Re: Outrageous

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:47:55 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>In article <pk64o1drhplpsn6le7gu9vdf3rn5u2is6s@xxxxxxx>,
> larry <larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Nov 2005 08:31:17 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >larry wrote:
>> >> On 18 Nov 2005 12:03:36 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >larry wrote:
>> >> >> On 18 Nov 2005 07:30:45 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> She was on the Intelligence Committee--she saw the evidence and
>> >> >> >> interviewed the sources first hand. Now you are saying she was
>> >> >> >> "taken in?" Wow! Now there is a presidential candidate....
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Larry
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >She saw the intel that was provided to the committee BY THE BUSH
>> >> >> >ADMINSTRATION. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the intelligence
>> >> >> >committees don't do their own intel gathering. Bush blames the
>> >> >> >intelligence community for providing bad intel as though it were some
>> >> >> >autonomous entity over which he had no control. The CIA is a cabinet
>> >> >> >level agency run by his political appointees.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So the Democratically appointed CIA head, George Tenet gave the House
>> >> >> and Senate purposely skewed data so they would vote for GW Bush's war?
>> >> >> Wow, is the sky blue in your world?
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't say it was purposely skewed, I said it was wrong. One of the
>> >> >reasons why it was wrong was that Cheney and Rumsfeld pressured the CIA
>> >> >into telling them what they wanted to hear.
>> >>
>> >> Another baseless irresponsible accusation-- with nothing behind it.
>> >> You WANT that to be true, but it is not. Cheney and Rumsfeld have
>> >> more class and more integrity than the entire Clinton Administration
>> >> together. Both men have been among the most highly respected
>> >> officials in Washington for 30+ years. I remember just 5 years ago
>> >> the nation, both liberal and conservative, sighed in relief when Bush
>> >> chose Cheney for VP-- because everyone knew he was capable of taking
>> >> over--he has presidential gravitas. So does Rumsfeld, who had already
>> >> completed two successful careers, highly acclaimed by both sides--and
>> >> then came out of retirement to become Bush's Secretary of Defense.
>> >> Don't you think in this highly partisan atmosphere the liberals and
>> >> their media would have been screaming that from the rooftops if they
>> >> could point to even a grain of proof?
>> >>
>> >> It is highly irresponsible to scream accusations without a basis in
>> >> fact. Like screaming "witch" at a girl with long hair.
>> >>
>> >> Of course that is what democrats DO-- which explains why they remain
>> >> out of power--in the House, in the Senate, in most governorships, and
>> >> in the White House. And that could continue for years to come because
>> >> this country correctly perceives that Democrats are irresponsible--and
>> >> NOT ready for office. You kids might say or do anything--both here
>> >> and even overseas--even with soldiers in the field and with Al Jazzera
>> >> listening and immediately rebroadcasting your every word to our
>> >> enemies; you can't be trusted.
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >
>> >Blah, blah, blah. You are all hyperbole and completely deviod of facts.
>> >Try arguing from your head. There has been a great deal of evidence
>> >presented in the press and elsewhere that Cheney and Rumsfeld leaned on
>> >the CIA to provide intel that bolstered their case. At one point,
>> >Rumsfeld was so fed up with what he was getting from Langley that he
>> >set up his own little intel shop in the Pentagon and staffed it with
>> >people who he knew shared his passion for invading Iraq.
>>
>> "There has been a great deal of evidence presented in the press" No
>> there hasn't-- there have been only interviews with unscrupulous
>> liberals on CNN and innuendo on the big 3 that purposefully suggests
>> that. Real proof of illegal influence on the CIA by the White House
>> would be explosive front page headlines-an impeachable offense!!!
>> That has not occurred. In fact even the liberal press has been very
>> careful to only suggest--They know all they have to do is suggest and
>> you libs will do the rest. And here you are touting a hint of a
>> rumor as fact.
>>
>> But you desperately want it to be true! It is sickening that MANY
>> people who should be first and foremost for their country -- are
>> obviously hoping our leaders fail--just because they are republicans.
>> You WANT our forces in Iraq to fail, the death count to climb, the
>> economy to falter, inflation to go up, the stock market go down,
>> Christmas to be gloomy, etc. etc. You want whatever hurts Bush,
>> whatever would lower his popularity and that of other republicans.
>> You would hurt this country and your fellow citizens just so you can
>> win elections and regain power. Well "beware of what you wish for,"
>> because if you regain power by pushing our current leaders down, you
>> will not enjoy ruling. Don't bother changing the furniture because
>> you won't be in office long.
>>
>> Democrats are always going to be ripe for exposure because so many
>> are crooks. Crooked is as crooked does. Your labor unions, trial
>> lawyers, "Rainbow Coalition," etc. and socialist-leaning politicians
>> actually think the end justifies the means-- So they stupidly skirt
>> the rules over and over again. As predictable as the sunrise. So we
>> will investigate tirelessly and when we discover what they did, we
>> will jail and impeach them.
>>
>> Larry
>
>But yet it seems that when it comes to which side gets the most
>indictments for being crooked, Republicans hold the current records...

Are you nuts? The Bush Administration and that of his father were
both "squeaky" clean by comparison with past administrations both
republican and democratic. Scooter Libby was endicted, but almost
nobody thinks he will go to trial, must less be convicted of a felony.
Most expect the new grand jury after Woodward's revelations is likely
considering a whole new plan--one that excludes Libby-- and there can
be no "obstruction of justice" if there was no "justice," i.e. no
crime because the lady's name was already out in the public by virtue
of "Who's Who" and her husbands NY Times OP-ED piece.

Look up the Clinton administration. MOST in his first cabinet left in
disgrace or in handcuffs. Read "Unlimited Access" to learn that many
he nominated for high office were known crooks, Web Hubbell, etc.

In general Republicans do not go into politics for the money-- most
are already millionaires-- such as John Snow, ($500 million), Bush
($50 million), Cheney ($200 million), and virtually all the White
House senior staff. Successful Republicans simply don't need the
money. They don't take bribes and they aren't corrupt-- so like
Governor Swartzenegger, there is no motive for their official actions
except pure altruism. They are doing this for us--because it needs to
be done.

As opposed to Clinton, who was making $30k annual as Governor of
Arkansas. Less than a K-mart Assistant manager. He was earning what
he was worth; he sought higher office because he NEEDED the money.
Hillary accepted the transparent bribe of $100k futures trading
profits from Tyson Chicken for the same reason...
>
>BTW, Larry, I read and read all the news I could find this weekend and
>nary a thing to clear up the Fitsgerald thing going on. Wha happened?
>More neocon blathering on your part, or were you just deluded as usual?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176229,00.html

Here is just one. All of the Sunday Morning talk shows discussed the
implications of Bob Woodwards revelations that he had revealed the
name of Valerie Plame at least a month before Novak, etc. Libby had
nothing to do with it. It is more than likely that Libby's "lie"
really is a simply slip of the memory of who said what to whom 2 years
ago. There was no perjury and there was no obstruction of justice.
Many expect Fitsgerald to drop the charges shortly--another Grand Jury
is in session and hearing testimony now.

larry
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: 655000 Iraqi dead in war
    ... from Clinton Derangement Syndrome. ... Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a disease only Republicans suffer from. ... Which then begs the question that when, with all his faults, Democrats ... sent in by the Eisenhower administration to train the South Vietnamese ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: The uses of crisis
    ... their own divisiveness (which the Republicans now seem to complain ... It's a mark of this administration so far that Obama has discouraged ... the Democrats in power against succumbing to the same bottom-sucking ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: 655000 Iraqi dead in war
    ... from Clinton Derangement Syndrome. ... Not if you think the Republicans were afflicted with Clinton ... blahblahblahCLINTONblahblahblahblahblah ... Clinton's Administration. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: greenspan
    ... And of these, the Bush ... In Kurt's knee jerk world, Al Gore, Clinton's vice president, hasn't ... participation by the developing nations.The Clinton Administration ... today's congressional Republicans and the corrupt, ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: OT: Cheney was Right and a Quagmire!
    ... But if you're still backing this administration then that's nothing ... Democrats who may replace Bush. ... The only problem is, once in office, another set of Republicans showed up ... came to work for the new President were young staffers in the Nixon ...
    (rec.woodworking)