BS: Hillary Clinton?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 05:54 PM

So right, Bobert.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 06:26 PM

Excellent, pdc!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 06:45 PM

And lastly, I never met a woman that liked a good ol' fashion war!?!?!?...

Guess ya'll never hearda Missus Thatcher, ner Golda Meir thun, hey?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 07:30 PM

Bobert, Bobert, Bobert. If you have a woman who has her "time of the month," (what a quaint old-fashioned gentleman-coward phrase), she'll get over it in a couple of days. What do you think she's going to do, push the red button?

Most women who run for president will be past that age anyway, so don't worry your little head about it any more.
Many women don't have a problem with "that time of the month."

Now, men.
Men have drinking problems, generally, and not just at certain times of the month.
Men have problems with this little thing called macho image.
Men have problems with testosterone.

Male leaders have pissing contests with other male leaders.

Women are generally far more peaceful, and just plain nicer than men.

Shall I go on?

Hello?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 07:44 PM

I was relaxing after a gig this summer and, while flipping around the channels, came across the end of a Chris Rock stand-up routine. Never been much of a fan of his, but he was saying some pretty funny stuff in this one. To paraphrase part of it...

"Guys, if you want to get in good with your woman, memorize this line:

Baby, that bitch don't know who she's dealin' with!"

`cause guaranteed there is some woman at work or her club or whatever that she just CANNOT get along with. Guys, we'd take it outside, duke it out then probably go for a beer afterwards and work it out that way. But women will forever be backstabbin' and cuttin' down and gettin' all tore up about every little thing with that other woman..."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 07:51 PM

And you believe every single thing a comedian says! Men.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:06 PM

I thought it was funny because it's sooooooooo true.   ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:20 PM

GUEST, pdc:

That's exactly what I was sayin in the first place... Hey, no woman in the world can hang in a "pissing contest" with a man. No, that ain't in the Bible but it sure 'nuff in Bridgeman's Anatomy book... Jus' further everdince that womenz ain't 'spozed to do nuthin' but have babies, cook and drive the kids to soccer. An' that is in the Bible, I'm sure...

So you all womenz that got any presidental amitions, firget it... We men are doing a fine job running the joint...

You all got it, yet????.......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:26 PM

Chances are very good that Hillary isn't bothered by "that time of the month" anymore. Now she's invincible, into the truly wise and powerful period of a woman's life. You need to listen to Christiane Northrup talk about the modern rendition of "crone."

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:40 PM

Yeah, SRS, it's that great thing called menpause where the mood swing is every danged day rather than jus' one a month... More Bridgeman's Anatomy...

BUt thank you fir bringin' that up... I almost forgot that last little piece in my letcher on why the womenz should jus' stay home and let the boys fight it out... Hey, its worked since Ally Opp, ain't it?

Any other pinko commie feminists want a piece of Professor Bobert's butt on this subject? Didn't think so...

Hey, I likes womenz jus fine... Ahhh, my mom is a womenz... 'an some of my best friends is womenz... Heck, my wife is a womenz so lets not make this all personal an' all... You all jus' do what yer 'sposed to 'cause we menz got it handled....

Hey, why'd God make *us* first anyway... See, jus' further proff that we got everything unner control... Now break it up... Nuthin' to see here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:57 PM

Bobert, you of the quaint accent and little brain:

If men are so good at running the world, and if they've been running it in all cultures for millennia, why is the world in the disastrous shape it is?

I believe it's time for women to take over, and as usual, clean up the mess than men have made. There will be a good place in it for men like you -- we will need people to lift heavy things, for instance. For reasonable men, we will be happy to share the burden of leadership with you, which is more than you've ever done for us.

And SRS, your crone comment was right on the money. That's a beautiful old word that was distorted for too long.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 09:11 PM

Well, pdc, I wouldn't go throwin' the *Big D* word around. As in disastrous, when the *little d* word is more accurate. Yeah the joint could us a little *dustin'* and maybe some new curtains...

Geeze, see what I mean, boys???... We go an start a few danged wars and smoke up the neighborhood with our SUV's and this is what we gotta listen to... I'm tellin' ya that if we let the womenz run the joint we ain't gonna have no more fun...

And, pdc, what accent? Yer the one talkin' funny....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 09:25 PM

Yeh. I have a friend originally from Colorado and he drives fast and comfortably on ice, snow, driving rain- you name it. It's his contention that *if* something unexpected should pop up, he'll take care of it, no problem. Twice we have almost been hit, once close enough that we had to take to the grassy median. He doesn't understand why I won't ride with him anymore. True enough- he took care of it- but I'd rather drive defensively, not to say, wisely.

It's kind of analogous to how well men have been doing in this latest administration. Sure, if something unexpected should happen - someone doesn't respond in the manner projected, so that a 'small' nuke is set off, or someone is assassinated (hey! That wasn't supposed to happen!) or the economy is driven to its knees or global warming symptoms reach a critical phase- Sure, they'll take care of it. Right!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 09:35 PM

Right on, Ebbie. All I want for Christmas is an across-the-board 10% reduction of testosterone in world leadership. No, 20%.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 11:23 PM

Well gol-danged, boys, men!!!... These is fightin' words... Hey, we don't have to take this abuse...We're men, dang-it, an' men do stupid stuff, gals! Get over it... Yeah, we *like* to blow stuff up.... 'An we *like* to drive on the ragged edge... An' we *like* our little wars... Shoot, we ain't tellin' you all how to make no biscuits 'er how to get grass stains outta the knee parts of the kids pants, are we??? Huh, yeah, didn't hink you all would have noanswer fir that one!!! Ha... An' what the heck is wrong with testosterone, anyway? We happen to *like* it too. Makes us wanta scratch and spit. You know, men type stuff that *every* president since GW did!!! Yeah, spittin' an' scratchin' is what made America great!!! You all gonna tell me that Hillary Clinton can do that??? Hmmmm??? Strike that last question.... I mean, yer average womanz ain't into no spittin' 'er scratchin' and that's my point... But menz, now, they born to do it...

An' while I'm at it, whats with this big toilet seat conspiracy you all got going against us menz, anyway???... Don't take no more effort to put it down than to put it up... But, hey, since you all has been good sports about not wantin' to be president we figgured that the least we could do was to capitulate on this one thing but now you go running Hillary an' the deal is off... Right, guys? We can only be pushed so far....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 11:50 PM

Christ...I can't figure out if they're taking you seriously or not, Bobert. Look, you wanna join the Young Republicans and get out there and kick ass? I figger it's time we all started livin' up ta the great egzample thet John Waybe set back in thuh days when America was still America and women, Injuns, and wetbacks knew their place!

(that oughta do it...) (or else it'll cause a "nukular" meltdown out thar amongst them liberal feminist commie types...)

Whew! Where's mah case of Coors!??

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 09:51 AM

Danged friggin' right, Little Hawk... Looks like them boyz is having more fun over there. Heck, they get to sit 'round scratchin' an' spittin' an' drivin' their SUV's an' havin' their wars an' do you think for one minute they gotta grind up no gray matter doin' it? Heck no, they don't. Get all their political positions right off the bumper stickers form their neigbors pickup trucks... Now, that's livin' folks... An' you don't hear their womenz whinin' 'bout wantin' to do no presidentin', no sir... This is waht America is all about... It's right there in the Bible, Little Hawk...

An' I'll tell you somethin else 'bout joining the Republicans... Yer always gonna be in the winner's circle on Election Day... Hey, they got it all rigged up... Who cares as long as we can stand in the winners circle with them flashbulbs a'poppin' and all, right? That's what I mean... Shoot, you think yer gonna stand in a winner's circle with a bunch o' danged womenz? Heck no, you ain't... All they do is a bunch of "he said, she said stuff" that you can't hardly keep up with... An; you try to get 'em to talk about Stroker Ace 'er Fireball Smith 'er football an' they just go an' ignore yer sorry butt...

You want a president that cares more about kids and gosip than car racin' and football?!?!?... Heck, no!!!

An' worser yet, if them womenz takes over they still gonna make us put the danged toilet seat down... There just ain't no danged justice... Yep, if fir no other gol-danged reason in the world to keep the womenz out the White House, other than as First ladies, then that one alone shoud be enough!!!...

Danged, Iz gettin' ill as a sore tailed cat..

Where do I sign up, Dougie???...

Danged...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 11:03 AM

Holy Moley, Bobert -- I think your West Ginny slide rulle done overheated of late!! Mebbe yore suffrin' from that there sleep DEPrivation thang I heard about? I recommend a long rest and then go confess to the PVine 'bout the things you been writin' here and ask her to forgive you. Otherwise, you'll be wearing your grass stains and skidmarks until they dress you up for the viewing! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 11:56 AM

Here I'd gone thinking that football, NASCAR and skydiving, as an evolutionary device, were a natural outgrowth, a culmination if you will, of civilization, a means for men to get that 'rush' that fighting lions and armored toughies used to give them and still live to fight and throb another day. But maybe history is circular, rather than linear, maybe it's time that we reinstitute the colosseums? Sure, it would mean more widows and orphaned children but think of the pride they would feel in their men. Facing off and fighting each other takes *real* courage.

Installing our menfolk in the proper entertainment format would free women to run the nations. Men wouldn't care- hey, they're scratchin' and spittin' and kickin' the sod to their hearts' content out there.

As for toilet seats- let's compromise. We'll *both* put down the toilet seat AND the lid. That'll let the womenfolk show off the fuzzy color-coordinated covers.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 12:47 PM

You lost me after the colosseums thing, Ebbie... Things were going good then you not only did the power grab but re-affirmed you all's anal fixations on them toilet seats seats... Hey, why don't we all leave 'em up so we can show off our purdy blue toidy water...

See whad I mean, guys. Here Ebbie tries to trick me with the gladiator thing and then slip in a little coup on the side... Hah, I say... See, womenz ain't even tricky 'nuff fir presidentin' 'cause I picked right up on that little slight of tongue... Hey, I mean lets lok at one of the great presidents of our time, Richard Nixon. What made him so great?... Well, I'll tell ya!... He was *tricky*, that's what... Even got him a handle from it: "Tricky Dick"... Now you think if we electercate Hillary Clinton that she can be in the same league as Tricky Dick??... Answer me that one, womenz... No, don't... I'll tell ya... Heck no she can't... Why, she...

Opps, gotta go. I hear the P-Vine comin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 01:07 PM

BOBERT!!! REPENT AND CONFESS!!!! TELL THE P-VINE ALL!!! Only the TRUTH can save you now, Bobert!!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 01:14 PM

LOL I love 'slight of tongue', Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 05:37 PM

You don't have to date her. Just elect her! Why she's so unpopular with some is because she's tough. That's one thing that a real prez
could use. If Bill gets back in inadvertently, it wouldn't be a bad thing. He did keep our budget from going out of control and gave us a surplus as well as jobs. The economy under his watch was boosted.
Now, the Radical Right has cooked the books. Their numbers don't add up. "Fuzzy math" has turned out to be "crooked math" in the Bush administration.

I could think of worse than Hillary for the White House. I appreciate that she is one of the real advocates for children.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 05:42 PM

I thought that Hillary showed real class when Bill was caught dipping his wick--or cigar, depending on who ya choose to believe. She definitely wants political power; beyond that, I don't know a heckuva lot about her, so I'll be quiet now.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 06:17 PM

Hillary Clinton was foremost among the Democrats who agreed with the Bush decision to bomb Iraq just like all of the other Democrats. This means she is just as guilty as any Republican. Name me one noteworthy Democrat who stood up one year ago and really challenged Bush?

I don`t like Bush, but all the Democrats were cowards and not one of them deserve to become president. It`s a little too late now to voice disagreement with the Bush administration.

Hillary on the other hand is quite an actress and her going to Iraq one day after the cowardly Bush visit simply highlights how farcical and cynical American politics have become. There is simply no level to which any of them will not stoop to win favour with the electorate.

In closing, I would not claim that I don`t feel Hillary has been dishonest, but anyone who had kept pace with Time Magazine during her husband`s tenure as president would surely been aware that she was certainly most devious.

When I see that an Austrian called Schwarzenegger can become governor of one of American`s most important states, I`m afraid that it is very difficult to take Americans seriously any more.

In other words, I now firmly believe, Bush will be re-elected, and this time with a legal majority.

JB



Vote in Bush again if you want, there doesn`t seem to be anyone or anything better out there anyway.

JB

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 06:36 PM

Well, danged...

(sniff...)

Too late, Amos... I got caught and so now the P-Vine says I gotta come here and say "Sorry, Hillary. You'd be a great President."

So, ahhhh (the Bobert looks down as his feet as if they made him write this stuff...)...(ahhh, sniff..)... sorry, Hillary...

(Sniff...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 06:56 PM

JB, how does Hillary Clinton rank as 'foremost' in a group? Might that mean that in your mind she stands out- because she is female?

"Hillary on the other hand is quite an actress and her going to Iraq one day after the cowardly Bush visit simply highlights how farcical and cynical American politics have become. Clinton's visit was scheduled, ya idjit, while Bush's was not. You got it backasswards. I do believe that part of the reason Bush went to Iraq was in order not to be shown up.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 07:44 PM

A wise woman once said, "The only thing women have in common is their distrust of other women."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 08:45 PM

I'm baaaackkkk! Whew, that was a close one but the P-Vine has gone to bed so.......

Ahhhhh, actually, in spite of my little tangent, I'd take just about anyone over the current Resident. I think Hillary, though a Dem, has done a credible job as both a First Lady and a Senator... I respected the way she took on *health care* as a First Lady even though it was a forgone conclusion that the mediacl and pharacudical lobbies were gonna stone her. And they did...

And I've admired the way she has stepped into the Senate and, while being respectfull of the a**holes in the Senate, has taken tough positions on most of the important cuases. She di get caught up in the Iraq Resolution trap, however, but so did a lot of folks who weren't particularly interested as being branded a terrorist for not going along with Bush on every danged thing the idiot wanted...

So there, I've come clean on this one... but it sure was fun (and easy) talking like a knothead... Don't require any thought at all...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 09:44 PM

"but it sure was fun (and easy) talking like a knothead... Don't require any thought at all..."

Great line, Bobert!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 10:11 PM

JB, that was a load of tripe you unloaded in the thread. Are we to get the idea that you don't like Hillary? That's fine. But your fabrications make your argument laughable.

Ol' George Dubya saw that he was going to be one-upped by Hillary and another Democratic representative, who were making an announced and orderly visit to Afghanistan AND Iraq, and he had to race over there in Air Force One and try to steal her thunder. She didn't sneak in under cover of darkness--it took a lot more balls to go in and have the world know where she was and leaving herself far more vulnerable than Dubya ever was, copping a quick feel of the place and heading out after the photo-op with the tray of turkey.

One had to ask "which is the REAL turkey in this photo?"

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 10:54 PM

Where have you been all this time, JB? Keeping your head where the sun doesn't shine?

Name me one noteworthy Democrat who stood up one year ago and really challenged Bush?

Patty Murray, Democrat, Senator from Washington State. On the day before the Congressional vote, she delivered a powerful speech to Congress (broadcast nationwide) against giving Bush war powers. Since then, several vicious stories have been circulating about her, including a PhotoShopped picture (head cut-and-pasted in) of her playing a guitar, surrounded by tough looking men in Arab garb. Several prominent Republicans have called her a traitor, and a number of blatant lies about her are being circulated by supporters of two Republican candidates in Washington State who plan to run against her for her seat in the Senate.

Jim McDermott, Democrat, Representative from the 43rd Congressional District, Washington State. Went to Iraq prior to the war, assessed things for himself, then delivered several speeches to Congress and around the country opposing the war and opposing Bush's domestic policies. Republicans savagely attack McDermott continuously, and many keep repeating that he is a traitor.

These are only two of many. And apart from the firm stand they took (and continue to take), the spiteful and malicious response to their stand is indicative of the ethical standards of the Republican Party.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 02:31 PM

Not to mention Robert Byrd. Read his speech, JB, and then get back to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 04:49 PM

Mah main man, Robert Byrd! I'm proud to have him as my Senator! He's got alot of courage. And the boy has come a long ways since his days as a KKK symphathizer, 'er whatever he's accused of having been. The operative word here is "been"...

Reckon I'll have to vote for him next time around.... I swaer I didn't have a clue he had it in 'em but when the chips are down, you learn alot about a man....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 06:30 PM

(Emphases mine- Ebbie)

US Senator Robert Byrd - Senate Floor Speech
We Stand Passively Mute
Wednesday 12 February 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time.

The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter.

And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed.

The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

*In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.

*This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under-funding scores of essential programs for our people.

*This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth.

*This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.

*This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security.

*This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

*In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill.

*This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.

*This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper.

*This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer-found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.

Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces.

This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq.

In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife.
*Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future?
*To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein?
*Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal?
*Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
*Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession?
*Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and make proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.

Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq - a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 - this chamber is silent.

On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history."

In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country".

This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 06:46 PM

"war must always be a last resort, not a first choice"

Yes, if one is wise and interested in pursuing peaceful coexistence...

No, if one is an arrogant aggressor bent upon conquest amd plunder. War is the FIRST choice of an aggressor who believes he has the power to win, easily and decisively.

Hitler made "pre-emptive" attacks on various nations too. Senator Byrd was quite right to be as concerned as he was with the USA's pre-emptive strike on Iraq, and its effect upon World order.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 07:22 PM

War is an early option to those whose goals are empire of matter. It should never be an early choice to those who prefer the empire of the mind. That is the big difference that Bush's brown-shirts don't seem to get.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Peg
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 07:45 PM

um, how does the election of Schwarzeneger reflect on ALL Americans?   How does ANY election result do this?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 08:28 PM

Thanks, Ebbie, for posting Senator Byrd's speech. After reading it, I am prouder than ever to live in West Virginia. Yeah, we maye be the poorest state but we certainly are wealthy to have Senator Byrd....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 08:30 PM

I agree with you, Bobert. A few more politicians like that and we can once again be proud Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 02:01 AM

Is this bloke Byrd Republican or Democrat? If a Democrat, should he be ahead of Hilary?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: kendall
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 08:44 AM

Peg, another republican in a state house is a help to the current buch of thieves to get elected.(Maybe for real this time)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Peg
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 09:49 AM

Kendall, my comment was in response to the person who thought the election of Arnie in California was somehow reflective of the position of ALL Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 03:13 PM

Sorry Ebbie if you feel I am an idjit, you might actually be right, however I would like to present my case:

I don`t feel I actually got it „backasswards" as you so „endearingly" put it. Perhaps one reason might be that I, as an Irishman living in Germany mainly have access to the German media. The news here was presented in such a way as to indicate that your President made a sudden visit to Iraq to boost the morale amongst the soldiers on Thanksgiving day and Hilliary made a flying visit on the following day to outdo Mr. Bush. Personally I feel that both of them stink as one way or the other it all reeks of cheap politics. Besides I have never ever trusted anywone (male or female)yet who writes books while still in active office. Surely there must be an ulterior motive here somewhere.

As to the question why I used the word " 'foremost', that is simply and solely because this woman /Hilliary) so yearns to become the President of your country in 2008 that she is literally pushing herself into the limelight as if she were the no. 1 canidate. In fact her visit to Iraq will in no way have served any of the other Democratic candidates. On the contrary, it merely highlights the fact that she is actutely aware that the current panel of Democratic candidates are very pale in comparison and haven`t a hope in Hell of getting elected. In other words Hilliary has her eyes set on the bigger loot in 2008 and is already throwing shapes.

Contrary to what you "Don Firth" stated that Mrs. Clinton`s powerful speech to congress about being against giving Bush special war powers, I can only once again tell you what I saw and heard on Germany`s primary national TV staion ARD. In no way did she really criticize or admonish Bush for attacking Iraq without a real UNO mandate, on the contrary she stated that this was the only way to go and tried to play the cunning, deceitful and clever politician`s game of not taking up any real position. In other words, the war was wrong but for Heaven`n`s sake do not criticise the Americans or Bush for going to war.

The woman is a calculated strategist who really wants butter on both sides of her bread. In Ireland we say "Run with hare and hunt with the hound"

I must admit that the Robert Byrd speech was sublime, but is Robert Byrd a Democraic Presidential candidate? Unfortunately I think not!

If however, there are real voters out there who genuinely oppose BUSH for what he is, his failed foreign policy and disastrous domestic policies. then please allow me to stand corrected and I will join hands with you all in hoping for a new change of government.


Sincerely

JB

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 03:37 PM

a funny one, Robert Byrd...on the right (as in 'left') side of many issues, a historian of great depth and knowlege, an eloquent speaker from the old school, a parlimentarian without equal....yet one of the most shameless and accomplished stuffers of the Pork Barrel in Senate history! West Virginia is dotted with courthouses and projects that 'could' have fed hungry people in many other states..He embodies the best and worst of political realities in one amazing mix.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 03:54 PM

GUEST,JB, your really need to read things more carefully. You say

"Contrary to what you "Don Firth" stated that Mrs. Clinton`s powerful speech to congress about being against giving Bush special war powers. . . ."

I said nothing about Hillary Clinton delivering any kind of speech to Congress. If you had actually paid attention to what I wrote in my post of 02 Dec 03 - 10:54 PM, you would have seen that I was not talking about Hillary Clinton, I was talking about Washington State Senator Patty Murray and her powerful speech to Congress.

Do try to get things right, please.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 04:19 PM

Robert Byrd, born 1917, North Carolina, Senator from West Virginia for almost 50 years.

March 2003, on Senate floor:

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed.

Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.

Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

Robert Byrd, November 2, 2003, on Senate floor, on the Homeland Security bill:

There are a few things that I know are in it by virtue of the fact that I have had 48 hours, sleeping time included, in which to study this monstrosity, 484 pages. If there ever were a monstrosity, this is it. I hold it in my hand, a monstrosity. I don't know what is in it. I know a few things that are in it, and a few things that I know are in it that I don't think the American people would approve of if they knew what was in there...

And this is one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation I have seen in my 50 years. I will have been in Congress 50 years come January 3... Never have I seen such a monstrous piece of legislation sent to this body. And we are being asked to vote on that 484 pages tomorrow. Our poor staffs were up most of the night studying it. They know some of the things that are in there, but they don't know all of them. It is a sham and it is a shame.

We are all complicit in going along with it. I read in the paper that nobody will have the courage to vote against it. Well, ROBERT BYRD is going to vote against it because I don't know what I am voting for. That is one thing. And No. 2, it has not had the scrutiny that we tell our young people, that we tell these sweet pages here, boys and girls who come up here, we tell them our laws should have...

This is a hoax. This is a hoax. To tell the American people they are going to be safer when we pass this is to hoax. We ought to tell the people the truth. They are not going to be any safer with that. That is not the truth. I was one of the first in the Senate to say we need a new Department of Homeland Security. I meant that. But I didn't mean this particular hoax that this administration is trying to pander off to the American people, telling them this is homeland security. That is not homeland security.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 07:39 PM

To get back to a point that I raised way back in the thread - the question whether there is any constitutional impediment to Bill Clinton being elected as Vice President.

John Hardly responded "a two-term president couldn't run as VP because he couldn't constitutionally fill the presidency in the event of the death or incapacitation of the sitting prez."

But that's my whole point. There's nothing I can see in your constitution that says anything about that. (I looked it up, and gave the link in my earlier post.) It just says that someone can't be elected a third time as President. A Vice President is not elected President, even if he (or she) succeeds because of the death or resignation of the President.

Unless of course your Supreme Court decided that "elected" meant something different in this case. And I imagine the bunch who put Bush into the White House would be capable of doing whatever was necessary to suit him.

Still I'm surprised it doesn't seem to have come up in real life, especially when you've got a power hungry man like Clinton kicking his heels on the side line.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 09:35 PM

Some information missing from this thread: Hillary Clinton is on a Defense committee of some sort -- sorry I don't know the name -- and it is part of her job to go to war areas.

Senator Byrd is a Democrat, and is still trying to live down the fact that he once belonged to the Ku Klux Klan. Although he resigned many years ago, his former membership still tarnishes his image, and makes him a figure of fun for Republicans.

I'll try to get the proper name for the Defense Committee that HC is on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 09:38 PM

It's the Senate Committee on Armed Services.