nails in the coffin - Page 2

JavaBrewer · JavaBrewer's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Gary, they can but it seems that certain people on this forum feel that if W picks his nose that its a cardinal sin, while if Clinton dicks the entire WH staff (while being married I might add) that its just fine.

If someone says that they could care less what Clinton did while lying to the entire world but has their feathers ruffled by the above situation with Bush, then I could care less about their opinion because they are going after the party and the person at the head of the party and not being objective in their morals. Clinton and other Presidents did not always tell the truth and if we all admit it and realize this its a bit easier and more fair.

For me I would much perfer Bush as a President. Clinton was just too slimey, but then he was a lawyer. Bush is not perfect but he is a moral man, loves and sticks with his wife and I feel that he is trying to do what is right for this country. Not everyone feels the same way but thats their right.

Joe A

Great post Joe. Agree 100%.

speeder · speeder's Garage

The idea that people would support an incompetent and corrupt administration because of a perception that the President "sticks to his wife" is incomprehensible to me and a lot of other people.

And of course we have no idea what his relationship w/ his wife really is, though I'll agree that it looks good in public. Politics at that level is all theatre, but I would expect you guys to know that.

My feelings when Clinton denied having sex w/ "that woman" were that he was lying, but it was about sex, for chrisakes! And he doing a phenomenal job of leading the country at the time, so as bad as it was it had to be kept in perspective. I can see that there is a fundamental divide in the country w/ certain red state Republicans expressing outrage over the immorality of Clinton cheating on his wife, me I could not give 2 schits. Most of the people in our ally countries feel as I do, but I understand that there is a puritanical streak in much of the U.S. population, (bible belt??), that would rather see an absolutely incompetent and dishonest leader who presumably only sleeps w/ his wife.

(Like Bush could pull off an affair, it would be front page the next day. This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight).

Anywho....... it's a divide.

rrpjr · 09-30-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speedkillz
Lil "W" just got caught again...this time it's his two boys Rove and Cheney. Seems that Ms. Miller named Libby, Cheneys chief of staff as the person that leaked CIA operatives names...

This is a misrepresentation of events. Miller capitulated when faced with additional contempt charges and confirmed the names she was given consent to name a year ago. Libby and Rove gave general waivers to Miller and Marc Cooper a long time ago, which Miller's former attorney Floyd Abrams acknowledges. Further, there was no violation of the law in question (the Intelligence Identities Protection Act).

This was a straw issue raised by the NY Times and the phony martyr Miller. They both lost hugely.

speedkillz · 09-30-2005, 07:36 PM

Dear Joe,
attacking me...calling me out...I said nothing to deserve that.
Yes, I will miss the meeting In Vegas. Not because I have no Balls. Frankly Im happy talking with Conservatives about any issues. This is about what "W" said on National T.V. And my question is will he have the balls to fire the person responsible... in your opinion does he??? my statement must have ruffled a few of the fight or flight feathers.

speeder · speeder's Garage

I'll be there, Joe. You can beat me up in his place, but I think that you are over-reacting a little.

Joeaksa · 09-30-2005, 08:18 PM

Denis,

Figured you would and we can share beers and chew the fat over politics until the night is young. How about arm wrestling?

If I am not flying on the other side of the world will make sure I am there!

BTW, Every frigging administration is corrupt. If you ever figure out a way to end it, I will support and vote you into office but until then they are all alike, just wave a different flag. The sooner we all figure this out the better.

Craig,

You are the one who mentions "he does not have the balls" in your post and there are a few of us who feel that Bush needs a wheelbarrow to carry them around in, so we will not agree on this subject.

I did not "call you out" as you say. If I told you I would see you on the street corner in Alta Loma CA tomorrow, then thats being called out. I did say that I hoped that you would be in Vegas where we could talk in person and Denis did not take it in a bad vein, so why are you all perturbed all of a sudden?

You want to focus on Bush and forget that the President before him was in many peoples mind a lot worse. For you past history seems to not be important, yet what happened in the last 3 months with the current President is live or die. No one can have it both ways and its not going to happen here.

When you want to compare President to President, lets go, otherwise it aint gonna happen. Thank God there are an equal number of conservatives to liberals on this forum!

JoeA

PS I will say this face to face with Denis and bet he counters it right away. I am not posting anything that I would not say to someone standing right next to me. The internet does not make me braver...

creaturecat · 09-30-2005, 08:28 PM

putting national security at risk = denying a blowjob. - get serious.

Mulhollanddose · 09-30-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by creaturecat
putting national security at risk = denying a blowjob. - get serious.

What was Sandy Bergler stealing from the National Archives?...Do you think it had anything to do with Able Danger?

I do.

arcsine · 09-30-2005, 08:59 PM

I will pose the question again since we have again resorted to "he was a bigger jerk" responses: "What relevance is it what Clinton did with his dick when we are speaking of W and his response to the leak of information"?

So, Clinton was a jerk in how he dealt with the "sexual intercourse" issue. Fine. Great. Let's move on. It has no bearing in the discussion of the illegal disclosure of classified information, the finding that the disclosure came from well up in the administration and what W has said he would do about it.

island911 · 09-30-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by creaturecat
putting national security at risk = denying a blowjob. - get serious.

national security!? hahahaha

Please, do tell, how that is. You don't even know what she did . . . do you?

Yet here we go . .. the libs, equating President Clintons actions with WHO's actions? Are you trying to say Bush is like Clinton, but worse? -Puh-Leeeease

You guys try too hard. This whole smear smacks of great effort to contort. It's painful to watch.

. . .. (kinda)

rrpjr · 09-30-2005, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by creaturecat
putting national security at risk = denying a blowjob. - get serious.

I entirely agree. Bill Clinton’s derelictions on national security far outweighed his merely bothersome denials of fellatio.

And according to a new book, “Losing bin Laden,” by Richard Miniter, the two events are not entirely disconnected.

Clinton had 12 chances to catch bin Laden. He missed every one.

In addition, he brushed off the Sudanese when they had a chance, chose non-retaliation to the Cole attack, initially refused to believe the World Trade Center was bombed, and otherwise responded to international terrorism with an “indifference, inaction and impotence” that produced the lowest ebb of moral in anti-terrorism in history. Also, according to Miniter, the cumulative effect of his failures was, essentially, to “create” bin Laden as a powerful and influential figure.

Indeed, Clinton’s wretched excesses distracted him from these national security obligations.

Clinton also gave the back of his hand to the United Arab Emirates, who had a bead on bin Laden and were interested in a state visit in return. Clinton refused. The reason: he was too busy fundraising against Bush for the 2000 election.

In 1999, the Afghanistan Northern Alliance nearly killed bin Laden in a vehicle. The response from the Clinton Administration? A lecture on the ethics of war.

Clinton killed a CIA urgent request for more Arabic translators to work on tracking bin Laden.

Further burnishing his national security image, Clinton authorized classified technology sales to China in exchange for campaign donations, and had a favors-for-donations policy with China through various back-channel proxies.

Miniter also totally refutes the assertion that the CIA ever funded bin Laden to begin with. A “hoary myth,” he calls it, without substantiation.

arcsine · 09-30-2005, 09:27 PM

I will exasperatedly give up now. Good luck guys.

911pcars · 10-01-2005, 12:56 PM

I predict:

Bush will acknowledge what Libby did, then announce a WH investigation. There will be some headlines. A very short time thereafter, he will nominate O'Conner's replacement on the Supreme Court and Libby/Miller/Plame will be relegated to page 34.

Until Miller's announcement the other day, did anyone notice the absence of any Plame, Novak, WH-connection articles in our liberal media since the Roberts nomination? I did.

Let's keep on the subject. Clinton's transgressions are as irrelevant as Nixon's and Mao's in this context.

Sherwood

Joeaksa · 10-01-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 911pcars
Let's keep on the subject. Clinton's transgressions are as irrelevant as Nixon's and Mao's in this context.

Sherwood

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Glad that we do not all share the same opinion.

JoeA

EdT82SC · 10-01-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeaksa
I am sure that this is way different from another President telling the world that "I did not have sex with that woman" then trying to hide behind the defination of "what is is"...

Am sure that all of you were jumping up and down saying that he was wrong at this time as well??? Not defending what happened nor who talked but would love to know your feelings on Clinton lying to us.

Yea right....

JoeA

Joe, let me get this right. Are you saying that because Clinton commited a crime that it is OK for individuals in the current administration to commit crimes?

By that logic since O.J. killed his wife it should be OK for all former pro quarterbacks to kill their wives too. That would only be fair, right?

BTW, Clinton was prosecuted for lying under oath, and plead guilty to the crime, and was punished under the terms of a plea bargain agreement. I would like to see the crimes the crimes of this administration prosecuted as well.

lendaddy · 10-01-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speedkillz
Just one more sound bit taken out of context.... I'm sick of it. I'm waiting for the spin doctors to say he never said that ...he meant if .......and if.... and if....insert foot in mouth here.

The truth is the truth regardless of your sub-par comprehension skills. I wish I could help you with that but I fear I cannot.