered also a US problem as they had given harmless (supposedly) reagents to do the research. Hussein was in POSSESSION of yellowcake.. about 500 tons. He did not need to buy anything and the US absolutely knew this They GAVE it to him. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. They thought they did then and still some on some threads here think that an attack on an embassy gives them the right to militarily intervene on Sovereign land. It does not. An emabassy is only Sovereign as long as the nation on whose ground it sits says it is. An Embassy staff and Ambassador are there at the pleasure of the host and can be exiled with no notice. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: Hey Mark, When you allege that the Germans and the French, specifically: J, Fischer, Aussenminister informed President Bush, to his face that there was no atomic threat (I assume that you mean by the Hussein government and Iraq) I don't understand the relevance. My recollection, without going back and looking and researching, is that most all of the European security agencies, including the European Union, believed that Iraq possessed biological weapons, the total amount unknown, and that Iraq had previously attempted to obtain nuclear weaponry, and would do so again. That Hussein might have curtailed his attempt to obtain nuclear weaponry at the end, right before the United States invasion and when the UN increased its demand for Iraq to comply with the Gulf War accords. Both the French and the Germans believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but advocated that there be no military action in order to force Iraq into complying with UN Resolutions. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Two months too many. On Mar 15, 2:40 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Clinton allowed the rule of law (not talking about him personally and the blow job) to handle things. There was a WTC attack on his watch as well, the defining difference was he jailed all those found to be involved (still there as well). Clinton prosecuted a much larger war (both territory and population) by gaining int'l agreement, all countries involved are now doing well are democratiic and NOT adding to the moslem problem any longer. While doing so he took what was then the largest deficit ever seen in the world and put the US in the black handing to his successor an economically healthy well respected (in the world) nation. As to the blow job incident The ONLY people that would have even thought twice about are Gringos and the ONLY people that did not read the DC statutes which then and now blatantly describe a blow job as sodomy, NOT in any way sex. He answered correctly by statute regardless of the prosecutors attempt to redefine the statute solely for these hearings. What a fucking joke !!! He plead out to save money and took the slap on the wrist. As to attacks on foreign soil that were NOT a direct threat to the US, Clinton wisely chose to allow the countries where the attacks took place to handle it. After all it is what the
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Mark it is you who said NO WMD in Iraq... 1 component negates that POV... We are now into the question of the degree of WMD's of Saddam is sufficient to overthrow him... On Mar 15, 8:37 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Payload sections that are no good without delivery vehicles which were destroyed. Kinda like the payload section of a Tomahawk ... They don't work without the delivery system. There was no revision done. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: Who is revising history here?? There were several missile head tips, as well as other parts that are still not accounted for!!! On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed and as soon as it became aparent as Iraq was asked about it all THREE that were in existence were destroyed. Europe accepted the Iraqi report of this Bush2 obviously and erroneously did not. The test flight flew 1500KM. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: The weapons system that you reference, capable of slinging missiles halfway around the world, was a very critical issue; one that folks like Biff Euwe, Fritzie, and most of Euwetopia don't even want to talk about.. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: And just what is it, exactly, Biff, that astounds you on this thread ?? On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.netwrote: neowhacks astond me with their hypocrisy On Mar 15, 2:25 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: People like Biff amaze me. You get a notice that the Muslims are going to attack SOME city in the US using airplanes at some time in the first half of Sept. Your intelligence agencies are prohibited by law from pooling their intelligence so you can maybe find out who is doing this and what they are going to do. Then you find that in NYC alone there are over 4000 scheduled flights per day coming from all over the world so in the first half of Sept you will have a pot luck chance of picking the 1 out of 60,000 that will be used by the Muslims. Then you include all the rest of the cities since the briefing did not stipulate which cities were involved. Would it be a coastal city or an inland city or an industrial city or a city surrounded by military installations. Thanks to Jamie Gorelick we had no way of knowing. Then assume that the govt figured out which flight was involved and stopped it. The Muslims would just shift the action a day or two either way, no problem. Of course Carville did not mention that Clinton refused having bin Laden turned over to him when it was offered because of legal difficulties, he said. That did not bother him when it came to bombing Iraq whenever the news got too hot for him on his other problems. Carville also did not mention that Clinton did nothing about the other attacks like the embassies and Mogadishu and the ship off Yemen that was scuttled by the Muslims with the loss of life. And we are still hearing about Katrina when Bush tried to get that ditsy gov of Louisiana to call up the national guard and get ready for the storm that was coming and the even ditsier mayor of NOLA did nothing to get the people out of the way. Of course the fact that the feds can only call up the National guard when the governor of the state permits it and Gov Blanco did not do that. The Coast Guard was on the ball and did amazing things but the media didn't mention that. They also did not mention that FEMA is supposed to be a second call group. They are tasked to be there within 3 days - and they were. And then there was Rep Jefferson who commandeered the rescue vessel to save his freezer cash rather than his constituents. Much more important for a Dem congressman than his constituents. Compare and contrast the actions of Bush and the feds with Katrina with what Bambi did for Kentucky during the terrible winter storm this year when all power, even emergency power for people with medical problems, was lost. Bambi never even bothered to fly over the area, even when he was speaking in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. Guess it was just too far for the poor guy to travel to the next state and see what was happening. Also too much trouble to get FEMA involved for weeks. Read much about that in the media? Didn't think so. Progressives amaze me with their stupidity. rigsy03 wrote: Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
(Very good point and observation JGG!!!) On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Did US court provide an answer to the USS Cole, or the Kenya bombings??? The answer is no... On Mar 15, 3:40 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Clinton allowed the rule of law (not talking about him personally and the blow job) to handle things. There was a WTC attack on his watch as well, the defining difference was he jailed all those found to be involved (still there as well). Clinton prosecuted a much larger war (both territory and population) by gaining int'l agreement, all countries involved are now doing well are democratiic and NOT adding to the moslem problem any longer. While doing so he took what was then the largest deficit ever seen in the world and put the US in the black handing to his successor an economically healthy well respected (in the world) nation. As to the blow job incident The ONLY people that would have even thought twice about are Gringos and the ONLY people that did not read the DC statutes which then and now blatantly describe a blow job as sodomy, NOT in any way sex. He answered correctly by statute regardless of the prosecutors attempt to redefine the statute solely for these hearings. What a fucking joke !!! He plead out to save money and took the slap on the wrist. As to attacks on foreign soil that were NOT a direct threat to the US, Clinton wisely chose to allow the countries where the attacks took place to handle it. After all it is what the US demands of them when something occurs on US soil and involves their citizenry and property located in the US. Active law enforcement agencies and military forces are not permitted entry to the US. Why should there be a difference in this policy ?? The US, under Clinton, offered any and all assistance and allowed them to do their jobs. Piss and moan all you like but the goose and gander adage does apply and Clinton understood this. It was completely lost on Bush2 as was the ability to interact with any other government and take or heed their advise. This lead to a massive inability to sift intelligence reports and do what was necessary in a timely fashion. You are now starting to realize how deep the damage by Bush2 was he basicly bankrupted your nation and you are already laying blame on his successor who has been in office for less than two months. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think Gore might have handled Katrina? Wall Street plays by its own rules and wealth- not by national interests.The worst presidents will be Grant and Harding but all of them failed in certain ways- and so will Obama. On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Oh good, glad the neowhacks have finally admitted that NINE months into prez cretin's administration that he is fully responsible for ignoring Clinton's warnings and that he is fully culpable for the 9/11 attacks, add that to the Iraq quagmire, Katrina, and the complete collapse of the economy and the Worst President Ever is definitely a lock. On Mar 14, 2:42 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Had and destroyed on request. Bush DID not use the UNSC definition for his invasion so what possible difference does this make ?? Your continued reach into past documents whose cases have been basicly set aside by more recent determinations means that any one can choose any past document and do what they will based on that. I applaud you and your nations trip through the Looking Glass. You better hope that no one else gets hold of the drug that allows yours skewed vision. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) Mark thank you for admitting Saddam had WMD as defined by the UNSC. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. 2) Then you make some faulty assumptions Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. a) the US did not go in Iraq unilaterally -- other countries were involved, so by definition it NEVER was or could be unilateral... b) you assume the UNSC had not already authorized the use of force in Iraq... In in fact, this was the position of the US and Britain BEFORE the Iraqi Resolution vote that passed in the fall/winter of 2002... That resolution, as I have pointed out before, was in fact written to be ambiguous concerning that points... Had the 1st Resolution not allowed force than it would have used the verb SHALL return for another vote rather than Shall consult... 3) I understand you see the right course of action as treating AQ as a police matter rather than a war issue... But that is a foundational difference of opinion here... On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: No, the mistaken belief was over the curveball report which was KNOWN false by the originators. The belief that saddam had bio chemical weapons was considered also a US problem as they had given harmless (supposedly) reagents to do the research. Hussein was in POSSESSION of yellowcake.. about 500 tons. He did not need to buy anything and the US absolutely knew this They GAVE it to him. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. They thought they did then and still some on some threads here think that an attack on an embassy gives them the right to militarily intervene on Sovereign land. It does not. An emabassy is only Sovereign as long as the nation on whose ground it sits says it is. An Embassy staff and Ambassador are there at the pleasure of the host and can be exiled with no notice. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Mark, When you allege that the Germans and the French, specifically: J, Fischer, Aussenminister informed President Bush, to his face that there was no atomic threat (I assume that you mean by the Hussein government and Iraq) I don't understand the relevance. My recollection, without going back and looking and researching, is that most all of the European security agencies, including the European Union, believed that Iraq possessed biological weapons, the total amount unknown, and that Iraq had previously attempted to obtain nuclear weaponry, and would do so again. That Hussein might have curtailed his attempt to obtain nuclear weaponry at the end, right before the United States invasion and when the UN increased its demand for Iraq to comply with the Gulf War accords. Both the French and the Germans believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but advocated that there be no military action in order to force Iraq into complying with UN Resolutions. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Two months too many. On Mar 15, 2:40 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Clinton allowed the rule of law (not talking about him personally and the blow job) to handle things. There was a WTC attack on his watch as well, the defining difference was he jailed all those found to be involved (still there as well). Clinton prosecuted a much larger war (both territory and population) by gaining int'l agreement, all countries involved are now doing well are democratiic and NOT adding to the moslem problem any longer. While doing so he took what was then the largest deficit ever seen in the world and put the US in the black handing to his successor an economically healthy well respected (in the world) nation. As to
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
I m sorry but 1 component does NOT negate anything... a tank with no turret is what ?? A missle with no fuel or payload is what ?? Dream on. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Mark it is you who said NO WMD in Iraq... 1 component negates that POV... We are now into the question of the degree of WMD's of Saddam is sufficient to overthrow him... On Mar 15, 8:37 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Payload sections that are no good without delivery vehicles which were destroyed. Kinda like the payload section of a Tomahawk ... They don't work without the delivery system. There was no revision done. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Who is revising history here?? There were several missile head tips, as well as other parts that are still not accounted for!!! On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed and as soon as it became aparent as Iraq was asked about it all THREE that were in existence were destroyed. Europe accepted the Iraqi report of this Bush2 obviously and erroneously did not. The test flight flew 1500KM. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: The weapons system that you reference, capable of slinging missiles halfway around the world, was a very critical issue; one that folks like Biff Euwe, Fritzie, and most of Euwetopia don't even want to talk about.. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: And just what is it, exactly, Biff, that astounds you on this thread ?? On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: neowhacks astond me with their hypocrisy On Mar 15, 2:25 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: People like Biff amaze me. You get a notice that the Muslims are going to attackSOME city in the US using airplanes at some time in the first half of Sept. Your intelligence agencies are prohibited by law from pooling their intelligence so you can maybe find out who is doing this and what they are going to do. Then you find that in NYC alone there are over 4000 scheduled flights per day coming from all over the world so in the first half of Sept you will have a pot luck chance of picking the 1 out of 60,000 that will be used by the Muslims. Then you include all the rest of the cities since the briefing did not stipulate which cities were involved. Would it be a coastal city or an inland city or an industrial city or a city surrounded by military installations. Thanks to Jamie Gorelick we had no way of knowing. Then assume that the govt figured out which flight was involved and stopped it. The Muslims would just shift the action a day or two either way, no problem. Of course Carville did not mention that Clinton refused having bin Laden turned over to him when it was offered because of legal difficulties, he said. That did not bother him when it came to bombing Iraq whenever the news got too hot for him on his other problems. Carville also did not mention that Clinton did nothing about the other attacks like the embassies and Mogadishu and the ship off Yemen that was scuttled by the Muslims with the loss of life. And we are still hearing about Katrina when Bush tried to get that ditsy gov of Louisiana to call up the national guard and get ready for the storm that was coming and the even ditsier mayor of NOLA did nothing to get the people out of the way. Of course the fact that the feds can only call up the National guard when the governor of the state permits it and Gov Blanco did not do that. The Coast Guard was on the ball and did amazing things but the media didn't mention that. They also did not mention that FEMA is supposed to be a second call group. They are tasked to be there within 3 days - and they were. And then there was Rep Jefferson who commandeered the rescue vessel to save his freezer cash rather than his constituents. Much more important for a Dem congressman than his constituents. Compare and contrast the actions of Bush and the feds with Katrina with what Bambi did for Kentucky during the terrible winter storm this year when all power, even emergency power for people with medical problems, was lost. Bambi never even bothered to fly over the area, even when he was speaking in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. Guess it was just too far for the poor guy to travel to the next state and see what was happening. Also too much trouble to get FEMA involved for weeks. Read much about that in the media? Didn't think so. Progressives amaze me with their stupidity.
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The WMD definition by the UNSC is the standard in discussing WMD in Iraq... And that is the definition used by the UNSC in their discussion... Now if you wish to alter it for debate purposes, well atleast make that PUBLIC... The WMD definition is the operational one within the UNSC during the time frame of 2002-2003... Again if you wish to revise it, make that choice PUBLIC... A missle with no fuel or payload is what ?? A banned WMD under the Cease fire treaty between Saddam and the UN... Sorry Mark, 1 element that is covered under the definition is a WMD which Saddam had --- and ANY WMD element in Saddam negates the statement Saddam had NO WMD... On Mar 16, 2:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Had and destroyed on request. Bush DID not use the UNSC definition for his invasion so what possible difference does this make ?? Your continued reach into past documents whose cases have been basicly set aside by more recent determinations means that any one can choose any past document and do what they will based on that. I applaud you and your nations trip through the Looking Glass. You better hope that no one else gets hold of the drug that allows yours skewed vision. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) Mark thank you for admitting Saddam had WMD as defined by the UNSC. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. 2) Then you make some faulty assumptions Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. a) the US did not go in Iraq unilaterally -- other countries were involved, so by definition it NEVER was or could be unilateral... b) you assume the UNSC had not already authorized the use of force in Iraq... In in fact, this was the position of the US and Britain BEFORE the Iraqi Resolution vote that passed in the fall/winter of 2002... That resolution, as I have pointed out before, was in fact written to be ambiguous concerning that points... Had the 1st Resolution not allowed force than it would have used the verb SHALL return for another vote rather than Shall consult... 3) I understand you see the right course of action as treating AQ as a police matter rather than a war issue... But that is a foundational difference of opinion here... On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: No, the mistaken belief was over the curveball report which was KNOWN false by the originators. The belief that saddam had bio chemical weapons was considered also a US problem as they had given harmless (supposedly) reagents to do the research. Hussein was in POSSESSION of yellowcake.. about 500 tons. He did not need to buy anything and the US absolutely knew this They GAVE it to him. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. They thought they did then and still some on some threads here think that an attack on an embassy gives them the right to militarily intervene on Sovereign land. It does not. An emabassy is only Sovereign as long as the nation on whose ground it sits says it is. An Embassy staff and Ambassador are there at the pleasure of the host and can be exiled with no notice. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Mark, When you allege that the Germans and the French, specifically: J, Fischer, Aussenminister informed President Bush, to his face that there was no atomic threat (I assume that you mean by the Hussein government and Iraq) I don't understand the relevance. My recollection, without going back and looking and researching, is that most all of the European security agencies, including the European Union, believed that Iraq possessed biological weapons, the total amount unknown, and that Iraq had previously attempted to obtain nuclear weaponry, and would do so again. That Hussein might have curtailed his attempt to obtain nuclear weaponry at the end, right before the United States invasion and when the UN increased its demand for Iraq to comply with the Gulf War accords. Both the French and the Germans believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but advocated that there be no military action in order to force Iraq into complying with UN Resolutions. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
I refer to Bush speech to the US public and to congress nothing cited actually existed nor did the infrastructure to produce it in a time line that could possibly be construed a threat. I stiil say africanized bees hold a bigger threat along with everything else on my list. The invasion and reasons given was bullshit (final US senate report 2006) and the costs involved are no where in proportion to any other conflict in history. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: The WMD definition by the UNSC is the standard in discussing WMD in Iraq... And that is the definition used by the UNSC in their discussion... Now if you wish to alter it for debate purposes, well atleast make that PUBLIC... The WMD definition is the operational one within the UNSC during the time frame of 2002-2003... Again if you wish to revise it, make that choice PUBLIC... A missle with no fuel or payload is what ?? A banned WMD under the Cease fire treaty between Saddam and the UN... Sorry Mark, 1 element that is covered under the definition is a WMD which Saddam had --- and ANY WMD element in Saddam negates the statement Saddam had NO WMD... On Mar 16, 2:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Had and destroyed on request. Bush DID not use the UNSC definition for his invasion so what possible difference does this make ?? Your continued reach into past documents whose cases have been basicly set aside by more recent determinations means that any one can choose any past document and do what they will based on that. I applaud you and your nations trip through the Looking Glass. You better hope that no one else gets hold of the drug that allows yours skewed vision. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) Mark thank you for admitting Saddam had WMD as defined by the UNSC. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. 2) Then you make some faulty assumptions Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. a) the US did not go in Iraq unilaterally -- other countries were involved, so by definition it NEVER was or could be unilateral... b) you assume the UNSC had not already authorized the use of force in Iraq... In in fact, this was the position of the US and Britain BEFORE the Iraqi Resolution vote that passed in the fall/winter of 2002... That resolution, as I have pointed out before, was in fact written to be ambiguous concerning that points... Had the 1st Resolution not allowed force than it would have used the verb SHALL return for another vote rather than Shall consult... 3) I understand you see the right course of action as treating AQ as a police matter rather than a war issue... But that is a foundational difference of opinion here... On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: No, the mistaken belief was over the curveball report which was KNOWN false by the originators. The belief that saddam had bio chemical weapons was considered also a US problem as they had given harmless (supposedly) reagents to do the research. Hussein was in POSSESSION of yellowcake.. about 500 tons. He did not need to buy anything and the US absolutely knew this They GAVE it to him. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. They thought they did then and still some on some threads here think that an attack on an embassy gives them the right to militarily intervene on Sovereign land. It does not. An emabassy is only Sovereign as long as the nation on whose ground it sits says it is. An Embassy staff and Ambassador are there at the pleasure of the host and can be exiled with no notice. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Mark, When you allege that the Germans and the French, specifically: J, Fischer, Aussenminister informed President Bush, to his face that there was no atomic threat (I assume that you mean by the Hussein government and Iraq) I don't understand the relevance. My recollection, without going back and looking and researching, is that most all of the European security agencies, including the European Union, believed that Iraq possessed biological
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Looking back upon it, I think many Americans would agree, or at least partially agree, that the invasion of Iraq was ill conceived, for a number of reasons. Having said that, the solution was not as many on the far left were advocating for, which was a complete, total withdrawal, in mid-course of the military engagement. The objectives for going into Iraq needed to be accomplished, which they were. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: I refer to Bush speech to the US public and to congress nothing cited actually existed nor did the infrastructure to produce it in a time line that could possibly be construed a threat. I stiil say africanized bees hold a bigger threat along with everything else on my list. The invasion and reasons given was bullshit (final US senate report 2006) and the costs involved are no where in proportion to any other conflict in history. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: The WMD definition by the UNSC is the standard in discussing WMD in Iraq... And that is the definition used by the UNSC in their discussion... Now if you wish to alter it for debate purposes, well atleast make that PUBLIC... The WMD definition is the operational one within the UNSC during the time frame of 2002-2003... Again if you wish to revise it, make that choice PUBLIC... A missle with no fuel or payload is what ?? A banned WMD under the Cease fire treaty between Saddam and the UN... Sorry Mark, 1 element that is covered under the definition is a WMD which Saddam had --- and ANY WMD element in Saddam negates the statement Saddam had NO WMD... On Mar 16, 2:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Had and destroyed on request. Bush DID not use the UNSC definition for his invasion so what possible difference does this make ?? Your continued reach into past documents whose cases have been basicly set aside by more recent determinations means that any one can choose any past document and do what they will based on that. I applaud you and your nations trip through the Looking Glass. You better hope that no one else gets hold of the drug that allows yours skewed vision. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) Mark thank you for admitting Saddam had WMD as defined by the UNSC. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. 2) Then you make some faulty assumptions Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. a) the US did not go in Iraq unilaterally -- other countries were involved, so by definition it NEVER was or could be unilateral... b) you assume the UNSC had not already authorized the use of force in Iraq... In in fact, this was the position of the US and Britain BEFORE the Iraqi Resolution vote that passed in the fall/winter of 2002... That resolution, as I have pointed out before, was in fact written to be ambiguous concerning that points... Had the 1st Resolution not allowed force than it would have used the verb SHALL return for another vote rather than Shall consult... 3) I understand you see the right course of action as treating AQ as a police matter rather than a war issue... But that is a foundational difference of opinion here... On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: No, the mistaken belief was over the curveball report which was KNOWN false by the originators. The belief that saddam had bio chemical weapons was considered also a US problem as they had given harmless (supposedly) reagents to do the research. Hussein was in POSSESSION of yellowcake.. about 500 tons. He did not need to buy anything and the US absolutely knew this They GAVE it to him. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. They thought they did then and still some on some threads here think that an attack on an embassy gives them the right to militarily intervene on Sovereign land. It does not. An emabassy is only Sovereign as long as the nation on whose ground it sits says it is. An Embassy staff and Ambassador are there at the pleasure of the host and can be exiled with no notice. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Mark, When you
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
I can go with that, but I thought that before the US invaded. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: Looking back upon it, I think many Americans would agree, or at least partially agree, that the invasion of Iraq was ill conceived, for a number of reasons. Having said that, the solution was not as many on the far left were advocating for, which was a complete, total withdrawal, in mid-course of the military engagement. The objectives for going into Iraq needed to be accomplished, which they were. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: I refer to Bush speech to the US public and to congress nothing cited actually existed nor did the infrastructure to produce it in a time line that could possibly be construed a threat. I stiil say africanized bees hold a bigger threat along with everything else on my list. The invasion and reasons given was bullshit (final US senate report 2006) and the costs involved are no where in proportion to any other conflict in history. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: The WMD definition by the UNSC is the standard in discussing WMD in Iraq... And that is the definition used by the UNSC in their discussion... Now if you wish to alter it for debate purposes, well atleast make that PUBLIC... The WMD definition is the operational one within the UNSC during the time frame of 2002-2003... Again if you wish to revise it, make that choice PUBLIC... A missle with no fuel or payload is what ?? A banned WMD under the Cease fire treaty between Saddam and the UN... Sorry Mark, 1 element that is covered under the definition is a WMD which Saddam had --- and ANY WMD element in Saddam negates the statement Saddam had NO WMD... On Mar 16, 2:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Had and destroyed on request. Bush DID not use the UNSC definition for his invasion so what possible difference does this make ?? Your continued reach into past documents whose cases have been basicly set aside by more recent determinations means that any one can choose any past document and do what they will based on that. I applaud you and your nations trip through the Looking Glass. You better hope that no one else gets hold of the drug that allows yours skewed vision. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) Mark thank you for admitting Saddam had WMD as defined by the UNSC. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. 2) Then you make some faulty assumptions Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. a) the US did not go in Iraq unilaterally -- other countries were involved, so by definition it NEVER was or could be unilateral... b) you assume the UNSC had not already authorized the use of force in Iraq... In in fact, this was the position of the US and Britain BEFORE the Iraqi Resolution vote that passed in the fall/winter of 2002... That resolution, as I have pointed out before, was in fact written to be ambiguous concerning that points... Had the 1st Resolution not allowed force than it would have used the verb SHALL return for another vote rather than Shall consult... 3) I understand you see the right course of action as treating AQ as a police matter rather than a war issue... But that is a foundational difference of opinion here... On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: No, the mistaken belief was over the curveball report which was KNOWN false by the originators. The belief that saddam had bio chemical weapons was considered also a US problem as they had given harmless (supposedly) reagents to do the research. Hussein was in POSSESSION of yellowcake.. about 500 tons. He did not need to buy anything and the US absolutely knew this They GAVE it to him. As to WMDs' the questionable weapon was a delivery system that saddam had tested and flown more than the allowable 600KM. Saddam claimed to have destroyed all the rest when warned but would not allow inspections. This was actually the catalyst that caused the schism with the continent. Problem was the US had no unilateral right to do anything. They thought they did then and still some on some threads here think that an attack on an embassy gives them the right to militarily intervene on Sovereign land. It does not. An emabassy is only Sovereign as long as the nation on whose ground it sits says it is. An Embassy staff and Ambassador are there at the pleasure of the host and
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Mommy, Mommy, the nasty lib is picking on me, he refuses to agree with my silly suppositions. On Mar 14, 12:13 pm, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Isn't this baiting? Wasn't I promised no more baiting, is their a moderator in the house??? On Mar 14, 11:35 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: gimme a break drama queen On Mar 14, 8:46 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Your lack of concern for lying under oath is what is amazing... Tell me, when is it ok to lie under oath??? Unlike most slippery slopes, this one is steeper by far... Is lying at a murder trail OK??? Or a divorce proceeding??? What about a bankruptcy??? Who gets to decide??? For Clinton to have done it so brazenly undermined the entire judicial system... I also note you shift the topic, seeking to justify Clinton's lying by claiming worse deeds by others... Typical Democratic strawman tactic... On Mar 13, 11:17 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Your sense of moral proportionality is truly astounding...let's see... hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed (including children) vs a blow job...if Clinton deserved impeachment bush and and many of his merry band of lying sack of scum criminals deserve public flogging to death. On Mar 13, 9:18 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think Gore might have handled Katrina? Wall Street plays by its own rules and wealth- not by national interests.The worst presidents will be Grant and Harding but all of them failed in certain ways- and so will Obama. On Mar 14, 10:23�am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Oh good, glad the neowhacks have finally admitted that NINE months into prez cretin's administration that he is fully responsible for ignoring Clinton's warnings and that he is fully culpable for the 9/11 attacks, add that to the Iraq quagmire, Katrina, and the complete collapse of the economy and the Worst President Ever is definitely a lock. On Mar 14, 2:42�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Clinton allowed the rule of law (not talking about him personally and the blow job) to handle things. There was a WTC attack on his watch as well, the defining difference was he jailed all those found to be involved (still there as well). Clinton prosecuted a much larger war (both territory and population) by gaining int'l agreement, all countries involved are now doing well are democratiic and NOT adding to the moslem problem any longer. While doing so he took what was then the largest deficit ever seen in the world and put the US in the black handing to his successor an economically healthy well respected (in the world) nation. As to the blow job incident The ONLY people that would have even thought twice about are Gringos and the ONLY people that did not read the DC statutes which then and now blatantly describe a blow job as sodomy, NOT in any way sex. He answered correctly by statute regardless of the prosecutors attempt to redefine the statute solely for these hearings. What a fucking joke !!! He plead out to save money and took the slap on the wrist. As to attacks on foreign soil that were NOT a direct threat to the US, Clinton wisely chose to allow the countries where the attacks took place to handle it. After all it is what the US demands of them when something occurs on US soil and involves their citizenry and property located in the US. Active law enforcement agencies and military forces are not permitted entry to the US. Why should there be a difference in this policy ?? The US, under Clinton, offered any and all assistance and allowed them to do their jobs. Piss and moan all you like but the goose and gander adage does apply and Clinton understood this. It was completely lost on Bush2 as was the ability to interact with any other government and take or heed their advise. This lead to a massive inability to sift intelligence reports and do what was necessary in a timely fashion. You are now starting to realize how deep the damage by Bush2 was he basicly bankrupted your nation and you are already laying blame on his successor who has been in office for less than two months. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think Gore might have handled Katrina? Wall Street plays by its own rules and wealth- not by national interests.The worst presidents will be Grant and Harding but all of them failed in certain ways- and so will Obama. On Mar 14, 10:23�am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Oh good, glad the neowhacks have finally admitted that NINE months into prez cretin's administration that he is fully responsible for ignoring Clinton's warnings and that he is fully culpable for the 9/11 attacks, add that to the Iraq quagmire, Katrina, and the complete collapse of the economy and the Worst President Ever is definitely a lock. On Mar 14, 2:42�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
An embassy in a foreign country is considered US soil. He should have responded to that. Why else do we have US troops at embassies to guard them. We should respond when our embassies are attacked. All you have to do is look at Carter and the way he handled the attack in Teheran to see what happens when you don't. Actually the media made it all about blow jobs. The real problem was all the -gates. Filegate, travelgate, etc.The other thing is that he was punished for lying. He lied incessantly as did his lovely wife. He gave up his law license for that, not for the blow job. When you consider that the support for Bush was over 40 countries including Britain, Italy and Spain, then your problem is that the French and Germans were not consulted. The US government did interact with the European governments and use their intelligence agencies. Where do you think the intelligence about Saddam and the uranium purchases he was trying to make came from. They came from Britain, Italy, France. I note how well the French are handling their problems with the car burnings and the attacks by the Muslims on the local citizens and the riots. That worked out well. I also note that the Germans did a nice job of releasing a prisoner who was partially responsible for the 9/11 planning and then notified the US after he was safely back home and out of Germany. That also worked well. As to laying the blame on his successor, the successor is well and truly responsible for a good part of the problem. He was one of the lawyers who brought the cases that caused the Congress to pass the law requiring banks to make the sub-prime loans. He was also a facilitator of ACORN by teaching them classes on how to push their agenda. He was the second highest recipient of payoffs from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders. His financial advisors were also the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders. He was responsible for the Senate committee that worked on European foreign relations as chairman and never bothered to hold a session in the whole time he was chairman. He supported the other senators and congressmen like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who bloviated about how the mortgage industry was just fine and no legislation to clean up the oversight was necessary (they were the other leading recipients of payoffs from the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae leaders). When the Senate was getting ready to deal with the problems, he had other things to do that were more important. He speaks out against earmarks and then signs a bill with over 8000 of them. He speaks out against lobbyists and then names them to his staff. He speaks out about how ethical his staff will be and how well-vetted and then about a third so far of his appointments have either not paid their taxes or have other ethical problems and we are all supposed to just forget about that. He has so far dissed our closest allies and also had respresentatives who made totally inappropriate remarks to the people they were meeting. He has appointed a man to deal with the Middle East who thinks it was just fine and dandy for the Chinese to crack down on Tianeman Square. This same man was a direct employee of the Saudis and yet one of the big deals for the Dems was that supposedly Bush was in the pocket of the Saudis. You really need to take a good look at what you are complaining about. I predict that within a few months our allies will be wishing that Bush was back in office. Mark wrote: Clinton allowed the rule of law (not talking about him personally and the blow job) to handle things. There was a WTC attack on his watch as well, the defining difference was he jailed all those found to be involved (still there as well). Clinton prosecuted a much larger war (both territory and population) by gaining int'l agreement, all countries involved are now doing well are democratiic and NOT adding to the moslem problem any longer. While doing so he took what was then the largest deficit ever seen in the world and put the US in the black handing to his successor an economically healthy well respected (in the world) nation. As to the blow job incident The ONLY people that would have even thought twice about are Gringos and the ONLY people that did not read the DC statutes which then and now blatantly describe a blow job as sodomy, NOT in any way sex. He answered correctly by statute regardless of the prosecutors attempt to redefine the statute solely for these hearings. What a fucking joke !!! He plead out to save money and took the slap on the wrist. As to attacks on foreign soil that were NOT a direct threat to the US, Clinton wisely chose to allow the countries where the attacks took place to handle it. After all it is what the US demands of them when something occurs on US soil and involves their citizenry and property located in the US. Active law enforcement
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The French and Germans were consulted They informed Bush2 (J, Fischer, Aussenminister) to his face that the info from curveball about the atomic issues was absolutely false. When Bush2 told Fischer that he would decide the validity of a report (even though it was a German intelligence report being discussed) Fischer walked out as did much of the European community. Please do NOT revise history. As to a prisoner making it home before the US was notified.. It is not a long plane ride.. In Germany when a prisoner is ordered released it is not a process it is ink still wet release. Regardless of the prisoner. As to culpability for the mess how about a Bush2 finacial committee that met annually (maybe twice annually)?? You are digging really deep into the abyss to lay that at Obamas feet when it is the president who has veto power and congress that writes the laws. There were no uranium purchases... attempted or otherwise. Saddam was sitting on several tons donated to him by the US Government and had the only key. Every gram has been accounted for and shipped to Canada. last, wishing Bush2 was back ?? I hardly think so. I'm tha decider is was and always will be as great of an idiot as that master of covert ops, killer of Americans and supplier of poppy seed, weapons and training to bin Laden, Alzheimer Ronnie.. On Mar 15, 2:01 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: An embassy in a foreign country is considered US soil. He should have responded to that. Why else do we have US troops at embassies to guard them. We should respond when our embassies are attacked. All you have to do is look at Carter and the way he handled the attack in Teheran to see what happens when you don't. Actually the media made it all about blow jobs. The real problem was all the -gates. Filegate, travelgate, etc. The other thing is that he was punished for lying. He lied incessantly as did his lovely wife. He gave up his law license for that, not for the blow job. When you consider that the support for Bush was over 40 countries including Britain, Italy and Spain, then your problem is that the French and Germans were not consulted. The US government did interact with the European governments and use their intelligence agencies. Where do you think the intelligence about Saddam and the uranium purchases he was trying to make came from. They came from Britain, Italy, France. I note how well the French are handling their problems with the car burnings and the attacks by the Muslims on the local citizens and the riots. That worked out well. I also note that the Germans did a nice job of releasing a prisoner who was partially responsible for the 9/11 planning and then notified the US after he was safely back home and out of Germany. That also worked well. As to laying the blame on his successor, the successor is well and truly responsible for a good part of the problem. He was one of the lawyers who brought the cases that caused the Congress to pass the law requiring banks to make the sub-prime loans. He was also a facilitator of ACORN by teaching them classes on how to push their agenda. He was the second highest recipient of payoffs from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders. His financial advisors were also the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders. He was responsible for the Senate committee that worked on European foreign relations as chairman and never bothered to hold a session in the whole time he was chairman. He supported the other senators and congressmen like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who bloviated about how the mortgage industry was just fine and no legislation to clean up the oversight was necessary (they were the other leading recipients of payoffs from the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae leaders). When the Senate was getting ready to deal with the problems, he had other things to do that were more important. He speaks out against earmarks and then signs a bill with over 8000 of them. He speaks out against lobbyists and then names them to his staff. He speaks out about how ethical his staff will be and how well-vetted and then about a third so far of his appointments have either not paid their taxes or have other ethical problems and we are all supposed to just forget about that. He has so far dissed our closest allies and also had respresentatives who made totally inappropriate remarks to the people they were meeting. He has appointed a man to deal with the Middle East who thinks it was just fine and dandy for the Chinese to crack down on Tianeman Square. This same man was a direct employee of the Saudis and yet one of the big deals for the Dems was that supposedly Bush was in the pocket of the Saudis. You really need to take a good look at what you are complaining about. I predict that within a few months our allies will be wishing that Bush was back in office. Mark wrote: Clinton allowed the rule of law (not
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Yes Embassies in foreign nations are US soil and you have a right to protect them. What you forget is that one step outside that embassy gate is NOT US soil. Pack everybody you please into the embassy.. just do not step outside, you have a habit of forgetting details like Sovereignity and where it starts and stops. On Mar 15, 2:01 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: An embassy in a foreign country is considered US soil. He should have responded to that. Why else do we have US troops at embassies to guard them. We should respond when our embassies are attacked. All you have to do is look at Carter and the way he handled the attack in Teheran to see what happens when you don't. Actually the media made it all about blow jobs. The real problem was all the -gates. Filegate, travelgate, etc. The other thing is that he was punished for lying. He lied incessantly as did his lovely wife. He gave up his law license for that, not for the blow job. When you consider that the support for Bush was over 40 countries including Britain, Italy and Spain, then your problem is that the French and Germans were not consulted. The US government did interact with the European governments and use their intelligence agencies. Where do you think the intelligence about Saddam and the uranium purchases he was trying to make came from. They came from Britain, Italy, France. I note how well the French are handling their problems with the car burnings and the attacks by the Muslims on the local citizens and the riots. That worked out well. I also note that the Germans did a nice job of releasing a prisoner who was partially responsible for the 9/11 planning and then notified the US after he was safely back home and out of Germany. That also worked well. As to laying the blame on his successor, the successor is well and truly responsible for a good part of the problem. He was one of the lawyers who brought the cases that caused the Congress to pass the law requiring banks to make the sub-prime loans. He was also a facilitator of ACORN by teaching them classes on how to push their agenda. He was the second highest recipient of payoffs from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders. His financial advisors were also the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders. He was responsible for the Senate committee that worked on European foreign relations as chairman and never bothered to hold a session in the whole time he was chairman. He supported the other senators and congressmen like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who bloviated about how the mortgage industry was just fine and no legislation to clean up the oversight was necessary (they were the other leading recipients of payoffs from the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae leaders). When the Senate was getting ready to deal with the problems, he had other things to do that were more important. He speaks out against earmarks and then signs a bill with over 8000 of them. He speaks out against lobbyists and then names them to his staff. He speaks out about how ethical his staff will be and how well-vetted and then about a third so far of his appointments have either not paid their taxes or have other ethical problems and we are all supposed to just forget about that. He has so far dissed our closest allies and also had respresentatives who made totally inappropriate remarks to the people they were meeting. He has appointed a man to deal with the Middle East who thinks it was just fine and dandy for the Chinese to crack down on Tianeman Square. This same man was a direct employee of the Saudis and yet one of the big deals for the Dems was that supposedly Bush was in the pocket of the Saudis. You really need to take a good look at what you are complaining about. I predict that within a few months our allies will be wishing that Bush was back in office. Mark wrote: Clinton allowed the rule of law (not talking about him personally and the blow job) to handle things. There was a WTC attack on his watch as well, the defining difference was he jailed all those found to be involved (still there as well). Clinton prosecuted a much larger war (both territory and population) by gaining int'l agreement, all countries involved are now doing well are democratiic and NOT adding to the moslem problem any longer. While doing so he took what was then the largest deficit ever seen in the world and put the US in the black handing to his successor an economically healthy well respected (in the world) nation. As to the blow job incident The ONLY people that would have even thought twice about are Gringos and the ONLY people that did not read the DC statutes which then and now blatantly describe a blow job as sodomy, NOT in any way sex. He answered correctly by statute regardless of the prosecutors attempt to redefine the statute solely for these hearings. What a fucking joke !!! He
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Two months too many. On Mar 15, 2:40�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Clinton allowed the rule of law (not talking about him personally and the blow job) to handle things. There was a WTC attack on his watch as well, the defining difference was he jailed all those found to be involved (still there as well). Clinton prosecuted a much larger war (both territory and population) by gaining int'l agreement, all countries involved are now doing well are democratiic and NOT adding to the moslem problem any longer. While doing so he took what was then the largest deficit ever seen in the world and put the �US in the black handing to his successor an economically healthy well respected (in the world) nation. As to the blow job incident The ONLY people that would have even thought twice about are Gringos and the ONLY people that did not read the DC statutes which then and now blatantly describe a blow job as sodomy, NOT in any way sex. He answered correctly by statute regardless of the prosecutors attempt to redefine the statute solely for these hearings. What a fucking joke !!! He plead out to save money and took the slap on the wrist. As to attacks on foreign soil that were NOT a direct threat to the US, Clinton wisely chose to allow the countries where the attacks took place to handle it. After all it is what the US demands of them when something occurs on US soil and involves their citizenry and property located in the US. Active law enforcement agencies and military forces are not permitted entry to the US. Why should there be a difference in this policy ?? The US, under Clinton, offered any and all assistance and allowed them to do their jobs. Piss and moan all you like but the goose and gander adage does apply and Clinton understood this. It was completely lost on Bush2 as was the ability to interact with any other government and take or heed their advise. This lead to a massive inability to sift intelligence reports and do what was necessary in a timely fashion. You are now starting to realize how deep the damage by Bush2 was he basicly bankrupted your nation and you are already laying blame on his successor who has been in office for less than two months. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think Gore might have handled Katrina? Wall Street plays by its own rules and wealth- not by national interests.The worst presidents will be Grant and Harding but all of them failed in certain ways- and so will Obama. On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Oh good, glad the neowhacks have finally admitted that NINE months into prez cretin's administration that he is fully responsible for ignoring Clinton's warnings and that he is fully culpable for the 9/11 attacks, add that to the Iraq quagmire, Katrina, and the complete collapse of the economy and the Worst President Ever is definitely a lock. On Mar 14, 2:42 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Who is revising history here?? There were several missile head tips, as well as other parts that are still not accounted for!!! On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed and as soon as it became aparent as Iraq was asked about it all THREE that were in existence were destroyed. Europe accepted the Iraqi report of this Bush2 obviously and erroneously did not. The test flight flew 1500KM. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: The weapons system that you reference, capable of slinging missiles halfway around the world, was a very critical issue; one that folks like Biff Euwe, Fritzie, and most of Euwetopia don't even want to talk about.. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: And just what is it, exactly, Biff, that astounds you on this thread ?? On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.netwrote: neowhacks astond me with their hypocrisy On Mar 15, 2:25 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: People like Biff amaze me. You get a notice that the Muslims are going to attackSOME city in the US using airplanes at some time in the first half of Sept. Your intelligence agencies are prohibited by law from pooling their intelligence so you can maybe find out who is doing this and what they are going to do. Then you find that in NYC alone there are over 4000 scheduled flights per day coming from all over the world so in the first half of Sept you will have a pot luck chance of picking the 1 out of 60,000 that will be used by the Muslims. Then you include all the rest of the cities since the briefing did not stipulate which cities were involved. Would it be a coastal city or an inland city or an industrial city or a city surrounded by military installations. Thanks to Jamie Gorelick we had no way of knowing. Then assume that the govt figured out which flight was involved and stopped it. The Muslims would just shift the action a day or two either way, no problem. Of course Carville did not mention that Clinton refused having bin Laden turned over to him when it was offered because of legal difficulties, he said. That did not bother him when it came to bombing Iraq whenever the news got too hot for him on his other problems. Carville also did not mention that Clinton did nothing about the other attacks like the embassies and Mogadishu and the ship off Yemen that was scuttled by the Muslims with the loss of life. And we are still hearing about Katrina when Bush tried to get that ditsy gov of Louisiana to call up the national guard and get ready for the storm that was coming and the even ditsier mayor of NOLA did nothing to get the people out of the way. Of course the fact that the feds can only call up the National guard when the governor of the state permits it and Gov Blanco did not do that. The Coast Guard was on the ball and did amazing things but the media didn't mention that. They also did not mention that FEMA is supposed to be a second call group. They are tasked to be there within 3 days - and they were. And then there was Rep Jefferson who commandeered the rescue vessel to save his freezer cash rather than his constituents. Much more important for a Dem congressman than his constituents. Compare and contrast the actions of Bush and the feds with Katrina with what Bambi did for Kentucky during the terrible winter storm this year when all power, even emergency power for people with medical problems, was lost. Bambi never even bothered to fly over the area, even when he was speaking in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. Guess it was just too far for the poor guy to travel to the next state and see what was happening. Also too much trouble to get FEMA involved for weeks. Read much about that in the media? Didn't think so. Progressives amaze me with their stupidity. rigsy03 wrote: Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think Gore might have handled Katrina? Wall Street plays by its own rules and wealth- not by national interests.The worst presidents will be Grant and Harding but all of them failed in certain ways- and so will Obama. On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Oh good, glad the neowhacks have finally admitted that NINE months into prez cretin's administration that he is fully responsible for ignoring Clinton's warnings and that he is fully culpable for the 9/11 attacks, add that to the Iraq quagmire, Katrina, and the complete collapse of the economy and the Worst
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
As well as biological agents and chemical weaponry, that are still to this day unaccounted for in Iraq!!! On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: Who is revising history here?? There were several missile head tips, as well as other parts that are still not accounted for!!! On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed and as soon as it became aparent as Iraq was asked about it all THREE that were in existence were destroyed. Europe accepted the Iraqi report of this Bush2 obviously and erroneously did not. The test flight flew 1500KM. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: The weapons system that you reference, capable of slinging missiles halfway around the world, was a very critical issue; one that folks like Biff Euwe, Fritzie, and most of Euwetopia don't even want to talk about.. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: And just what is it, exactly, Biff, that astounds you on this thread ?? On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.netwrote: neowhacks astond me with their hypocrisy On Mar 15, 2:25 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: People like Biff amaze me. You get a notice that the Muslims are going to attackSOME city in the US using airplanes at some time in the first half of Sept. Your intelligence agencies are prohibited by law from pooling their intelligence so you can maybe find out who is doing this and what they are going to do. Then you find that in NYC alone there are over 4000 scheduled flights per day coming from all over the world so in the first half of Sept you will have a pot luck chance of picking the 1 out of 60,000 that will be used by the Muslims. Then you include all the rest of the cities since the briefing did not stipulate which cities were involved. Would it be a coastal city or an inland city or an industrial city or a city surrounded by military installations. Thanks to Jamie Gorelick we had no way of knowing. Then assume that the govt figured out which flight was involved and stopped it. The Muslims would just shift the action a day or two either way, no problem. Of course Carville did not mention that Clinton refused having bin Laden turned over to him when it was offered because of legal difficulties, he said. That did not bother him when it came to bombing Iraq whenever the news got too hot for him on his other problems. Carville also did not mention that Clinton did nothing about the other attacks like the embassies and Mogadishu and the ship off Yemen that was scuttled by the Muslims with the loss of life. And we are still hearing about Katrina when Bush tried to get that ditsy gov of Louisiana to call up the national guard and get ready for the storm that was coming and the even ditsier mayor of NOLA did nothing to get the people out of the way. Of course the fact that the feds can only call up the National guard when the governor of the state permits it and Gov Blanco did not do that. The Coast Guard was on the ball and did amazing things but the media didn't mention that. They also did not mention that FEMA is supposed to be a second call group. They are tasked to be there within 3 days - and they were. And then there was Rep Jefferson who commandeered the rescue vessel to save his freezer cash rather than his constituents. Much more important for a Dem congressman than his constituents. Compare and contrast the actions of Bush and the feds with Katrina with what Bambi did for Kentucky during the terrible winter storm this year when all power, even emergency power for people with medical problems, was lost. Bambi never even bothered to fly over the area, even when he was speaking in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. Guess it was just too far for the poor guy to travel to the next state and see what was happening. Also too much trouble to get FEMA involved for weeks. Read much about that in the media? Didn't think so. Progressives amaze me with their stupidity. rigsy03 wrote: Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think Gore might have handled Katrina? Wall Street plays by its own rules and wealth- not by national interests.The worst presidents will be Grant and Harding but all of them failed in certain ways- and so will Obama. On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Oh good, glad the neowhacks have finally admitted that NINE months into prez cretin's administration that he is fully
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Payload sections that are no good without delivery vehicles which were destroyed. Kinda like the payload section of a Tomahawk ... They don't work without the delivery system. There was no revision done. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: Who is revising history here?? There were several missile head tips, as well as other parts that are still not accounted for!!! On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed and as soon as it became aparent as Iraq was asked about it all THREE that were in existence were destroyed. Europe accepted the Iraqi report of this Bush2 obviously and erroneously did not. The test flight flew 1500KM. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote: The weapons system that you reference, capable of slinging missiles halfway around the world, was a very critical issue; one that folks like Biff Euwe, Fritzie, and most of Euwetopia don't even want to talk about.. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: And just what is it, exactly, Biff, that astounds you on this thread ?? On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.netwrote: neowhacks astond me with their hypocrisy On Mar 15, 2:25 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: People like Biff amaze me. You get a notice that the Muslims are going to attackSOME city in the US using airplanes at some time in the first half of Sept. Your intelligence agencies are prohibited by law from pooling their intelligence so you can maybe find out who is doing this and what they are going to do. Then you find that in NYC alone there are over 4000 scheduled flights per day coming from all over the world so in the first half of Sept you will have a pot luck chance of picking the 1 out of 60,000 that will be used by the Muslims. Then you include all the rest of the cities since the briefing did not stipulate which cities were involved. Would it be a coastal city or an inland city or an industrial city or a city surrounded by military installations. Thanks to Jamie Gorelick we had no way of knowing. Then assume that the govt figured out which flight was involved and stopped it. The Muslims would just shift the action a day or two either way, no problem. Of course Carville did not mention that Clinton refused having bin Laden turned over to him when it was offered because of legal difficulties, he said. That did not bother him when it came to bombing Iraq whenever the news got too hot for him on his other problems. Carville also did not mention that Clinton did nothing about the other attacks like the embassies and Mogadishu and the ship off Yemen that was scuttled by the Muslims with the loss of life. And we are still hearing about Katrina when Bush tried to get that ditsy gov of Louisiana to call up the national guard and get ready for the storm that was coming and the even ditsier mayor of NOLA did nothing to get the people out of the way. Of course the fact that the feds can only call up the National guard when the governor of the state permits it and Gov Blanco did not do that. The Coast Guard was on the ball and did amazing things but the media didn't mention that. They also did not mention that FEMA is supposed to be a second call group. They are tasked to be there within 3 days - and they were. And then there was Rep Jefferson who commandeered the rescue vessel to save his freezer cash rather than his constituents. Much more important for a Dem congressman than his constituents. Compare and contrast the actions of Bush and the feds with Katrina with what Bambi did for Kentucky during the terrible winter storm this year when all power, even emergency power for people with medical problems, was lost. Bambi never even bothered to fly over the area, even when he was speaking in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. Guess it was just too far for the poor guy to travel to the next state and see what was happening. Also too much trouble to get FEMA involved for weeks. Read much about that in the media? Didn't think so. Progressives amaze me with their stupidity. rigsy03 wrote: Clinton did little to stave off the eventual attack of 9-11 and pretty much ruined respect for the presidency. The Clinton no-fly zones are responsible for thousands of deaths. The Cole. The Oklahoma bombing. The bombing of China's embassy in the Balkans. The leak of USA security to the Chinese. How do you think Gore might have handled Katrina? Wall Street plays by its own rules and wealth- not by national interests.The worst presidents will be Grant and Harding but all of them failed in certain ways- and so will Obama. On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Oh good, glad the neowhacks
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23�pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27�am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! � None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! � You are better than this!! � In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. �All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/...- - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
and once again a lib, biffy ole boy, has done the old lib two step. he cannot deny the fact that carvelle said he wanted President Bush to fail. and being the loyal koolaid drinking fool he cannot condemn him for doing so. so he turns the whole discussion away from the main topic, and about his Bush derangement syndrome. ya know biffy if ya can't stay on topic, and admit you dems did the same thing as Rush, then go back to chasing cars down the street. On Mar 14, 3:42 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Your lack of concern for lying under oath is what is amazing... Tell me, when is it ok to lie under oath??? Unlike most slippery slopes, this one is steeper by far... Is lying at a murder trail OK??? Or a divorce proceeding??? What about a bankruptcy??? Who gets to decide??? For Clinton to have done it so brazenly undermined the entire judicial system... I also note you shift the topic, seeking to justify Clinton's lying by claiming worse deeds by others... Typical Democratic strawman tactic... On Mar 13, 11:17 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Your sense of moral proportionality is truly astounding...let's see... hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed (including children) vs a blow job...if Clinton deserved impeachment bush and and many of his merry band of lying sack of scum criminals deserve public flogging to death. On Mar 13, 9:18 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/...- - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Oh good, glad the neowhacks have finally admitted that NINE months into prez cretin's administration that he is fully responsible for ignoring Clinton's warnings and that he is fully culpable for the 9/11 attacks, add that to the Iraq quagmire, Katrina, and the complete collapse of the economy and the Worst President Ever is definitely a lock. On Mar 14, 2:42 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
you care what Carville said, I don't...the usual much ado about nothing from the fringe right...that the most visible spokesman for the Republicans is fatboy is what interests me not that he hoped Obama failed, that was known already. This little straw doll sideshow is the typical tactic of the Right, except at this moment in history it's a silly distraction from what the whacko right doesn't want the electorate to think about: the utter failure of the neocon philosophy, both economically and politically. On Mar 14, 5:58 am, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: and once again a lib, biffy ole boy, has done the old lib two step. he cannot deny the fact that carvelle said he wanted President Bush to fail. and being the loyal koolaid drinking fool he cannot condemn him for doing so. so he turns the whole discussion away from the main topic, and about his Bush derangement syndrome. ya know biffy if ya can't stay on topic, and admit you dems did the same thing as Rush, then go back to chasing cars down the street. On Mar 14, 3:42 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
gimme a break drama queen On Mar 14, 8:46 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Your lack of concern for lying under oath is what is amazing... Tell me, when is it ok to lie under oath??? Unlike most slippery slopes, this one is steeper by far... Is lying at a murder trail OK??? Or a divorce proceeding??? What about a bankruptcy??? Who gets to decide??? For Clinton to have done it so brazenly undermined the entire judicial system... I also note you shift the topic, seeking to justify Clinton's lying by claiming worse deeds by others... Typical Democratic strawman tactic... On Mar 13, 11:17 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Your sense of moral proportionality is truly astounding...let's see... hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed (including children) vs a blow job...if Clinton deserved impeachment bush and and many of his merry band of lying sack of scum criminals deserve public flogging to death. On Mar 13, 9:18 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
How astute Biff JGG points out a pertinent yet simple fact, and as is typical with those who advocate a far left extremist, socialist-elitist economic and political policy, as well as pushing for the United States to become equal to a third world Nation-State, your response is, Give Me A Break, Drama Queen. I am curious about your position on military engagements. Are you opposed to all military engagements, or just those that our armed forces were involved in during President Bush's and the Bush Administration's tenure? On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: gimme a break drama queen On Mar 14, 8:46 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Your lack of concern for lying under oath is what is amazing... Tell me, when is it ok to lie under oath??? Unlike most slippery slopes, this one is steeper by far... Is lying at a murder trail OK??? Or a divorce proceeding??? What about a bankruptcy??? Who gets to decide??? For Clinton to have done it so brazenly undermined the entire judicial system... I also note you shift the topic, seeking to justify Clinton's lying by claiming worse deeds by others... Typical Democratic strawman tactic... On Mar 13, 11:17 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Your sense of moral proportionality is truly astounding...let's see... hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed (including children) vs a blow job...if Clinton deserved impeachment bush and and many of his merry band of lying sack of scum criminals deserve public flogging to death. On Mar 13, 9:18 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/ .. - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
so biffy ole man once again either you are too stupid to grasp the point of this post, or you choose to ignore it because it shows the total and complete hypocrisy of you loony libs. to you fools it is wrong and traitorous for a republican to want a socialist liberal anti America president zero's policies to fail, but it is ok for a liberal hack to wish President Bush to fail. is that about it? On Mar 14, 11:49 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: How astute Biff JGG points out a pertinent yet simple fact, and as is typical with those who advocate a far left extremist, socialist-elitist economic and political policy, as well as pushing for the United States to become equal to a third world Nation-State, your response is, Give Me A Break, Drama Queen. I am curious about your position on military engagements. Are you opposed to all military engagements, or just those that our armed forces were involved in during President Bush's and the Bush Administration's tenure? On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: gimme a break drama queen On Mar 14, 8:46 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Your lack of concern for lying under oath is what is amazing... Tell me, when is it ok to lie under oath??? Unlike most slippery slopes, this one is steeper by far... Is lying at a murder trail OK??? Or a divorce proceeding??? What about a bankruptcy??? Who gets to decide??? For Clinton to have done it so brazenly undermined the entire judicial system... I also note you shift the topic, seeking to justify Clinton's lying by claiming worse deeds by others... Typical Democratic strawman tactic... On Mar 13, 11:17 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Your sense of moral proportionality is truly astounding...let's see... hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed (including children) vs a blow job...if Clinton deserved impeachment bush and and many of his merry band of lying sack of scum criminals deserve public flogging to death. On Mar 13, 9:18 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/ .. - Show quoted text --
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
You care about what Rush says and what is said about him, I'm not as I do not listen to the man... This is the usual much to do about nothing from the fringe Left... his little straw doll sideshow is the typical tactic of the Left, except at this moment in history it's a silly distraction from what the whacko left doesn't want the electorate to think about: the utter failure of the Promises of Obama, both economically and politically. Now isn't that a better statement Biff? On Mar 14, 11:34 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: you care what Carville said, I don't...the usual much ado about nothing from the fringe right...that the most visible spokesman for the Republicans is fatboy is what interests me not that he hoped Obama failed, that was known already. This little straw doll sideshow is the typical tactic of the Right, except at this moment in history it's a silly distraction from what the whacko right doesn't want the electorate to think about: the utter failure of the neocon philosophy, both economically and politically. On Mar 14, 5:58 am, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: and once again a lib, biffy ole boy, has done the old lib two step. he cannot deny the fact that carvelle said he wanted President Bush to fail. and being the loyal koolaid drinking fool he cannot condemn him for doing so. so he turns the whole discussion away from the main topic, and about his Bush derangement syndrome. ya know biffy if ya can't stay on topic, and admit you dems did the same thing as Rush, then go back to chasing cars down the street. On Mar 14, 3:42 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg,
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Isn't this baiting? Wasn't I promised no more baiting, is their a moderator in the house??? On Mar 14, 11:35 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: gimme a break drama queen On Mar 14, 8:46 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Your lack of concern for lying under oath is what is amazing... Tell me, when is it ok to lie under oath??? Unlike most slippery slopes, this one is steeper by far... Is lying at a murder trail OK??? Or a divorce proceeding??? What about a bankruptcy??? Who gets to decide??? For Clinton to have done it so brazenly undermined the entire judicial system... I also note you shift the topic, seeking to justify Clinton's lying by claiming worse deeds by others... Typical Democratic strawman tactic... On Mar 13, 11:17 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Your sense of moral proportionality is truly astounding...let's see... hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed (including children) vs a blow job...if Clinton deserved impeachment bush and and many of his merry band of lying sack of scum criminals deserve public flogging to death. On Mar 13, 9:18 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Will you post this on problemfixed.info? -Original Message- From: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com [mailto:politicalfo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jgg1000a Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:13 PM To: PoliticalForum Subject: Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail You care about what Rush says and what is said about him, I'm not as I do not listen to the man... This is the usual much to do about nothing from the fringe Left... his little straw doll sideshow is the typical tactic of the Left, except at this moment in history it's a silly distraction from what the whacko left doesn't want the electorate to think about: the utter failure of the Promises of Obama, both economically and politically. Now isn't that a better statement Biff? On Mar 14, 11:34 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: you care what Carville said, I don't...the usual much ado about nothing from the fringe right...that the most visible spokesman for the Republicans is fatboy is what interests me not that he hoped Obama failed, that was known already. This little straw doll sideshow is the typical tactic of the Right, except at this moment in history it's a silly distraction from what the whacko right doesn't want the electorate to think about: the utter failure of the neocon philosophy, both economically and politically. On Mar 14, 5:58 am, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: and once again a lib, biffy ole boy, has done the old lib two step. he cannot deny the fact that carvelle said he wanted President Bush to fail. and being the loyal koolaid drinking fool he cannot condemn him for doing so. so he turns the whole discussion away from the main topic, and about his Bush derangement syndrome. ya know biffy if ya can't stay on topic, and admit you dems did the same thing as Rush, then go back to chasing cars down the street. On Mar 14, 3:42 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are footing the bill now and it's steep. Those drones killing Afgahns and Pakistanis belong to Obama. The loss of personal fortune in the USA now belongs to Obama. His cabinet are retreads of Clinton- those that got through. On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No spin...put the Bush administration principals on the stand and cry for all the crap you have swallowed...that's alright, I don't expect you to change and it really doesn't matter as long as the creeps you support are kept out of power.they will pay eventually. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
once again biffy ole boy, you and your limited intelligence misses the point. you fools on the left are faoming at the mouth over Rush saying he hopes president zero fails, and yet one of your big boys himself said the same thing about President Bush. and yet evidently your boy says it and that's ok. the old double standard from the hypocritical left. On Mar 13, 12:40 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Keillor doesn't need blowhard to preserve his fame...the only shit I see is that being flung from the hysterical right for the next 8 years...enjoy! On Mar 12, 2:19 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Rush has earned his own way instead of pandering his soul to politicians. Someone like Keillor in a recent op/ed attacks Rush to get his inhale of fame as do the rest. Enjoy your brief victory- the s--t will hit the fan soon enough. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/...quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
I would like to invite you and your members to our biz card exchange happy hour on the 27th. Please let me know if you’re interested. http://www.meetup.com/Pittsburghsocialnetworkers/calendar/9941604/ Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:27:42 To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
In your addled brain of course Keith, I expect you to post nothing but delusional crap. On Mar 13, 6:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Talk about spin!! None of what you wrote above can be substantiated, and is so far from being accurate or trutful!! Come on Biff!! You are better than this!! In fact, most of what you have written above, is again from those folks who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why. All of the allegations you wrote above have been totally discredited!! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/...text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/...quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Your sense of moral proportionality is truly astounding...let's see... hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and maimed (including children) vs a blow job...if Clinton deserved impeachment bush and and many of his merry band of lying sack of scum criminals deserve public flogging to death. On Mar 13, 9:18 am, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote: Lying under oath is something many folks SHOULD be an impeachable offense... You of course deem it to be only about sex, and it never was... On Mar 13, 12:37 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/...text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Rush has earned his own way instead of pandering his soul to politicians. Someone like Keillor in a recent op/ed attacks Rush to get his inhale of fame as do the rest. Enjoy your brief victory- the s--t will hit the fan soon enough. On Mar 12, 12:07�am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24�pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07�am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24�pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
No, but the Clinton impeachment clearly demonstrates that the neowhacks could care less about the country if only voters had remembered when they elected Bush in 2000 Misled Congress about Threat from Iraq - violated Title 18 USC 371 and 1001 Shaped Intelligence to Justify War with Iraq Lied about Uranium from Niger Lied about Aluminum Tubes Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush Bush did not meet the requirements of HJR114 and therefore invaded Iraq without authority. Illegal Electronic Surveillance - violated FISA laws and 4th amendment Torture of Prisoners - violated Federal Anti-Torture Laws and Geneva Convention Violated International Law Refused to comply with Congressional Subpoenas impeachbush On Mar 12, 2:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney as payback for Clinton's impeachment. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Keillor doesn't need blowhard to preserve his fame...the only shit I see is that being flung from the hysterical right for the next 8 years...enjoy! On Mar 12, 2:19 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Rush has earned his own way instead of pandering his soul to politicians. Someone like Keillor in a recent op/ed attacks Rush to get his inhale of fame as do the rest. Enjoy your brief victory- the s--t will hit the fan soon enough. On Mar 12, 12:07 am, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
James Carville I Certainly Hope He Doesn't Succeed' March 11, 2009 by Mark Whittington http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1555110/james_carville_i_certainly_hope_he.html?cat=9 Wanted George W. Bush to Fail Just Before 9/11 Some years ago, James Carville, one of the architects of Bill Clinton's 1992 electoral victory, was holding forth, along with pollster Stanley Greenberg, to a group of Washington reporters. James Carville said something that is now considered treasonous. I certainly hope he doesn't succeed, James Carville is quoted as saying, referring to then President George W. Bush. Greenberg, who had polled for President Bill Clinton, echoed the sentiment. The timing, though, was somewhat inopportune, as everyone was to find out just a few minutesJames Carville I Certainly Hope He Doesn't Succeed later. James Carville made his remarks on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Just a few minutes later, news of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon reached the conference where James Carville and Stan Greenberg were speaking. Ever nimble, James Carville announced, Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything! As Emily Latilla of Saturday Night Live fame might have said, Never mind! James Carville's remarks were drowned out by subsequent events, plus a compliant media unwilling to embarrass a well known Democratic strategist. The same treatment was not forthcoming for Rush Limbaugh, who has been excoriated for expressing the wish that President Barack Obama should fail. The campaign depicting Rush Limbaugh as a traitor has been orchestrated by, among other people, James Carville. The revelation of James Carville's somewhat ill timed remarks, along with the recent report of a Fox News poll that suggested that in 2006 the majority of Democrats wanted President Bush to fail, indicates that Obama administration operatives piling onto Rush Limbaugh are tossing stones in a glass house. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
Nor was Carville sucessful when Clinton sent him to Israel to advise the campaign of Ehud Barak vs. Sharon.// I opposed the war/invasion of Iraq and preferred the Bush41 policy. It took me a long time-years- to figure some things out because I am a teenage political animal but I will tell you where I am now- the Obama policy towards the Middle East is a ruinous switch for our country- far worse than the decision to divert our attention from Afghanistan under Bush43. God Bless America- we're going to need it! On Mar 11, 6:27�pm, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: James Carville I Certainly Hope He Doesn't Succeed' March 11, 2009 by Mark Whittington http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1555110/james_carville_i_cer... Wanted George W. Bush to Fail Just Before 9/11 Some years ago, James Carville, one of the architects of Bill Clinton's 1992 electoral victory, was holding forth, along with pollster Stanley Greenberg, to a group of Washington reporters. James Carville said something that is now considered treasonous. I certainly hope he doesn't succeed, James Carville is quoted as saying, referring to then President George W. Bush. Greenberg, who had polled for President Bill Clinton, echoed the sentiment. The timing, though, was somewhat inopportune, as everyone was to find out just a few minutesJames Carville I Certainly Hope He Doesn't Succeed later. James Carville made his remarks on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Just a few minutes later, news of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon reached the conference where James Carville and Stan Greenberg were speaking. Ever nimble, James Carville announced, Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything! As Emily Latilla of Saturday Night Live fame might have said, Never mind! James Carville's remarks were drowned out by subsequent events, plus a compliant media unwilling to embarrass a well known Democratic strategist. The same treatment was not forthcoming for Rush Limbaugh, who has been excoriated for expressing the wish that President Barack Obama should fail. The campaign depicting Rush Limbaugh as a traitor has been orchestrated by, among other people, James Carville. The revelation of James Carville's somewhat ill timed remarks, along with the recent report of a Fox News poll that suggested that in 2006 the majority of Democrats wanted President Bush to fail, indicates that Obama administration operatives piling onto Rush Limbaugh are tossing stones in a glass house. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
I wanted Bush impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors, so big deal regarding Carville.I love the fat boy blow hard as the defacto figurehead of the Rethuglican Party, I hope he chokes on all his ill gotten gains at the expense of the horribly muddled conservative party. On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Ohio mark marsupialm...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: I certainly hope he doesn't succeed. Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him, Greenberg admitted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
