Interesting
 

I could be wrong, but I think that you may not like the answer to this question.

eta: Not only could I be wrong, apparently I was. A quick google search reveals that Reagan pulled ahead after he died -- a 2003 CNN/USA Today poll gave Clinton the lead, but it looks like Reagan won a Gallup one this year. Mea culpa.

Interesting
 

Where did she get her intelligence*?


*not interested in starting a Nature vs. Nurture debate

Interesting
 

Oh, and you watch H&C. You are not capable of objective thought.

Interesting
 

This approach assumes that there was a great President in our lifetime. I'm a little disppointed in you, Hank. One generally doesn't see this sort of sloppy reasoning in your work. Is everything okay at home?

Interesting
 

Bill? He said all of the same, including signing the "take out sadaam law" in the late 90s. Since he never signed a "take out bin Laden" law, we can only assume he saw SH as a greater threat than OBL.

Interesting
 

Oh, you mean all those quotes Fox has been running of Clinton in early '98? The ones before Clinton ordered strikes that took out SH's last remaining WMD capacity?

Interesting
 

I'm not even going to try and explain to you why what you just said is ignorant. For simplicity, just imagine a plant that is bombed. Do you think its contents are pulverized? Bombing alone doesn't destroy the ability, nor the stockpile, certainly not the stockpile.

No, I take pen to paper here today to engage you on a dumber level, so you can understand- IF BILL KNEW HE DESTROYED WHY THE FUCK WOULD HILLARY NOT KNOW IN '02?

I know that didn't "communicate" on a conjugal plane, but they not even talk?

Interesting
 

Um, 4 years had passed between that time, and Hillary had been reading more recent NIE reports?


Sigh. Let's face it, Hank. This is very B-team. Where are the smart people today?

Interesting
 

Penske left.

Interesting
 

When properly medicated, penske was a valuable contributor. But I wasn't really thinking of him.

The Democrat spin meisters have done a very good job of turning black into white. You have to appreciate their skill.

What is annoying, is when the liberals on this board buy the spin. And it gets even more annoying when they expect us to also be duped by the spin.

Lets just clear a few things up.

Clinton lied under Oath.

The Democrat spin meisters have repeated over and over again that the Republicans were upset about Clinton's lies because THEY WERE ABOUT SEX. That is a fabrication. The Republicans were upset because CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH. And he lied about stuff that was directly relevent to the case.

It was the ulimate straw man argument, because the spinmeisters keep saying that it is ridiculous for the Republicans to get upset about Clinton lying about sex. However, it is the classic misdirect becasue the Republicans never cared that he lied about sex. They cared that he lied under oath. You can tell they are being disengenous because when they talk about it they never say "lied under oath about sex". The Democrats will never say it is ridiculous that someone cares that he "lied under oath". They never say it because they know lying under oath is a serious problem. I saw Kerry on TV last night say that all Clinton did was lie about sex. Again: he would never say "lied under oath". Until people on this board start saying he "lied under oath" you know they are full of it when they talk about this issue.

Bush lied

Now when it comes to Weapons of mass destruction, the spin meisters keep repeating Bush lied. They have twisted the idea that Bush misjudged the intelligemnce to Bush lied. They have repeated it so much people believe it. But Bush did not lie. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush may have made a bad judgement, but there is absolutely no evidence that he lied. But because the spin meisters keep repeating it people have accepted it as true.

Can anyone show me any evidence that the what is say below is not true:

1) Clinton lied UNDER OATH in a federal court proceeding about facts that were directly relevent to the case.

2) There is no evidence that Bush lied when he said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

3) If Bush had lied, it was not under oath, and every president in the twentieth century has lied to the American people. Especially when it comes to national security.

this is why you make the big bucks Spank! In one deft swipe you show all these dims that they're truly misguided. Penske and i have both been trying to do this for years on this very topic, but all our hundreds of posts would not distill down to the power of this one pointed arrow. I bet we don't see SHP or SS post here again for a week, and then they'll dodge this target like they had never raised it.

1) What lie of Clinton's are you talking about? And what federal court proceeding? The Paula Jones case, or the Starr grand jury? These are serious questions.

2) To me, it's not the general "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" line. It's more the innuendo that SH/Iraq had something to do with 9/11. And the 16 words in the State of the Union Address. And the statements by Rummy that "we know where the WMD are." And by Cheney that "there's no doubt" that SH has WMD.

3) Perhaps true. And when it turns out well (FDR), he's forgiven. When it doesn't (LBJ "we won't send American boys to fight for Asian boys" and Nixon "I have a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam") . . .

I'm not a Clinton apologist, but I'll tell you what I think. Clinton lied under oath. Absolutely. People brush it off b/c the substance of his lie was trivial - is that right or wrong? It's very wrong that he lied under oath. However, people didn't really care, since no one got hurt - I think that's how most non-politicians saw it.

However, Bush misled the country into believing that 9/11 = Saddam and that Saddam was an imminent threat to the USA, which he used to support his war in Iraq. People got hurt. MANY people. Iraqis, American soldiers, etc. There is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that this administration intentionally attempted to make a connection b/w Saddam and 9/11, which absolutely disgusts me. It's abhorrent. Exploiting 9/11 to build a case for war is beyond repugnant. It's a slap in the face to this entire country. Is misleading a country into an unnecessary war worse than lying under oath? In my opinion, yes. Every day of the week.

Interesting
 

New.

Board.

Motto.

!!!