BS: neither candidate is an asshole

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:14 PM

pusillanimous

Sounds like a festering sore on one's genitillia.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:55 PM

Amos wouldn't have much to talk about if Kerry does win. some others won't also.

If Bush wins, these obsessives will I guess, continue to be gratefully miserable.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 06:38 PM

Life will move on, as we know it Martin, no matter who wins. Whatever one's candidate of choice, we all can do a Hell of a lot more to make this world better every morning when we get out of bed.
After the election is over, it will be time to move on and change those things which are in our power to change, no matter how small they may seem.

Sometimes voting seems like trying to drive a car without a steering wheel. I'm still convinced that it's worth doing anyway. Just don't get your heart set on the route you end up taking.

Hey, and regards to you, jimmy! U R my favorite conservative Republican. But not the only one I respect...

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:38 PM

Republican, is he? Ah, well, he's a darn good man for all that.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:43 PM

Im still puzzled why it's supposed to he an insult. I think most of us are very attached to this part of our anatomy.

The body politic needs to have one. Either candidate would fill the role pretty well, but I think Bush is better qualified to take on the responsibilities involved, while Kerry would make a more convincing President.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:44 PM

If I buy him the wool, will he make me one, too?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:44 PM

MG:

Bite my ass, how about? You can suggest I am being obsessive about Bush,. but, unlike you, I am willing to some degree to face the fact that a criminal clodbuster with a shootin' iron has been let loose in the Oval Office.

If Kerry wins I will have a great deal to talk about - I am alive, aware, and prefer to be in communication. Some folks prefer to make nothing out of anything and any person they can classify as "over there" so they can feel snidely superior. Enjoy, Shalom, and good luck! For me, communicate and L'Chaim!


A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:26 PM

"It would be for more likely that such a move be promoted by the neo-fascist camp, for it is fascist in its nature, but they would have nothing to gain by it."

Bullshit. The Democrats are already doing just that IN THIS ELECTION. They have brought lawsuits to get Nader off the ballot in Florida, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Arizona, Oregon--20 states in all. They tried to stop Sinclair Broadcasting from airing an anti-Kerry film.

The Democrats obviously they have plenty to gain--like the White House for instance--by circumventing and undermining the nation's democratic traditions, otherwise they wouldn't be working so hard to do just that.

But hey, we don't expect anything less from you and your Anybody But Bushite fanatic buddies--you are all floating down that river in Egypt, in search of ever lamer justifications for your man and your party being full of fascist global plutocrats, and playing this demagoguing game.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:30 PM

Fascism is preferable to nazism, and nazism is what ya get with Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 12:13 AM

GUEST...

The judge in the Pennsylvania case said that Nader's inclusion on the ballot was accomplished through egregious fraud, hundreds of fictitious signatures (including Disney characters!) being found when the lists were inspected.

The only reason for disallowing the Nader ballot on a state ballot is because of misrepresentations of this kind. I can't speak for party people. I am not a party player. I am an independent, democratically motivated voter and citizen.

As for your opinions about Kerry, you have voiced them often enough. Sorry we don't see eye to eye. You preserve your integrity by sticking to the third party options, and that is your sacred right. I try to do something I see as more efficacious, by supporting someone who has a shot and is -- as far as I can tell so far -- an honest person. That is mine. I commend you for using your brains, holding your own position and sticking to what you believe is right and true. I wish W would do the same, but he is a slimy weasel. I do not believe John Kerry is. If it turns out I am wrong, it will certainly prove out (I believe) that he is LESS of a weasel than Bush. If I send my vote to Nader, all it will accomplish in the arena is reducing Kerry's chance by one vote.

We are in a very close race, and I don't want to wake up wishing I had given Kerry my vote after all.

Your business what you do with yours.

A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 01:30 AM

Ellenpoly - Thanks for refreshing my memory. I was trying to remember who ran against Nixon! It was the first time I was old enough to vote, something I had waited for all of my life! I remember looking at my choices and realizing then what a sham democracy was. Some choice! I knew it then and I know it now.

heric - huh??? - "Canada has not cornered the market on honest politicians." I certainly do not think they are honest and I question authority more often than not. I was commenting on the so called "debate". It was just plain boring. At least the politicians in Canada aren't afraid of expressing their point of view. Of course, that does not mean they do not engage in "backroom politics". At least they give us a good show in parliament.

It was so obvious in the U.S. debate that both candidates were trying to seem more moderate, more neutral and did not want to make waves or alienate any voters.

Milk toast! Pablum!

d

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:57 AM

OK Amos, so I'll give you PA, and raise you the 19 other states the Dems are fighting to keep Nader off the ballot in. So how come the party that calls itself "Democratic" is so un?

Oh yeah, and about their attempt to censor the anti-Kerry film on Sinclair Broadcasting...pulling a Powell for their guy. Nice to see they only oppose political censorship when it is to their political advantage.

Nothing sleazy but any of those anti-democratic attempts to undermine the democratic traditions of the nation.

If that is your idea of "honest" I'd hate to see what you think is dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:25 AM

No Guest, not an attempt to censor. An attempt to promote honesty. Let the documentary be shown as a documentary, but don't try to fool people into believing it is "news". Would anyone fuss if Fahrenheit 9/11 was broadcast as "news", with GWB invited to be on the panel discussion afterwards. A few, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:40 PM

TIA, you apparently aren't aware of the Democratic party's attempts to have the film censored. As in filed an appeal with the FCC in an attempt to prevent the film from being broadcast AT ALL.

That is censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 04:05 PM

Ithink there's enough sheer crap being broadcast already.

But if they label it as what it is, I have no objection. It's buying the time and pretending it is news broadcasting which is the typical deceit offered by the RNC crowd, who tend to be ruthless to an extreme.

A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 04:16 PM

JimmyT,
JimmyT,

I appreciate your appeal for civility in discussing rather than venting anger.
The biggest problem we have today is giving in to fear and anger.

My opinion of Bush in my more lucid moments is that he is abusing the office of the presidency. He probably actually believes what he is doing is right.
But it has to be said for the likes of Al Capone, and yes even Hitler. Rationalizations for so-called "right actions" have caused many in power to do ugly things. Lying is one. Twisting words of an opponent around for political gain is another. Appealing to the baser attitudes of bigotry and fear is another. Committing young innocent men and women into an uncessary war is an atrocity in itself. Jingoism and pseudo-patriotism can be added to the list. Defending the rich at the expense of the poor and pretending to do otherwise is ugly. Refusing to deny the flagrant use of public airwaves to show a smear campaign about an opponent. Defending dirty tricks. The list goes on.

A lot can be said for different points of view regarding political philosophy.
I think many economic and political philosophers have been misinterpreted and misunderstood such as in the case of say Karl Marx or Jesus Christ.
A lot is open to interpretation.

But you have to look at actions. How a person behaves in my view is more important than what they actually say.

I don't see the level of malevolence in the behavior of Kerry as I do in Bush who. has used lies and distortions to win with a smirk on his face. Some will say that Kerry lies also. I need legitimate proof and not parroting from partisan sources. I am willing to discuss this rationally with anyone. I welcome a decent dialogue without name-calling and anger.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 05:21 PM

Amos,

No question that you are correct.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:27 PM

Frank:

"...Bush who. has used lies and distortions to win with a smirk on his face. Some will say that Kerry lies also. I need legitimate proof and not parroting from partisan sources."

And you have seen "legitimate proof and not parroting from partisan sources" that Bush has lied? He has made statements that were later found to be false- but did he know they were false when he said them?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM

That is very weak, BB.

That is the 'plausible (sp?) deniability' stuff. Didn't cut it with Nixon, and it sure don't with Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:41 PM

But it is ok for Clinton and Kerry?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:04 PM

Here's a lie, bb.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush took credit for the Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas. In reality, it only passed over his veto. Texas nurses were pretty angry that he took credit for it when he was the primary obstacle to getting it passed.

This is an easy one. You can find documentation on it in a great number of places.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

Why do you bring in Clinton, except to obfuscate? Bush has lied many times. Stick to the subject. Kerry hasn't lied.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:08 PM

… and nobody said it is ok for Clinton and Kerry. That's your idea.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM

Anyone ever think that perhaps Clinton Hammond is actually Bill Clinton, but operating out of HAmmond, Indiana as a ruse? Think about it! could be.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:57 PM

of course, any posting of Kerry's lies MUST be from a source that fails the SRS rule.

OK, if the following are NOT acceptable, please find PRO_BUSH sites that support your accusations of Bush lying... or stop presenting them as fact.

Kerry's lies

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:36 PM

of course, any posting of Kerry's lies MUST be from a source that fails the SRS rule.

Yeah, that's probably right. You aren't a reliable source, and when you post other folks' "facts" here, you sure as hell fail my rules of reasonable source checking. By the way, your most recent search link goes to such utterly unreliable sources as rushlimbaugh.com. Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:07 AM

"please find PRO_BUSH sites that support your accusations of Bush lying... or stop presenting them as fact."

It would be as reasonable to say "Please find Flat Earth sites that support your claims that the Earth is round... or stop presenting them as fact." What you need is a neutral site. I haven't got them at hand, but you could look at the last few issues of Newsweek. I can find them by tomorrow if you're interested.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:10 AM

Dammit, Clint, now yer gonna start muddying the waters by bringing facts. Always one pooper at every party.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:35 AM

Here's one from two years ago (sorry, brucie; I know it's rude):
________
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:13 a.m. ET Oct. 26, 2002

The president said in a speech last month that Saddam is experimenting with unmanned drones capable of reaching the United States with weapons of mass destruction. When confronted with the geographical improbability of such a feat, a White House spokesman countered that the drones could be launched from ships. Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we don't know about, that scenario is equally implausible.
______

Now, Bush may be too dumb to know how far Iraq is from the US, or that Iraq never had aircraft carrriers, but his "darn good intelligence" isn't. He cannot have been told this by the CIA and they cannot have approved it; it's too dim even for them. He must have been trying to con us.

It's because of this kind of crap that I never believed Iraq was an imminent threat, and neither did anyone else that wasn't swept up in Bushite propaganda. Including far too many members of Congress.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM

How about this for a lie?

From transcript of the third presidential debate:

KERRY: When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?"

He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

But in fact this link to CNN on March 13th 2002 has Bush saying that.

Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? [...]

BUSH: ... I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you [...]

Q: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?

BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.

I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him.

Though strictly speaking Bush used an old politicians trick there - he didn't say "I never said that", he said "I just don't think I ever said..." So when he's pinned down he can blame his Reaganite menmory.

(This comes via this site - Mark A. R. Kleiman - A Fair and Balanced Weblog)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 06:41 PM

"When confronted with the geographical improbability of such a feat, a White House spokesman countered that the drones could be launched from ships. Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we don't know about, that scenario is equally implausible. "

I guess you are not aware that the unmanned drones whiche se are currnetly using could easitly be launched fro a fairly small ship- they do NOT require runways of great length. If you bother to check on all the battleships launched after anout 1920, they ALL coulds launch manned floatplanes on a short rail launcer, and recover them with a crane after they landed on the water. I guess you have never looked at a cargo ship- LOT of cranes.... nd more than enough room for a rail launcher for even a manned vehicle.

"It's because of this kind of crap that I never believed " any of the statements made by liberals about what Saddam could not have done.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM

oh, on most of the cruisers, as well. They were used for recon flights.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:03 PM

I can think of a dozen ways that Saddam could have used an unmanned vehicle to attack the US- Just using the technology of WW II and earlier. But I guess if is not the way that you have decided he HAD to do it, it does not count.

Must be cheating- sort of like flying civilian airliners into buildings.....

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:20 PM

What the hell had "flying civilian airliners into buildings " got to do with Saddams' Iraq.
Bearded Bruce has lost the plot completely, his posts are becoming more eratic,and Im sure he'll end up in the recycle bin along with Doug R, JimmyT,ect ect...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:30 PM

Ake,

I was commenting that the presumption on the part of some liberals that the enimies of the US are required to use the weapons and techniques that those liberals decide is a foolish one. To say "Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we don't know about, that scenario is equally implausible. " when no aircraft carrier is required is stupid.


I SAID "But I guess if is not the way that you have decided he HAD to do it, it does not count. "

THAT is what the airliner comment refers to- since we all knew that the terrorists could not get a big enough car bomb into the WTC, there was no danger of it being blow up...

I think that perhaps it is you, and your friends that have "lost the plot completely,". If you care to make comments about what I am posting, feel free- but "his posts are becoming more eratic,and Im sure he'll end up in the recycle bin along with Doug R, JimmyT,ect ect" does not exactly address any of my post, now does it?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM

Virtually any government on the planet could, if it wished to, carry out an attack on the USA which would kill an awful lot of people. And as has been demonstrated pretty decisively, you don't need to be a government to do that.

And there is no reason whatsoever to think that Saddam Hussein had any intention whatsoever of doing that, not because he was or is a nice bloke, but because there could have been no possible advantage to him from doing it, and an extremely heavy price to pay. Why even when a bunch of his most hated enemies did it, off their own bat, the upshot was the invasion and devastation of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam's regime. (Which was very probably one of the hoped for consequences of September 11th on the part of those who planned it.)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:44 PM

" but because there could have been no possible advantage to him from doing it"

I am glad you are so certain of this- but I think Saddam might possibly disagree with you. IMO, of course... and of course it would have been HIS decision, NOT yours.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:59 PM

BB....Stop wriggling and address Mcgraths response.

I find it incredible that there are still people around who are prepared to defend UK...US actions in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 08:05 PM

Well of course he might have been daft enough to think that, but then so could the leader of any of the other countries in the world.

But no evidence has come to light that suggest that he had any such intention.

If Bush has it in mind to launch pre-emptive wars against all the people who might, if they had a brainstorm, attack the USA, he's got an awful lot of wars to wage.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 08:11 PM

Ake,

I thought my comment DID address McGrath.

Stop wriggling and address MY comment.

the presumption on the part of some liberals that the enemies of the US are required to use the weapons and techniques that those liberals decide is a foolish one.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:29 PM

I'm not sure I get the sense of that comment, bearded bruce.

I think it means that you believe that the conclusions that some people have reached, about what is likely to happen in the way of attacks upon the USA by far weaker enemies, is different from the conclusion that you have reached, and that people who disagree with you on such matters are foolishly mistaken.

You also seem to be saying that at least some of the people with whom you disagree with on this matter are what you would describe as "liberals". Though surely that is beside the point. What would be significant would be the disagreement over these matters, not the general political opinions of the people with whom you disagree.

It all seems a little abstruse. You'd have to put a little more flesh on the bones before it would be possible to either disagree with it or agree with it.

But, so far as I can see, there just doesn't appear to be any evidence of any foreign governments attacking the USA since Pearl Harbour. That isn't the direction to look.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:46 PM

My point was that the statement that an aircraft carrier was required is an example of poor thinking- it is not required. By stating it was, the person made a point that the Bush administration was wrong- but based on an incorrect set of conditions.

If it takes a blue widget to x, and Saddam did not have a blue widget, then Sadddam could not...


BUT THE BLUE WIDGET WAS NOT REQUIRED.

Thus, the comment in
From: GUEST,Clint Keller - PM
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:35 AM

has no relationship to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:51 PM

"Now, Bush may be too dumb to know how far Iraq is from the US, or that Iraq never had aircraft carrriers, but his "darn good intelligence" isn't. He cannot have been told this by the CIA and they cannot have approved it; it's too dim even for them. He must have been trying to con us.

It's because of this kind of crap that I never believed Iraq was an imminent threat, and neither did anyone else that wasn't swept up in Bushite propaganda. Including far too many members of Congress."


The crap is on the part of ther person saying an aircraft carrier is required, and that because Iraq did not have one, the Bush administration "must be trying to con us"

They may or may not be trying to con you, but the posting by Guest ,CLint Keller is not a valid reason to state that.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:00 PM

So, brucie, Clint has not yet brought in any facts. I eagerly await them...

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:14 PM

Beardedbruce:

You are allowed to determine what YOU think is a fact. However, that allowance does not extend to a carte blanche wherefrom you determine what I think is a fact. Clint nailed it. You didn't.

Hell, bb, the 'man wearing a grey suit and carrying a suitcase' means ANYONE can walk around with a nuclear device. Such a suitcase could be CANOED into the USA from Canada. Or from the sea. The world thinks airplanes. Forget airplanes. Think canoes and grey suits and suitcases. Don't complicate things more than they have to be.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:19 PM

brucie,

How does that negate the falsehood of requiring an aircraft carrier when one is not needed, and then saying that since there was no aircraft carrier, ,...etc?
I KNOW how easy it is to place a WMD anywhere- it seems to me that most here do not.

What exactly did clint nail? That his source in the post about the aircraft carrier was incompetent?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:41 PM

Gee, I've been having a fast & furious argument and I ain't even been here.

That was the first example I ran across, I wanted to go to bed and it sounded good to me. It still doesn't sound bad, even if you scratch the aircraft carriers. What kind of drones, launched how & guided how? Did Saddam have buzz-bomb technology? But perhaps I, like George was deceived by my intelligence sources. The difference is I was right on this one and George was wrong.

Still, the idea's not preposterous. The Japanese in WWII launched balloons with fire bombs on the jetstream, and I believe a few of them did get here to the Pacific Northwest, but they didn't work properly. it's the (possibly ship-launched) drones that I boggle at. If George'd talked about something like a plan to send shipping crates containing dirty bombs from non-Iraqi ports I would've been nervous. That'd be cheaper & more practical. I could believe in low-tech from Iraq.

In any case, McGrath has a much better example. I will gladly yield if you'll address his post on 16 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM.

And please, don't call me "some liberals."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:49 PM

"Though strictly speaking Bush used an old politicians trick there - he didn't say "I never said that", he said "I just don't think I ever said..." So when he's pinned down he can blame his Reaganite menmory."


Hey, it is good enough for the Clintons and for Kerry- so why not?

BTW, the thread about Kerry lying ended after I put the QUOTE of him saying MACHINEGUNS. I think that I have proved my point- BOTH of them lie- Both will continue to lie to get (re)elected, and to curse one while ignoring the other is a hypocritical thing to do.


Some people consider the Bill of rights to be an important part or our ( US ) freedoms- Just not Kerry.

And, NO, I DO NOT like the Patriot act, as I have stated before.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:40 PM

Who is in possession of WMDs is really not an issue. Many countries have had them for a long time. Iraq doesn't seem to have any (that could be found, anyway). Saddam Hussein is no longer the ruler of Iraq. The USA is still there. And it seems it won't be leaving anytime soon. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:43 PM

"Hey, it is good enough for the Clintons and for Kerry- so why not?"

I think you know why not.

But my point is this: you asked for proof from a reliable source that Bush lied; you got the proof, and now you dismiss it as ok because Clinton did it. What's *your* point?

clint