[Hawkeye_a]

So... it's been about a year, right ? i dont think anythings been found. Blix and Albaradi both say the world was mislead, and now one of Bush's own has claimed that Bush n his posse had quite an agenda when they seized power.

When's the impeachment ? and...i do think what Bush told the 300+ million American, and 6+billion citizens of earth is a bit more serious than a lie to try and cover up a blow job.

I hope someone actually takes these criminals to court.

P.S.>>you can't fool the children of the revolution. I'm 23 and have seen enough war in the news and in history books. It's part of our past and i sure as hell arent gonna stand idly by and see you make it a part of our future. "premption" ? you deserve to serve a life in prison for using that as justification for war.

[eklipse]

Here moki, moki, moki.....here boy!

moki?......MOKI!?!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
So... it's been about a year, right ? i dont think anythings been found. Blix and Albaradi both say the world was mislead, and now one of Bush's own has claimed that Bush n his posse had quite an agenda when they seized power.

When's the impeachment ? and...i do think what Bush told the 300+ million American, and 6+billion citizens of earth is a bit more serious than a lie to try and cover up a blow job.

I hope someone actually takes these criminals to court.

P.S.>>you can't fool the children of the revolution. I'm 23 and have seen enough war in the news and in history books. It's part of our past and i sure as hell arent gonna stand idly by and see you make it a part of our future. "premption" ? you deserve to serve a life in prison for using that as justification for war.

as my uncle used to say:

"the fix is in"

there will be no impeachment....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Here moki, moki, moki.....here boy!

moki?......MOKI!?!

In fairness to moki, he already backped....er....explained his new position on that.

[DeathToWindows]

can't be soon enough for me.

bring me the head of the shrub. NOW i said! NOW!

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
can't be soon enough for me.

bring me the head of the shrub. NOW i said! NOW!

Nee! Nee! Nee!

There should be an age limit for the internet. Most of you would not have it.

The fix is in eh, Lerch? errr. Lerk? Wait a moment. Lerk, Lerch, The Munsters, Kerry...
The coincidence is too much.

Lerk is John Kerry.

Impeachment? Are you people on crack? Maybe they should just send Clarke to prison for purgery, and then make all his profits from his book of lies go to the victims of 9/11, or to help rebuild Iraq.

[christ]

We know now that Dubya thought that the WMD were under the desk (in the oval office?) - he has provided photos to prove it, and it is still possible that they will be found there, so stop bleating. He might have said Iraq, but any right thinking American knows that he didn't mean that.

Shame on you for not seeing the difference between an honest mistake and the pinko-commie-fag-lefty propaganda put about by all the jew-baiting, knee-jerking, projecting haters.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Nee! Nee! Nee!

There should be an age limit for the internet. Most of you would not have it.

The fix is in eh, Lerch? errr. Lerk? Wait a moment. Lerk, Lerch, The Munsters, Kerry...
The coincidence is too much.

Lerk is John Kerry.

Impeachment? Are you people on crack? Maybe they should just send Clarke to prison for purgery, and then make all his profits from his book of lies go to the victims of 9/11, or to help rebuild Iraq.

[christ]

Oh man, are you just inviting the Bush/ape picture.

But I'll rise above that.

Why is it that the mudslinging has to start? Is it so difficult to indulge in reasoned argument that we have to descend to name-calling and silly pictures?

Oh well - let normal service resume.

[nonhuman]

Has he even committed any impeachable offenses? I don't think so. Clinton lied under oath. He was guilty of purjory. That was his crime. Not lying, purjory. As far as I now, Bush has never been under any legal obligation to tell the truth and so there can't possibly be any similar grounds for impeachment. There may be other grounds, I don't know, but lying is certainly not one of them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by christ:
Oh man, are you just inviting the Bush/ape picture.

But I'll rise above that.

Why is it that the mudslinging has to start? Is it so difficult to indulge in reasoned argument that we have to descend to name-calling and silly pictures?

Oh well - let normal service resume.

I just posted that because it fit the context of ghosts post.

[daimoni]

.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Has he even committed any impeachable offenses? I don't think so. Clinton lied under oath. He was guilty of purjory. That was his crime. Not lying, purjory. As far as I now, Bush has never been under any legal obligation to tell the truth and so there can't possibly be any similar grounds for impeachment. There may be other grounds, I don't know, but lying is certainly not one of them.

Not that one person in here can prove that Bush lied either.

Silliness.

[daimoni]

.

[rambo47]

To be impeached he has to have committed an impeachable offense. Whining and crying about how evil President Bush is will not change the fact that he hasn't committed an impeachable act. Give it a rest already

[ghost_flash]

They are just upset because the former Coward in Chief is gone, and we now actually have a Commander in Chief in the Whitehouse for once in a long time.

It is quite refreshing, and I'm looking forward to another 4 years of being proud of my President.

[christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
...Coward in Chief ...

Does calling people names make you feel better about yourself?

Remember that your countrymen elected the previous President too.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by christ:
Does calling people names make you feel better about yourself?

Remember that your countrymen elected the previous President too.

I don't hold it against *them*, because they have come around and the right man is in the Whitehouse, and he will be there for another 4 years.

It pleases me that you people are so upset. It means that Bush must be doing everything right.

[daimoni]

.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Yes, the Supreme Court did come around, didn't they?

Sucks it had to come to that. Had Gore did the right thing and conceded and then NOT taken it back when he lost, the SC wouldn't have had to smack his ass back down.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
As far as I now, Bush has never been under any legal obligation to tell the truth and so there can't possibly be any similar grounds for impeachment.

So let's have a hearing, put W under oath, and make him tell us why we invaded Iraq.

Personally, I think the president *should* be under legal obligation to tell the truth. I think when you are sworn in as pres, and you take that oath, it should include telling the truth.

[christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I don't hold it against *them*

surely you mean 'us' (unless you aren't American) - wasn't it Americans that voted Clinton in? Democratically?

It pleases me that you people are so upset.

You must truly be small-minded if other people's upset pleases you.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that I am upset.

I believe that you Americans get the President that you deserve, and it amuses me that some of you appear to like it. Unlike you, I enjoy seeing people happy.

I feel sorry for you, but I feel sorrier for those within your country that you so despise, and those that have to bear the brunt of American arrogance, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, just to support you in your desire to expiate your inadequacy.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Has he even committed any impeachable offenses? I don't think so. Clinton lied under oath. He was guilty of purjory. That was his crime. Not lying, purjory. As far as I now, Bush has never been under any legal obligation to tell the truth and so there can't possibly be any similar grounds for impeachment. There may be other grounds, I don't know, but lying is certainly not one of them.

I suppose that's right, but on the other hand, I don't think there really needs to be any particular legal grounds for impeachment. He can be impeached if the Congress want to impeach him. It's not like the president can appeal it. Given that the vast majority of Congress voted for his war, somehow I doubt it's going to come up. It would be more interesting if Congress hadn't supported the war, and was of a different party - then we might really see some fun.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
So when's the impeachment gonna take place ?

Ha ha... get ready for a second term

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by christ:
surely you mean 'us' (unless you aren't American) - wasn't it Americans that voted Clinton in? Democratically?



You must truly be small-minded if other people's upset pleases you.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that I am upset.

I believe that you Americans get the President that you deserve, and it amuses me that some of you appear to like it. Unlike you, I enjoy seeing people happy.

I feel sorry for you, but I feel sorrier for those within your country that you so despise, and those that have to bear the brunt of American arrogance, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, just to support you in your desire to expiate your inadequacy.

"Small-minded"

Do you feel better when you attack people personally?

Oh, you are upset alright, and it pleases me, because the Administration is doing their job right. I am for them, and you are not.

[christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
"Small-minded"

Do you feel better when you attack people personally?

Read the whole sentence: "You must truly be small-minded if other people's upset pleases you" Not an insult, a character judgment based upon your own expression of your character.

Oh, you are upset alright

Incorrect. As I pointed out above, I am amused, not upset.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by christ:
Read the whole sentence: "You must truly be small-minded if other people's upset pleases you" Not an insult, a character judgment based upon your own expression of your character.



Incorrect. As I pointed out above, I am amused, not upset.

You still called me SMALL MINDED. A personal attack.
No. I believe you are quite upset, and will be more upset as the election nears.
It will be proven as such after the election.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion although you had to resort ot
personall attacks and character assasination in order to get your point across.

I gave my oppinion on the former President being a coward, not you, but you
had to resort to name-calling in order to persue your empty argument.

How utterly shallow and deceitful of you.

[christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You still called me SMALL MINDED. A personal attack.
No. I believe you are quite upset, and will be more upset as the election nears.
It will be proven as such after the election.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion although you had to resort ot
personall attacks and character assasination in order to get your point across.

I gave my oppinion on the former President being a coward, not you, but you
had to resort to name-calling in order to persue your empty argument.

How utterly shallow and deceitful of you.

Oooooooooooooh, who is upset now then!

Bored now

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by christ:
Oooooooooooooh, who is upset now then!

Bored now

Well, you are almost right, but as per usual, you lefties will never be right.
Again, a moment of anger for me, 4 more years of anger for you.

Satisfied.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Well, you are almost right, but as per usual, you lefties will never be right.
Again, a moment of anger for me, 4 more years of anger for you.

Satisfied.

I smell more terrorism coming...

I wonder why...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I smell more terrorism coming...

I wonder why...

Because terrorists are ignorant.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I smell more terrorism coming...

I wonder why...

because you live in Spain?

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
Ha ha... get ready for a second term

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
Ha ha... get ready for a second term

"Are you ready for a second term?" Click the pic.

[voodoo]

I think you slashdotted that movie Face Ache!

First it was a choppy stream, now I don't get any response..

[Hawkeye_a]

so he gets away by a technical/legal loophole ? i should have seen that coming knowing how it's bush we're talking about here. (ala "lets not take this to a vote cause looks liek we'll loose")

And then... whilst his own and other countrymen die due to his faults has the odasity to joke about it.

Thats class for you.

I'd be a little disappointd if no one saw what he did was wrong. Why ? the assumption was wrong, the accuzations were wrong, some 'evidence' was forged(on purpose) and it was for the most part unilateral (as opposed to using the democratic process in the U.N.)

P.S.>> quit your name calling. my point is:the CIC takes responsibility...Bush, and apparently noone else in his gang will.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
"Are you ready for a second term?" Click the pic.

LOL... Duck and Cover... ... See you in the next world...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
so he gets away by a technical/legal loophole ? i should have seen that coming knowing how it's bush we're talking about here. (ala "lets not take this to a vote cause looks liek we'll loose")

And then... whilst his own and other countrymen die due to his faults has the odasity to joke about it.

Thats class for you.

What's a even bigger class act is people using the death of others to try to smear a President so their "side" will have an political advantage.

Pathetic.

You do realize your are using the death of others as a political advantage right?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
(Most of the drivel snipped, as it isn't even worth commenting on such poorly formatted sentences and grossly mispelled words.)

I'd be a little disappointd if no one saw what he did was wrong. Why ? the assumption was wrong, the accuzations were wrong, some 'evidence' was forged(on purpose) and it was for the most part unilateral (as opposed to using the democratic process in the U.N.)

The UN failed successfully for 12 years.

I guess Clinton "Forged" the evidence of WMDs, and Dick Clarke lied all those years while working for Clinton. They had 3 opportunities to obtain Osama Bin Laden, and they were all refused. Clinton is on tape asking the Saudis to take OBL.

You want evidence? Go do some searching for yourself instead of inventing vaporous lies out of thin air. The UN is a paper tiger, as are most nations of the world. Spain allowed it's elections to be swayed by a terrorist organization (Al Queda) not ETA.

BTW: Your screen name? Hawkeye? Are you a big "Last of the Mohecans" fan, or did you watch too much M.A.S.H.?

[Zimphire]

clarke-a-dope

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/op...8%2Fdo2804.xml

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Sucks it had to come to that. Had Gore did the right thing and conceded and then NOT taken it back when he lost, the SC wouldn't have had to smack his ass back down.

and had some idiots figured out how to count votes correctly, and set up a proper voting process, we would have been spared the bushwhacking...

but, alas, 4 years after the crowning of king george by the supreme court, it won't make any difference any longer..he'll be gone before the year is over.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What's a even bigger class act is people using the death of others to try to smear a President so their "side" will have an political advantage.

Pathetic.

You do realize your are using the death of others as a political advantage right?

No, no, it's DIFFERENT when the Left does it. Can't you see?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
and had some idiots figured out how to count votes correctly, and set up a proper voting process, we would have been spared the bushwhacking...

Things were done the same way they have always been. And Bush would have still won regardless.

but, alas, 4 years after the crowning of king george by the supreme court, it won't make any difference any longer..he'll be gone before the year is over.

I have a feeling your are going to be disappointed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, no, it's DIFFERENT when the Left does it. Can't you see?

Sad part is, I don't think they even knew they were doing it too.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
clarke-a-dope

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/op...8%2Fdo2804.xml

Here it is for the lazy bones in here that won't even bother going to your link.

"In January 2002, the Enron story broke and the media turned their attention to the critical question: how can we pin this on Bush? As I wrote in this space that weekend: "Short answer: You can't."

So Enron retreated to the business pages, and, after a while, the media and the Democrats came up with an even better wheeze: how can we pin September 11 on Bush? Same answer: you can't. But that doesn't stop them every month or so from taking a wild ride on defective vehicles for their crazy scheme.

The latest is a mid-level bureaucrat called Richard Clarke, and by the time you read this his 15 minutes should be just about up. Mr Clarke was Bill Clinton's terrorism guy for eight years and George W Bush's for a somewhat briefer period, and he has now written a book called If Only They'd Listened to Me - whoops, sorry, that should be Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror - What Really Happened (Because They Didn't Listen to Me).


Having served both the 42nd and 43rd Presidents, Clarke was supposed to be the most authoritative proponent to advance the Democrats' agreed timeline of the last decade - to whit, from January 1993 to January 2001, Bill Clinton focused like a laser on crafting a brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, but, alas, just as he had dotted every "i", crossed every "t" and sent the intern to the photocopier, his eight years was up, so Bill gave it to the new guy as he was showing him the Oval Office - "That carpet under the desk could use replacing. Oh, and here's my brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, which you guys really need to implement right away."


The details of the brilliant plan need not concern us, which is just as well, as there aren't any. But the broader point, as The New York Times noted, is that "there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism".

Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.


Richard Clarke was supposed to be the expert who could make this argument with a straight face. And, indeed, his week started well. The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' "

Mr Clarke would seem to be channelling Leslie Nielsen's deadpan doctor in Airplane!: "Stewardess, we need to get this passenger to a hospital."


"A hospital? What is it?"

"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."


As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke!


I don't know how good Clarke was at counter-terrorism, but as a media performer he is a total dummy. He seemed to think that he could claim the lucrative star role of Lead Bush Basher without anybody noticing the huge paper trail of statements he has left contradicting the argument in his book.

The reality is that there is a Richard Clarke for everyone. If you are like me and reckon there was an Islamist angle to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, then Clarke's your guy: he supports the theory that al-Qa'eda operatives in the Philippines "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building".


On the other hand, if you're one of those Michael Moore-type conspirazoids who wants to know why Bush let his cronies in the House of Saud and the bin Laden family sneak out of America on September 11, then Clarke's also your guy: he is the official who gave the go-ahead for the bigshot Saudis with the embarrassing surnames to be hustled out of the country before they could be questioned.


Does this mean Clarke is Enron - an equal-opportunity scandal whose explicitly political aspects are too ambiguous to offer crude party advantage? Not quite. Although his book sets out to praise Clinton and bury Bush, he can't quite pull it off. Except for his suggestion to send in a team of "ninjas" to take out Osama, Clinton had virtually no interest in the subject.

In October 2000, Clarke and Special Forces Colonel Mike Sheehan leave the White House after a meeting to discuss al-Qa'eda's attack on the USS Cole: "'What's it gonna take, Dick?' Sheehan demanded. 'Who the s*** do they think attacked the Cole, f****** Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Does al-Qa'eda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?'"

Apparently so. The attack, on the Cole, which killed 17 US sailors, was deemed by Clinton's Defence Secretary Bill Cohen as "not sufficiently provocative" to warrant a response. You'll have to do better than that, Osama! So he did. And now the same people who claim Bush had no right to be "pre-emptive" about Iraq insist he should have been about September 11.


As for Clarke's beef with Bush, that's simple. For eight years, he had pottered away on the terrorism brief undisturbed. The new President took it away from him and adopted the strategy outlined by Condoleezza Rice in that Detroit radio interview, months before the self-regarding Mr Clarke claims he brought her up to speed on who bin Laden was: "We really need a stronger policy of holding the states accountable that support him," Dr Rice told WJR. "Terrorists who are just operating out there without basis and without state support are a lot less dangerous than ones that find safe haven, as bin Laden does sometimes in places like Afghanistan or Sudan."


Just so. In the 1990s when al-Qa'eda blew up American targets abroad, the FBI would fly in and work it as a "crime scene" - like a liquor-store hold-up in Cleveland. It doesn't address the problem. Sure, there are millions of disaffected young Muslim men, but, if they get the urge to blow up infidels, they need training and organisation. Somehow all those British Taliban knew that if you wanted a quick course in jihad studies Afghanistan was the place to go. Bush got it right: go to where the terrorists are, overthrow their sponsoring regimes, destroy their camps, kill their leaders.


Instead, all the Islamists who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s graduated from Camp Osama and were dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and North America, where they lurk to this day. That's the Clarke-Clinton legacy. And, if it were mine, I wouldn't be going around boasting about it."

Clarke has reduced his glorious career to a joke and his credability has been torn to shreds. What a sad commentary on what would have otherwise been viewed as a pretty repsectable career. Glory hound with sour grapes is how he will be remembered.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Steyn forgot an interesting question. Clarke He claims to be a registered Republican Washington Post. Therefore, we are to surmise, this cannot be a party partisan thing.

There is only one problem. He lives in Virginia. In Virginia, you cannot register by party.

So, is he lying?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Steyn forgot an interesting question. Clarke He claims to be a registered Republican Washington Post. Therefore, we are to surmise, this cannot be a party partisan thing.

There is only one problem. He lives in Virginia. In Virginia, you cannot register by party.

So, is he lying?

Funny stuff. He is a terrible Republican as he has only donated to Democrats.

He is a liar and a scoundral of the highest order.

[zachs]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Steyn forgot an interesting question. Clarke He claims to be a registered Republican Washington Post. Therefore, we are to surmise, this cannot be a party partisan thing.

There is only one problem. He lives in Virginia. In Virginia, you cannot register by party.

So, is he lying?

Actually, the article says he said that. But what he really said was this:

Is it true that you're a registered Republican, as someone told me yesterday?
Well, I vote in Virginia, and you can't register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That's the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Actually, the article says he said that. But what he really said was this:

Who cares? It is a matter of public record who donates how much and to what party.

Clarke has only donated to the Democratic Party.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Who cares? It is a matter of public record who donates how much and to what party.

Clarke has only donated to the Democratic Party.

Simey posted a link to an article that said Clarke claimed he was a "registered Republican" in an interview. I posted the link where he actually said something different. I was simply making a correction.