"JohnH" <nospinzone@no-spam> wrote in message
news:u7lcfv007t2hmmre8fce8u333egn9008l0@no-spam
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:17:49 -0700, "jps" <trash@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
> The other 20 or so despots that should be removed aren't posing a threat
to us
> or to neighbors of theirs whose protection is in the best interests of the
US.
> We have to prioritize based on national interests, not on what some
parnoid
> turkey thinks.
>
In other words, "we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a despot" is just a
fall-back excuse whipped up when the
Weapons of Mass Destruction turned out to be another bald-faced lie
generated by the Great Republican Spin
Machine.
-- bostnbob
bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bd7jlg$ru2$0@no-spam
>
> "JohnH" <nospinzone@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:u7lcfv007t2hmmre8fce8u333egn9008l0@no-spam
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:17:49 -0700, "jps" <trash@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The other 20 or so despots that should be removed aren't posing a threat
> to us
> > or to neighbors of theirs whose protection is in the best interests of
the
> US.
> > We have to prioritize based on national interests, not on what some
> parnoid
> > turkey thinks.
> >
>
> In other words, "we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a despot" is just a
> fall-back excuse whipped up when the
> Weapons of Mass Destruction turned out to be another bald-faced lie
> generated by the Great Republican Spin
> Machine.
>
> -- bostnbob
>
>
Hey, bostnbob, can you honestly say that, if we find WMD's, you wouldn't say
that the republicans planted them there after the fact? - I bet my bottom
dollar that you would......Now, fess up........you would, wouldn't
you?....:^)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:22:41 -0700
bostnbob wrote:
>
> "JohnH" <nospinzone@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:u7lcfv007t2hmmre8fce8u333egn9008l0@no-spam
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:17:49 -0700, "jps" <trash@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The other 20 or so despots that should be removed aren't posing a threat
> to us
> > or to neighbors of theirs whose protection is in the best interests of the
> US.
> > We have to prioritize based on national interests, not on what some
> parnoid
> > turkey thinks.
> >
>
> In other words, "we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a despot" is just a
> fall-back excuse whipped up when the
> Weapons of Mass Destruction turned out to be another bald-faced lie
> generated by the Great Republican Spin
> Machine.
>
> -- bostnbob
I just feel grateful that they didn't have to dig down to reason 4
'saddam strangled puppies and kittens', or reason 5 'saddam failed to
follow proper maintenance schedules on his automobiles'.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message news:<zuQJa.4733$Ab2.15896@no-spam>...
> ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF7EE31.1F4F@no-spam
> > I just feel grateful that they didn't have to dig down to reason 4
> > 'saddam strangled puppies and kittens',
>
> How about, "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million people,
> including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> period?"......If that isn't reason enough, then exactly what would it take
> for you to decide to do something about it, and put some, "American kids"
> (read, soldiers) at risk?
Should be more like
"Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million people,
including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
period during which Rumsfeld did his little job as go between between
Saddam and the Head Office in Washington, and Cheney made a tidy
profit supplying Saddam with the tools he needed to get the cash to
fund his little enterprise, and now that Saddam got too big for his
britches and had to be put down like a vicious dog that finally bit
somebody a little too important to ignore, all the people who've spent
thirty years calling Saddam and his good buddies a bunch of vile
butchers are immoral if they don't cheer that the butcher's bosses
finally decided to see if they could wash the blood off their hands?"
That what you mean?
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:zuQJa.4733$Ab2.15896@no-spam
>
> ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF7EE31.1F4F@no-spam
> > I just feel grateful that they didn't have to dig down to reason 4
> > 'saddam strangled puppies and kittens',
>
> How about, "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million people,
> including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> period?"......If that isn't reason enough, then exactly what would it take
> for you to decide to do something about it, and put some, "American kids"
> (read, soldiers) at risk?
How about, "5 times that many innocent people have been hacked to death in
various African political adventures over the past 10-15 years, and our
government doesn't even blink, because we already have all the sorghum we
can use" ???
"z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306240706.1a41d6ab@no-spam
> Should be more like
> "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million people,
> including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> period during which Rumsfeld did his little job as go between between
> Saddam and the Head Office in Washington, and Cheney made a tidy
> profit supplying Saddam with the tools he needed to get the cash to
> fund his little enterprise, and now that Saddam got too big for his
> britches and had to be put down like a vicious dog that finally bit
> somebody a little too important to ignore, all the people who've spent
> thirty years calling Saddam and his good buddies a bunch of vile
> butchers are immoral if they don't cheer that the butcher's bosses
> finally decided to see if they could wash the blood off their hands?"
> That what you mean?
Exactly.
z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306240706.1a41d6ab@no-spam
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<zuQJa.4733$Ab2.15896@no-spam>...
> > ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3EF7EE31.1F4F@no-spam
> > > I just feel grateful that they didn't have to dig down to reason 4
> > > 'saddam strangled puppies and kittens',
> >
> > How about, "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million
people,
> > including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> > period?"......If that isn't reason enough, then exactly what would it
take
> > for you to decide to do something about it, and put some, "American
kids"
> > (read, soldiers) at risk?
>
> Should be more like
> "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million people,
> including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> period during which Rumsfeld did his little job as go between between
> Saddam and the Head Office in Washington, and Cheney made a tidy
> profit supplying Saddam with the tools he needed to get the cash to
> fund his little enterprise, and now that Saddam got too big for his
> britches and had to be put down like a vicious dog that finally bit
> somebody a little too important to ignore, all the people who've spent
> thirty years calling Saddam and his good buddies a bunch of vile
> butchers are immoral if they don't cheer that the butcher's bosses
> finally decided to see if they could wash the blood off their hands?"
> That what you mean?
Sure....That'll still do for my purposes........Just so long as you admit
that Saddam did all those things, so he should be put to death like any mass
murderer.......I don't care how he came to be a M.M.......Or who conspired
with him to be one. I'll leave you to worry about that.......:^)
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:542Ka.9646$Fy6.3461@no-spam
>
> z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0306240706.1a41d6ab@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<zuQJa.4733$Ab2.15896@no-spam>...
> > >
> > > How about, "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million
> people,
> > > including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> > > period?"......If that isn't reason enough, then exactly what would it
> take
> > > for you to decide to do something about it, and put some, "American
> kids"
> > > (read, soldiers) at risk?
> >
> > Should be more like
> > "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million people,
> > including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> > period during which Rumsfeld did his little job as go between between
> > Saddam and the Head Office in Washington, and Cheney made a tidy
> > profit supplying Saddam with the tools he needed to get the cash to
> > fund his little enterprise, and now that Saddam got too big for his
> > britches and had to be put down like a vicious dog that finally bit
> > somebody a little too important to ignore, all the people who've spent
> > thirty years calling Saddam and his good buddies a bunch of vile
> > butchers are immoral if they don't cheer that the butcher's bosses
> > finally decided to see if they could wash the blood off their hands?"
> > That what you mean?
>
> Sure....That'll still do for my purposes........Just so long as you admit
> that Saddam did all those things, so he should be put to death like any
mass
> murderer.......I don't care how he came to be a M.M.......Or who conspired
> with him to be one. I'll leave you to worry about that.......:^)
>
Will you agree, then, that if the charges in z's post are accurate Rumsfeld
should be fired and
Cheyney impeached?
-- bostnbob
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:542Ka.9646$Fy6.3461@no-spam
> Sure....That'll still do for my purposes........Just so long as you admit
> that Saddam did all those things, so he should be put to death like any
mass
> murderer.......I don't care how he came to be a M.M.......Or who conspired
> with him to be one. I'll leave you to worry about that.......:^)
Same as you'll leave it to us to tax the piss out (only if you're filthy
rich) of you and use the money wisely, since you don't really want to know
the truth.
Thank you very much for your business kind sir!!!
jps <trash@no-spam> wrote in message
news:sp4Ka.783$1I2.103174@no-spam
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:542Ka.9646$Fy6.3461@no-spam
>
> > Sure....That'll still do for my purposes........Just so long as you
admit
> > that Saddam did all those things, so he should be put to death like any
> mass
> > murderer.......I don't care how he came to be a M.M.......Or who
conspired
> > with him to be one. I'll leave you to worry about that.......:^)
>
> Same as you'll leave it to us to tax the piss out (only if you're filthy
> rich) of you and use the money wisely, since you don't really want to know
> the truth.
>
> Thank you very much for your business kind sir!!!
>
>
>
Knowing, "the truth" is worthless if you can't do anything about it. It's
all spilt milk now..........
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:is9Ka.13259$XG4.12203@no-spam
> Knowing, "the truth" is worthless if you can't do anything about it. It's
> all spilt milk now..........
Ooops, we just spilled some of in on a bunch of innocent Iraqis. Oh,
whoops, that was blood.
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:22:08 -0700
William Graham wrote:
>
> z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0306240706.1a41d6ab@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<zuQJa.4733$Ab2.15896@no-spam>...
> > > ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3EF7EE31.1F4F@no-spam
> > > > I just feel grateful that they didn't have to dig down to reason 4
> > > > 'saddam strangled puppies and kittens',
> > >
> > > How about, "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million
> people,
> > > including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> > > period?"......If that isn't reason enough, then exactly what would it
> take
> > > for you to decide to do something about it, and put some, "American
> kids"
> > > (read, soldiers) at risk?
> >
> > Should be more like
> > "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million people,
> > including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> > period during which Rumsfeld did his little job as go between between
> > Saddam and the Head Office in Washington, and Cheney made a tidy
> > profit supplying Saddam with the tools he needed to get the cash to
> > fund his little enterprise, and now that Saddam got too big for his
> > britches and had to be put down like a vicious dog that finally bit
> > somebody a little too important to ignore, all the people who've spent
> > thirty years calling Saddam and his good buddies a bunch of vile
> > butchers are immoral if they don't cheer that the butcher's bosses
> > finally decided to see if they could wash the blood off their hands?"
> > That what you mean?
>
> Sure....That'll still do for my purposes........Just so long as you admit
> that Saddam did all those things, so he should be put to death like any mass
> murderer.......I don't care how he came to be a M.M.......Or who conspired
> with him to be one. I'll leave you to worry about that.......:^)
ok! you really aren't a bushie, after all.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bq9Ka.13959$e26.10292@no-spam
> >
> > Will you agree, then, that if the charges in z's post are accurate
> Rumsfeld
> > should be fired and
> > Cheyney impeached?
> >
> > -- bostnbob
> >
> >
> No.....Because the, "charges" assume that these two guys knew the exact
> nature of Saddam, and could predict the future, and what he would do and
> eventually become. It's not the first time that we (the US) has been wrong
> in our dealings with other heads of state, and it won't be the last. We
have
> a policy, (perhaps ill-conceived) of betting on Peter to help us defeat
> Paul, and we are frequently wrong. Before I would call for the impeachment
> of either of these two men, you would have to prove to me that they
> intentionally chose a path that they knew would be detremental to the
> welfare of the US.......I don't believe either one of them are
> anti-Americans.........
>
Let's play a game. Let's pretend that government employees are not deities,
and that their punishments should be roughly equal to what private sector
employees face.
1) "anti-Americans": Irrelevant. Clinton was impeached for getting head in
the White House, and that's not anti-American.
2) "..knew the exact nature..": If a marketing director fails miserably when
Kraft wants him to sell a new line of shredded cheeses, he may not know the
exact nature of his competition or what they're planning. And, he will
certainly NOT know what grocery store dairy buyers are thinking (nobody ever
does). But, that excuse won't keep him from being fired, or left to rot in a
dead-end job until he leaves voluntarily.
3) ...intentionally chose a path that they knew would be detremental to the
welfare of the US... : Whether they did it intentionally or not is
irrelevant. The next step down on the ladder would be negligence and
incompetence, and that's what we're dealing with. There's history going back
to the very beginning of the 20th century which shows other players in the
Middle East getting their heads handed to them. If our people are so
arrogant as to ignore history, they need to go. Using the Kraft analogy:
"You knew that adding chopped jalopeņos to shredded cheese would increase
spoilage, and most customers told us last time we tried it that the stuff
spoiled too fast. But, you went ahead and tried it anyway...."
"Yeah, but this was me. The last guy who tried the idea was Bob...."
"Right, and he was made Director of Maintenance Services....."
Incompetence is incompetence, no matter how you look at it.
Doug Kanter at <dkanter@no-spam> says in
<_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam>:
(snipped)
> Clinton was impeached for getting head in the White House
(snipped)
Not exactly. In my present message I'm not taking sides in relation to the
unfortunate chain of events, but regardless of the peachiness of the head
that activity alone, even in the USA, would not have been cause for
impeachment.
According to the instigators of the impeachment of Bill Clinton the reason
for the impeachment was that he'd continually failed to come clean---he'd
lied---about whether any such activity had occurred.
--
Quentin Burward
Quentin Burward <quentin@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB205935.F718%quentin@no-spam
>
> Doug Kanter at <dkanter@no-spam> says in
> <_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam>:
>
> (snipped)
>
> > Clinton was impeached for getting head in the White House
>
> (snipped)
>
> Not exactly. In my present message I'm not taking sides in relation to the
> unfortunate chain of events, but regardless of the peachiness of the head
> that activity alone, even in the USA, would not have been cause for
> impeachment.
>
> According to the instigators of the impeachment of Bill Clinton the reason
> for the impeachment was that he'd continually failed to come clean---he'd
> lied---about whether any such activity had occurred.
>
> --
> Quentin Burward
Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires between
me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have been home
free. He did not have to whine, "We didn't have sex"......Had he said that,
he would have earned my respect, that's for sure.....(for whatever that's
worth....)
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
>
> Quentin Burward <quentin@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB205935.F718%quentin@no-spam
> >
> > Doug Kanter at <dkanter@no-spam> says in
> > <_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam>:
> >
> > (snipped)
> >
> > > Clinton was impeached for getting head in the White House
> >
> > (snipped)
> >
> > Not exactly. In my present message I'm not taking sides in relation to
the
> > unfortunate chain of events, but regardless of the peachiness of the
head
> > that activity alone, even in the USA, would not have been cause for
> > impeachment.
> >
> > According to the instigators of the impeachment of Bill Clinton the
reason
> > for the impeachment was that he'd continually failed to come
clean---he'd
> > lied---about whether any such activity had occurred.
> >
> > --
> > Quentin Burward
>
> Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires between
> me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have been
home
> free. He did not have to whine, "We didn't have sex"......Had he said
that,
> he would have earned my respect, that's for sure.....(for whatever that's
> worth....)
>
>
Not exactly. He was impeached for lies while under oath, in a court of law.
He was defending himself from an accusation of Sexual Harassment of an
Arkansas state employee while the gov of said state. Pee Wee Herman got
busted for having Mr. Happy out while in a dirty movie theater, Mr. Clinton
was accused of waving Mr. Happy at said state employee, telling her to suck
it. He should have been arrested by the state police in attendance and
jailed at the time. He lied and perjured himself in a court of law. Why he
was impeached, not because it got blow jobs from an employee, which would
get you fired from most public corporations. Not the fact of the BJ, but
having somebody who reports to you do the BJ.
Bill
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
>
> Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires between
> me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have been
home
> free.
Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If I'd been
Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you have
nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> >
> > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires between
> > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have been
> home
> > free.
>
> Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If I'd been
> Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you have
> nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either taking the
5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law (outside of
America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out since it
had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the prosecutions stand
point.
Liana
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:xbpKa.19328$e26.13268@no-spam
>
> Doug Kanter <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam
> >
> > Incompetence is incompetence, no matter how you look at it.
> >
> >
> And we have a process for getting rid of incompetence.....It's called the
> ballott box.....I suggest you use it in 2004.
Hey...thanks for the tip. I'm jotting a note in my day planner right now.
"z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306260746.f2b1207@no-spam
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam>...
> > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
between
> > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have been
home
> > free. He did not have to whine, "We didn't have sex"......Had he said
that,
> > he would have earned my respect, that's for sure.....(for whatever
that's
> > worth....)
>
> This do it fer ya?
>
> President Clinton's address to the nation concerning Monica Lewinsky,
> August 17, 1998
Yeah, and it only took 6 months, irrefutable proof (the stained dress), and
millions of dollars to get him to say what he should have said up front.
What a guy!
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
"Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
>
>
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > >
> > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
between
> > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
been
> > home
> > > free.
> >
> > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If I'd
been
> > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you have
> > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
>
> I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either taking
the
> 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
(outside of
> America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out
since it
> had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the prosecutions
stand
> point.
It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee. There
were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for discovery
(which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was under oath.
He could have simply answered them honestly.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
"Hooda Gest" <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
news:PuGKa.22957$3o3.1751118@no-spam
>
> It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee. There
> were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for
discovery
> (which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was under
oath.
>
> He could have simply answered them honestly.
>
With regard to Lewinsky: The name of the statute used to pursue him doesn't
seem relevant, since the reason for the pursuit was nothing but vapor.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:58:07 +0000, Hooda Gest wrote:
> It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee.
> There were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate
> for discovery (which is when they were asked) in that type of case
> and he was under oath.
>
> He could have simply answered them honestly.
I believe the judge ruled the Lewinsky affair not material. I have
never been a Clinton fan, but the Starr investigation was a
witch-hunt and damaging to the *Office* of the President. That same
Office may shortly be tested again and once again damaged.
"Quentin Burward" <quentin@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB205935.F718%quentin@no-spam
>
> Doug Kanter at <dkanter@no-spam> says in
> <_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam>:
>
> (snipped)
>
> > Clinton was impeached for getting head in the White House
>
> (snipped)
>
> Not exactly. In my present message I'm not taking sides in relation to the
> unfortunate chain of events, but regardless of the peachiness of the head
> that activity alone, even in the USA, would not have been cause for
> impeachment.
>
> According to the instigators of the impeachment of Bill Clinton the reason
> for the impeachment was that he'd continually failed to come clean---he'd
> lied---about whether any such activity had occurred.
>
Should, God forbid, GWB be elected in 2004, and Democrats at some point
during his term of office gain control of the House, the Republicans may
well
have cause to bitterly regret this and a good many other of the terrible
precedents
they set in their foul and lunatic efforts to destroy Clinton. Republican
politicians,
of all people, should have known better than to make lack of truthfulness an
impeachable offense.
-- bostnbob
-- bostnbob
"Hooda Gest" <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
news:OuGKa.22956$3o3.1750432@no-spam
>
> "z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0306260746.f2b1207@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam>...
> > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> between
> > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
been
> home
> > > free. He did not have to whine, "We didn't have sex"......Had he said
> that,
> > > he would have earned my respect, that's for sure.....(for whatever
> that's
> > > worth....)
> >
> > This do it fer ya?
> >
> > President Clinton's address to the nation concerning Monica Lewinsky,
> > August 17, 1998
>
>
> Yeah, and it only took 6 months, irrefutable proof (the stained dress),
and
> millions of dollars to get him to say what he should have said up front.
>
> What a guy!
>
How long will we have to wait to hear Bush 'fess up to his lies about the
non-
existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, which in time will cost tens if not
hundreds of billions of dollars, and hundreds if not thousands of American
servicemembers' lives?
Impeach Bush!
-- bostnbob
"thunder" <thunder@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdff6h$sceet$1@no-spam
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:58:07 +0000, Hooda Gest wrote:
>
>
> > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee.
> > There were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate
> > for discovery (which is when they were asked) in that type of case
> > and he was under oath.
> >
> > He could have simply answered them honestly.
>
> I believe the judge ruled the Lewinsky affair not material. I have
> never been a Clinton fan, but the Starr investigation was a
> witch-hunt and damaging to the *Office* of the President. That same
> Office may shortly be tested again and once again damaged.
>
Surely, however, you can't be suggesting that the importance of the issues
raised in the two cases are in any way comparable?
-- bostnbob
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:xbpKa.19328$e26.13268@no-spam
>
> Doug Kanter <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bq9Ka.13959$e26.10292@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > Will you agree, then, that if the charges in z's post are accurate
> > > Rumsfeld
> > > > should be fired and
> > > > Cheyney impeached?
> > > >
> > > > -- bostnbob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > No.....Because the, "charges" assume that these two guys knew the
exact
> > > nature of Saddam, and could predict the future, and what he would do
and
> > > eventually become. It's not the first time that we (the US) has been
> wrong
> > > in our dealings with other heads of state, and it won't be the last.
We
> > have
> > > a policy, (perhaps ill-conceived) of betting on Peter to help us
defeat
> > > Paul, and we are frequently wrong. Before I would call for the
> impeachment
> > > of either of these two men, you would have to prove to me that they
> > > intentionally chose a path that they knew would be detremental to the
> > > welfare of the US.......I don't believe either one of them are
> > > anti-Americans.........
> > >
> >
> > Let's play a game. Let's pretend that government employees are not
> deities,
> > and that their punishments should be roughly equal to what private
sector
> > employees face.
> >
> > 1) "anti-Americans": Irrelevant. Clinton was impeached for getting head
in
> > the White House, and that's not anti-American.
> >
> > 2) "..knew the exact nature..": If a marketing director fails miserably
> when
> > Kraft wants him to sell a new line of shredded cheeses, he may not know
> the
> > exact nature of his competition or what they're planning. And, he will
> > certainly NOT know what grocery store dairy buyers are thinking (nobody
> ever
> > does). But, that excuse won't keep him from being fired, or left to rot
in
> a
> > dead-end job until he leaves voluntarily.
> >
> > 3) ...intentionally chose a path that they knew would be detremental to
> the
> > welfare of the US... : Whether they did it intentionally or not is
> > irrelevant. The next step down on the ladder would be negligence and
> > incompetence, and that's what we're dealing with. There's history going
> back
> > to the very beginning of the 20th century which shows other players in
the
> > Middle East getting their heads handed to them. If our people are so
> > arrogant as to ignore history, they need to go. Using the Kraft analogy:
> >
> > "You knew that adding chopped jalopeņos to shredded cheese would
increase
> > spoilage, and most customers told us last time we tried it that the
stuff
> > spoiled too fast. But, you went ahead and tried it anyway...."
> >
> > "Yeah, but this was me. The last guy who tried the idea was Bob...."
> >
> > "Right, and he was made Director of Maintenance Services....."
> >
> > Incompetence is incompetence, no matter how you look at it.
> >
> >
> And we have a process for getting rid of incompetence.....It's called the
> ballott box.....I suggest you use it in 2004.
>
We tried that in 2000 and got overruled by five political hacks on the
Supreme Court.
Impeach Bush!
-- bostnbob
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
news:sUGKa.14234$YC3.12015@no-spam
> "Hooda Gest" <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:PuGKa.22957$3o3.1751118@no-spam
>
> >
> > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee. There
> > were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for
> discovery
> > (which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was under
> oath.
> >
> > He could have simply answered them honestly.
> >
>
> With regard to Lewinsky: The name of the statute used to pursue him
doesn't
> seem relevant, since the reason for the pursuit was nothing but vapor.
With regards to Lewinsky, the statute used to "pursue him" was the
Independent Counsel Law. And it concerned malfeasance in office which would
cover perjury.
I'm not hear to argue merits of the case nor anything else, I am simply
correcting someone who thought that there was no legal reason for the
questions regarding his relationship with her.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306260746.f2b1207@no-spam
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam>...
> > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
between
> > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have been
home
> > free. He did not have to whine, "We didn't have sex"......Had he said
that,
> > he would have earned my respect, that's for sure.....(for whatever
that's
> > worth....)
>
> This do it fer ya?
>
> President Clinton's address to the nation concerning Monica Lewinsky,
> August 17, 1998
>
> Good evening. This afternoon, in this room, from this chair, I
> testified before the office of independent counsel and the grand jury.
> I answered their questions truthfully. I answered their questions
> truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no
> American citizen would ever want to answer.
> Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both
> public and private and that is why I'm speaking to you tonight.
> As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about
> my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally
> accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a
> relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it
> was wrong.
> It constituted a critical lapse of judgment and a personal failure on
> my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. But I told
> the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask
> anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other
> unlawful action.
> I know my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a
> false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply
> regret that. I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors.
> First by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own
> conduct. I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The
> fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired
> lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration too.
> In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent
> counsel investigation that began with private business dealings twenty
> years ago. Dealings, I might add, about which an independent federal
> agency found no wrongdoing by me or my wife, over two years ago.
> The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends
> and then into my private life and now the investigation itself is
> under investigation. This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt
> too many innocent people.
> Now this matter is between me, the two people I love most - my wife
> and our daughter - and our God. I must put it right and I am prepared
> to do whatever it takes to do so. Nothing is more important to me
> personally. But it is private and I intend to reclaim my family life
> for my family. It's nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have
> private lives.
> It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying
> into private lives and get on with our national life. Our country has
> been distracted by this matter for too long and I take my
> responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.
> Now it is time, in fact it is past time to move on. We have important
> work to do. Real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real
> security matters to face. And so, tonight, I ask you to turn away from
> the spectacle of the past seven months... to repair the fabric of our
> national discourse and to return our attention to all the challenges
> and all the promise of the next American century.
> Thank you for watching and good night.
That's strange.....I remember a speech where he looked the TV camera right
in the eye, and said, "I did not have sex with that woman"..........The
above speech mush have been the one he used AFTER he got caught......What I
said, was that neither speech should have been necessary. What he should
have said, right from the start, was, "My sex life is nobody's business but
my own." Face it, he caved in like Nixon, who should have called all the
press to a barbeque on the White House front lawn, and tossed the tapes into
the pit with the hot coals one at a time, while saying, "I am now exercising
my 5th amendment rights not to be forced to testify against myself.....Watch
me and weep, Supreme Court....."
bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdfj0r$vo1$0@no-spam
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:OuGKa.22956$3o3.1750432@no-spam
> >
> > "z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0306260746.f2b1207@no-spam
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:<8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam>...
> > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> > between
> > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
> been
> > home
> > > > free. He did not have to whine, "We didn't have sex"......Had he
said
> > that,
> > > > he would have earned my respect, that's for sure.....(for whatever
> > that's
> > > > worth....)
> > >
> > > This do it fer ya?
> > >
> > > President Clinton's address to the nation concerning Monica Lewinsky,
> > > August 17, 1998
> >
> >
> > Yeah, and it only took 6 months, irrefutable proof (the stained dress),
> and
> > millions of dollars to get him to say what he should have said up front.
> >
> > What a guy!
> >
>
> How long will we have to wait to hear Bush 'fess up to his lies about the
> non-
> existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, which in time will cost tens if not
> hundreds of billions of dollars, and hundreds if not thousands of American
> servicemembers' lives?
>
> Impeach Bush!
>
> -- bostnbob
>
If he does, he'll take Chaney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and a whole bunch of
other good people down with him.....I don't think so, but if you'd like to
make a little wager on it, I'll be glad to oblige.....Let's set some kind of
a time line on it, shall we? - Maybe 6 or 8 years........ After all, as long
as you guys insist on throwing your common sense out the window, I might as
well make a few bucks on it........
>
Liana Doran <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
>
>
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > >
> > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
between
> > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
been
> > home
> > > free.
> >
> > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If I'd
been
> > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you have
> > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
>
> I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either taking
the
> 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
(outside of
> America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out
since it
> had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the prosecutions
stand
> point.
>
> Liana
>
>
Sure....The Republicans tried to get him on perjury, not having the sex,
just as the Democrats got Nixon on perjury, not the break-in. If these guys
would either put up or shut up, they would exhibit a demeanor that's worthy
of a president of the United States.....Instead, they wheedle and whine, and
lose the respect of the whole world.......
Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
news:PuGKa.22957$3o3.1751118@no-spam
>
> "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Doug Kanter wrote:
> >
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> between
> > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
> been
> > > home
> > > > free.
> > >
> > > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If
I'd
> been
> > > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you
have
> > > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
> >
> > I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either
taking
> the
> > 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
> (outside of
> > America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out
> since it
> > had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the
prosecutions
> stand
> > point.
>
>
> It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee. There
> were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for
discovery
> (which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was under
oath.
>
> He could have simply answered them honestly.
Or refused to answer them at all, in keeping with any man's right to protect
the reputation of a lady.....If Monika wanted to spill the beans, well,
that's her business, but Clinton should have just, SHUT UP! After all, there
was no evidence other than that provided by Monika. And, when Ken Starr
grilled it out of her, Clinton would have come off smelling like a rose, had
he refused to say anything. If you say nothing, you can't be accused of
lying. Presidents gave away their 5th amendment rights some time ago....The
guy who did that was Richard Nixon..........
thunder <thunder@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdff6h$sceet$1@no-spam
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:58:07 +0000, Hooda Gest wrote:
>
>
> > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee.
> > There were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate
> > for discovery (which is when they were asked) in that type of case
> > and he was under oath.
> >
> > He could have simply answered them honestly.
>
> I believe the judge ruled the Lewinsky affair not material. I have
> never been a Clinton fan, but the Starr investigation was a
> witch-hunt and damaging to the *Office* of the President. That same
> Office may shortly be tested again and once again damaged.
I agree.....the office was damaged when the Supreme Court told Nixon to turn
in his tapes....They were his private diaries, and he shouldn't have
complied with their request. He should have destroyed them, preferable
publicly......And Clinton should have refused to answer any questions about
his relationship with Monika Lewinski, too, for much the same reasons......
"It is the responsibility, not the right, of good men to break bad
laws." - Spencer Tracy, in Judgement at Nuremberg.
When wimps are in the White House, and they give up their Constitutional
rights, they give them up for every one of us......... This is why I hate
politicians....We haven't had as president anyone with guts since, perhaps,
Dwight Eisenhower. Certainly, G. Gordon Liddy, has more guts than the whole
bunch of them put together.......
Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7fIKa.23081$3o3.1759285@no-spam
>
> "thunder" <thunder@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bdff6h$sceet$1@no-spam
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:58:07 +0000, Hooda Gest wrote:
> >
> >
> > > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee.
> > > There were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate
> > > for discovery (which is when they were asked) in that type of case
> > > and he was under oath.
> > >
> > > He could have simply answered them honestly.
> >
> > I believe the judge ruled the Lewinsky affair not material. I have
> > never been a Clinton fan, but the Starr investigation was a
> > witch-hunt and damaging to the *Office* of the President. That same
> > Office may shortly be tested again and once again damaged.
>
> After the fact (meaning after the deposition in which presented a false
> affidavit. And based upon the false affidavit.
>
> Please do some actual research into the case so that you can understand
why
> the investigation developed as it did.
>
> In simple terms, it went like this:
>
> Paula Jones sued Clinton over sexual harrassment.
> Clinton, after fighting tooth and nail, finally was ordered to give a
> deposition.
> Clinton offered a known (to him) false affidavit from Lewinsky.
> The judge ruled that the relationship question regarding Lewinsky were
> non-material based upon that affidivat.
> The Independant Counsel learned that the affidavit was allegedly false and
> pursued an investigation into the circumstances of the affidavit.
>
> Then the spin doctors moved in.
>
>
> --
>
> Hooda Gest
> "The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
It is any man's right, when accused of a crime, to refuse to testify, or, if
asked to be a witness in a case, refuse to do so because of the possibility
of self incrimination....This constitutional right is guaranteed under the
5th amendment, and there is no exception for presidents.....They are
citizens, even as you and I. When these leaders give up their constitutional
rights, they give them up for all of us....This is why those two guys who
beat the crap out of Rodney King were tried twice for the same crime. The
same with O.J.Simpson....Tried twice. Just because the government changes
the name of the crime, or changes the court, of the name of the judge,
doesn't make the infringement of a persons 5th amendment right to escape
double jepordy any less unconstitutional.
Liana Doran <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFB7495.D99A359E@no-spam
>
>
> William Graham wrote:
>
> > Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:PuGKa.22957$3o3.1751118@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Doug Kanter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What
transpires
> > > between
> > > > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would
have
> > > been
> > > > > home
> > > > > > free.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging.
If
> > I'd
> > > been
> > > > > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If
you
> > have
> > > > > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > > > > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either
> > taking
> > > the
> > > > 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
> > > (outside of
> > > > America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown
out
> > > since it
> > > > had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the
> > prosecutions
> > > stand
> > > > point.
> > >
> > >
> > > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee.
There
> > > were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for
> > discovery
> > > (which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was under
> > oath.
> > >
> > > He could have simply answered them honestly.
> >
> > Or refused to answer them at all, in keeping with any man's right to
protect
> > the reputation of a lady.....If Monika wanted to spill the beans, well,
> > that's her business, but Clinton should have just, SHUT UP! After all,
there
> > was no evidence other than that provided by Monika. And, when Ken Starr
> > grilled it out of her, Clinton would have come off smelling like a rose,
had
> > he refused to say anything. If you say nothing, you can't be accused of
> > lying. Presidents gave away their 5th amendment rights some time
ago....The
> > guy who did that was Richard Nixon..........
>
> Monika didn't provide ANY evidence nor did she "spill the beans". It was
that
> other woman (Linda?) that provided the pubs with all the wire tapes etc.
>
> Liana
>
>
Yes, and taping someone else's conversation without their permission is a
violation of the law. But tapes of Monika notwithstanding, Clinton should
have refused to say anything. - Just because two women tell each other about
their affairs, is no reason or excuse to prosecute any man, much less a
president. If only he had just, SHUT UP!
William Graham wrote:
> Liana Doran <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Doug Kanter wrote:
> >
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> between
> > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
> been
> > > home
> > > > free.
> > >
> > > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If I'd
> been
> > > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you have
> > > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
> >
> > I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either taking
> the
> > 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
> (outside of
> > America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out
> since it
> > had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the prosecutions
> stand
> > point.
> >
> > Liana
> >
> >
> Sure....The Republicans tried to get him on perjury, not having the sex,
> just as the Democrats got Nixon on perjury, not the break-in. If these guys
> would either put up or shut up, they would exhibit a demeanor that's worthy
> of a president of the United States.....Instead, they wheedle and whine, and
> lose the respect of the whole world.......
Clinton didn't lose any respect in the world......the world looked down on the
USA (more specifically the Republicans) for the fiasco they made out of
something that should have never been made public in the first place.
Liana
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:23:33 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:
>> Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires between
>> me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have been
>home
>> free. He did not have to whine, "We didn't have sex"......Had he said
>that,
>> he would have earned my respect, that's for sure.....(for whatever that's
>> worth....)
>>
>>
>
>Not exactly. He was impeached for lies while under oath, in a court of law.
He should never have been asked those questions in the first
place.
>He was defending himself from an accusation of Sexual Harassment of an
>Arkansas state employee while the gov of said state.
This had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky.
>busted for having Mr. Happy out while in a dirty movie theater, Mr. Clinton
>was accused of waving Mr. Happy at said state employee, telling her to suck
>it. He should have been arrested by the state police in attendance and
>jailed at the time. He lied and perjured himself in a court of law. Why he
>was impeached, not because it got blow jobs from an employee, which would
>get you fired from most public corporations. Not the fact of the BJ, but
>having somebody who reports to you do the BJ.
So, why didn't he get impeached?
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdfipu$v8s$0@no-spam
>
> "Quentin Burward" <quentin@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB205935.F718%quentin@no-spam
> >
> > Doug Kanter at <dkanter@no-spam> says in
> > <_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam>:
> >
> > (snipped)
> >
> > > Clinton was impeached for getting head in the White House
> >
> > (snipped)
> >
> > Not exactly. In my present message I'm not taking sides in relation to
the
> > unfortunate chain of events, but regardless of the peachiness of the
head
> > that activity alone, even in the USA, would not have been cause for
> > impeachment.
> >
> > According to the instigators of the impeachment of Bill Clinton the
reason
> > for the impeachment was that he'd continually failed to come
clean---he'd
> > lied---about whether any such activity had occurred.
> >
>
> Should, God forbid, GWB be elected in 2004, and Democrats at some point
> during his term of office gain control of the House, the Republicans may
> well
> have cause to bitterly regret this and a good many other of the terrible
> precedents
> they set in their foul and lunatic efforts to destroy Clinton. Republican
> politicians,
> of all people, should have known better than to make lack of truthfulness
an
> impeachable offense.
>
> -- bostnbob
>
> -- bostnbob
>
>Fortunately, most of the voting public, both republicans and democrats, are
not the radical children I encounter on this newsgroup. These people
represent the extreme in their ideas.....They compare our president to
despots like Saddam Hussein, which says a lot for their
creditability.........And frequently makes me think I am wasting my time by
trying to teach them anything........
Hooda Gest wrote:
> "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Doug Kanter wrote:
> >
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> between
> > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
> been
> > > home
> > > > free.
> > >
> > > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If I'd
> been
> > > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you have
> > > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
> >
> > I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either taking
> the
> > 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
> (outside of
> > America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out
> since it
> > had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the prosecutions
> stand
> > point.
>
> It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee. There
> were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for discovery
Not really. It had absolutely no bearing on the lawsuit which had to do with
sexual harrassment. How could a consensual relationship have any bearing on a
sexual harrassment case?
>
> (which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was under oath.
>
> He could have simply answered them honestly.
No, he should have taken the 5th and left the assholes (sorry) guessing. I will
admit that Clinton made the wrong choice on this one for sure, but I still
admire the man and can completely understand why he lied....as would any other
person under the same circumstances. Just remember that he is very well
respected around the world despite his indiscretion because the man had proved
himself in so many other areas.....and the world trusts him. Bush will NOT and
is not receiving that same respect around the world because his lies have caused
more harm to humanity and world peace (and probably eventually to all Americans)
than good.
Liana
>
>
> --
>
> Hooda Gest
> "The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdfj9j$en$0@no-spam
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:xbpKa.19328$e26.13268@no-spam
> >
> > Doug Kanter <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:bq9Ka.13959$e26.10292@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > Will you agree, then, that if the charges in z's post are accurate
> > > > Rumsfeld
> > > > > should be fired and
> > > > > Cheyney impeached?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- bostnbob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > No.....Because the, "charges" assume that these two guys knew the
> exact
> > > > nature of Saddam, and could predict the future, and what he would do
> and
> > > > eventually become. It's not the first time that we (the US) has been
> > wrong
> > > > in our dealings with other heads of state, and it won't be the last.
> We
> > > have
> > > > a policy, (perhaps ill-conceived) of betting on Peter to help us
> defeat
> > > > Paul, and we are frequently wrong. Before I would call for the
> > impeachment
> > > > of either of these two men, you would have to prove to me that they
> > > > intentionally chose a path that they knew would be detremental to
the
> > > > welfare of the US.......I don't believe either one of them are
> > > > anti-Americans.........
> > > >
> > >
> > > Let's play a game. Let's pretend that government employees are not
> > deities,
> > > and that their punishments should be roughly equal to what private
> sector
> > > employees face.
> > >
> > > 1) "anti-Americans": Irrelevant. Clinton was impeached for getting
head
> in
> > > the White House, and that's not anti-American.
Wrong.....That isn't what he was, "impeached" for........
> > >
> > > 2) "..knew the exact nature..": If a marketing director fails
miserably
> > when
> > > Kraft wants him to sell a new line of shredded cheeses, he may not
know
> > the
> > > exact nature of his competition or what they're planning. And, he will
> > > certainly NOT know what grocery store dairy buyers are thinking
(nobody
> > ever
> > > does). But, that excuse won't keep him from being fired, or left to
rot
> in
> > a
> > > dead-end job until he leaves voluntarily.
But you guys don't want to, "fire" the president.....That you can easily do
in the elections of 2004. Like most radical children you want to storm the
White House, and take over the whole country by force....(or whatever
cock-s-many scheme you've got in mind) You liken the president to a crazed
despot like Hitler, or Hussein, or Stalin......You are, in a word,
juvinile........
> > >
> > > 3) ...intentionally chose a path that they knew would be detremental
to
> > the
> > > welfare of the US... : Whether they did it intentionally or not is
> > > irrelevant. The next step down on the ladder would be negligence and
> > > incompetence, and that's what we're dealing with. There's history
going
> > back
> > > to the very beginning of the 20th century which shows other players in
> the
> > > Middle East getting their heads handed to them.
If our people are so
> > > arrogant as to ignore history, they need to go......
See what I mean?
Using the Kraft analogy:
> > >
> > > "You knew that adding chopped jalopeņos to shredded cheese would
> increase
> > > spoilage, and most customers told us last time we tried it that the
> stuff
> > > spoiled too fast. But, you went ahead and tried it anyway...."
> > >
> > > "Yeah, but this was me. The last guy who tried the idea was Bob...."
> > >
> > > "Right, and he was made Director of Maintenance Services....."
> > >
> > > Incompetence is incompetence, no matter how you look at it.
> > >
> > >
> > And we have a process for getting rid of incompetence.....It's called
the
> > ballott box.....I suggest you use it in 2004.
> >
>
> We tried that in 2000 and got overruled by five political hacks on the
> Supreme Court.
I presume you are talking about the very respected federal judges that
served on the bench for years and years after heading their own law firms,
and reaching the heights of their professions.....Judges that the whole
congress, both republicans and democrats ratified because of their vast
knowledge and intelligent decisions and writings over the years that they
served......Is that the five, "Political hacks" you are talking about?
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:VEKKa.28156$e26.17158@no-spam
>
> Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7fIKa.23081$3o3.1759285@no-spam
> >
> > "thunder" <thunder@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bdff6h$sceet$1@no-spam
> > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:58:07 +0000, Hooda Gest wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee.
> > > > There were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate
> > > > for discovery (which is when they were asked) in that type of case
> > > > and he was under oath.
> > > >
> > > > He could have simply answered them honestly.
> > >
> > > I believe the judge ruled the Lewinsky affair not material. I have
> > > never been a Clinton fan, but the Starr investigation was a
> > > witch-hunt and damaging to the *Office* of the President. That same
> > > Office may shortly be tested again and once again damaged.
> >
> > After the fact (meaning after the deposition in which presented a false
> > affidavit. And based upon the false affidavit.
> >
> > Please do some actual research into the case so that you can understand
> why
> > the investigation developed as it did.
> >
> > In simple terms, it went like this:
> >
> > Paula Jones sued Clinton over sexual harrassment.
> > Clinton, after fighting tooth and nail, finally was ordered to give a
> > deposition.
> > Clinton offered a known (to him) false affidavit from Lewinsky.
> > The judge ruled that the relationship question regarding Lewinsky were
> > non-material based upon that affidivat.
> > The Independant Counsel learned that the affidavit was allegedly false
and
> > pursued an investigation into the circumstances of the affidavit.
> >
> > Then the spin doctors moved in.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Hooda Gest
> > "The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
>
> It is any man's right, when accused of a crime, to refuse to testify, or,
if
> asked to be a witness in a case, refuse to do so because of the
possibility
> of self incrimination....This constitutional right is guaranteed under the
> 5th amendment, and there is no exception for presidents.....They are
> citizens, even as you and I. When these leaders give up their
constitutional
> rights, they give them up for all of us....This is why those two guys who
> beat the crap out of Rodney King were tried twice for the same crime. The
> same with O.J.Simpson....Tried twice. Just because the government changes
> the name of the crime, or changes the court, of the name of the judge,
> doesn't make the infringement of a persons 5th amendment right to escape
> double jepordy any less unconstitutional.
Clinton did not refuse to testify under the 5th Amendment. He tried to claim
privilige as president not to be sued while in office then tried executive
privilige to avoid a deposition. The court overruled him on each. He then
went to the deposition and offered a false affidavit into evidence knowingly
and willfully. In the end, that is what cost him the lawsuit (he lost in
default) by Paula Jones.
--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."
Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
news:9dMKa.23337$3o3.1780660@no-spam
>
> "bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bdfj0r$vo1$0@no-spam
> >
> > "Hooda Gest" <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:OuGKa.22956$3o3.1750432@no-spam
> > >
> > > "z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:b5b4685f.0306260746.f2b1207@no-spam
> > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:<8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam>...
> > > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> > > between
> > > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
> > been
> > > home
> > > > > free. He did not have to whine, "We didn't have sex"......Had he
> said
> > > that,
> > > > > he would have earned my respect, that's for sure.....(for whatever
> > > that's
> > > > > worth....)
> > > >
> > > > This do it fer ya?
> > > >
> > > > President Clinton's address to the nation concerning Monica
Lewinsky,
> > > > August 17, 1998
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, and it only took 6 months, irrefutable proof (the stained
dress),
> > and
> > > millions of dollars to get him to say what he should have said up
front.
> > >
> > > What a guy!
> > >
> >
> > How long will we have to wait to hear Bush 'fess up to his lies about
the
> > non-
> > existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, which in time will cost tens if
not
> > hundreds of billions of dollars, and hundreds if not thousands of
American
> > servicemembers' lives?
>
>
> How long will we have to wait before you and your friends apologize if the
> WMDs and/or the programs are found?
I can answer that.....We will have to wait forever....When KAL flight 800
was shot down by the Russians, the liberal radio talk show host, Ray
Taliaferro in the Bay area, accused Ronald Reagan of using it as a spy
plane. For weeks he called Reagan a, "Mass murder" because he, "Used a
commercial airliner as a spy plane, and caused the deaths of over 300
people." - then, years later, when the Russion pilot, who shot it down, came
to the US and gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal where he said the
Russians knew it was just an airliner that had inadvertantly strayed off
course, and they shot it down anyway, I carefully listened to Ray
Talliaferro's show for several days to see if he would apologise to
Reagan.......Needless to say, I am still waiting....:^) - Liberals have a
very short memory when it comes to things like that.......
Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdMKa.23338$3o3.1780843@no-spam
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:VEKKa.28156$e26.17158@no-spam
> >
> > Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:7fIKa.23081$3o3.1759285@no-spam
> > >
> > > "thunder" <thunder@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:bdff6h$sceet$1@no-spam
> > > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:58:07 +0000, Hooda Gest wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee.
> > > > > There were no prosecutors. The questions were completely
legitimate
> > > > > for discovery (which is when they were asked) in that type of case
> > > > > and he was under oath.
> > > > >
> > > > > He could have simply answered them honestly.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the judge ruled the Lewinsky affair not material. I have
> > > > never been a Clinton fan, but the Starr investigation was a
> > > > witch-hunt and damaging to the *Office* of the President. That same
> > > > Office may shortly be tested again and once again damaged.
> > >
> > > After the fact (meaning after the deposition in which presented a
false
> > > affidavit. And based upon the false affidavit.
> > >
> > > Please do some actual research into the case so that you can
understand
> > why
> > > the investigation developed as it did.
> > >
> > > In simple terms, it went like this:
> > >
> > > Paula Jones sued Clinton over sexual harrassment.
> > > Clinton, after fighting tooth and nail, finally was ordered to give a
> > > deposition.
> > > Clinton offered a known (to him) false affidavit from Lewinsky.
> > > The judge ruled that the relationship question regarding Lewinsky were
> > > non-material based upon that affidivat.
> > > The Independant Counsel learned that the affidavit was allegedly false
> and
> > > pursued an investigation into the circumstances of the affidavit.
> > >
> > > Then the spin doctors moved in.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Hooda Gest
> > > "The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
> >
> > It is any man's right, when accused of a crime, to refuse to testify,
or,
> if
> > asked to be a witness in a case, refuse to do so because of the
> possibility
> > of self incrimination....This constitutional right is guaranteed under
the
> > 5th amendment, and there is no exception for presidents.....They are
> > citizens, even as you and I. When these leaders give up their
> constitutional
> > rights, they give them up for all of us....This is why those two guys
who
> > beat the crap out of Rodney King were tried twice for the same crime.
The
> > same with O.J.Simpson....Tried twice. Just because the government
changes
> > the name of the crime, or changes the court, of the name of the judge,
> > doesn't make the infringement of a persons 5th amendment right to escape
> > double jepordy any less unconstitutional.
>
>
> Clinton did not refuse to testify under the 5th Amendment. He tried to
claim
> privilige as president not to be sued while in office then tried executive
> privilige to avoid a deposition. The court overruled him on each. He then
> went to the deposition and offered a false affidavit into evidence
knowingly
> and willfully. In the end, that is what cost him the lawsuit (he lost in
> default) by Paula Jones.
It is my considered opinion that a President should not be subjected to
cival suits while he is in office. Only the congress should be able to bring
action against him in an impeachment process. The integrity of the office of
the presidency is at stake, and these kinds of minor suits prevent the
president from being able to do his job, and/or devote his full time to his
job, which is devestating to the security of the United States.... I think
the supreme court was wrong when they ruled that Richard Nixon had to turn
over his tapes to them. Even if Nixon was guilty of ordering the Whitewater
break-in, he should have not had to face charges for it until after his term
of office was ended, or, the Congress should have instituted impeachment
proceedings without forcing him to testify against himself by turning over
those tapes in violation of his 5th amendment rights. The same thing was
true of Bill Clintons case. There is nothing that Paula Jones, Monika
Lewinski or the other one whose name I can't remember had to gain by suing
Clinton right away....Any or all of them could have waited until his term of
office was over, and the US would have been a lot better off for it. Can you
imagine the effect it would have if every disgruntled Democrat in the
country sued Bush for anything and everything they could trump up, just to
annoy him and the Republicans? The suits don't have to have any
merit....Anyone can sue anyone else for anything they please.....I could sue
him for sending me my social security check a day late when the third
Wednesday of the month falls on a holiday.....And then, when there is a
Democratic president in office, the Republicans could do the same thing. So
all of our presidents time would be wasted giving depositions to lawyers,
instead of running the country like he's supposed to be doing...."Well, I
can't go to Israel for the peace talks, because I have to give a deposition
on Thursday to....."
ralph wrote:
> Liana Doran wrote:
> >
> > Hooda Gest wrote:
> >
> > > "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Doug Kanter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> > > between
> > > > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
> > > been
> > > > > home
> > > > > > free.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If I'd
> > > been
> > > > > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you have
> > > > > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > > > > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either taking
> > > the
> > > > 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
> > > (outside of
> > > > America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out
> > > since it
> > > > had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the prosecutions
> > > stand
> > > > point.
> > >
> > > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee. There
> > > were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for discovery
> >
> > Not really. It had absolutely no bearing on the lawsuit which had to do with
> > sexual harrassment. How could a consensual relationship have any bearing on a
> > sexual harrassment case?
>
> It's like this: the lewinsky affair would show a pattern of sex with
> employees which would reflect on jones' charges, which themselves came
> up with respect to whitewater because they would show a pattern of
> abusing privilege which would reflect on the whitewater charges.... near
> as i can figure, he was found in contempt for not cooperating fully with
> the investigation of the investigation of the investigation of the crime
> being investigated.
LOL
Liana
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:24:38 -0700
Hooda Gest wrote:
>
>
> > Impeach Bush!
>
> On what grounds?
Impersonating a human being.
>
> --
> Hooda Gest
> "In a New York minute, everything can change..."
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:37:56 -0700
Liana Doran wrote:
>
> Hooda Gest wrote:
>
> > "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Doug Kanter wrote:
> > >
> > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> > between
> > > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
> > been
> > > > home
> > > > > free.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If I'd
> > been
> > > > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you have
> > > > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > > > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
> > >
> > > I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either taking
> > the
> > > 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
> > (outside of
> > > America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out
> > since it
> > > had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the prosecutions
> > stand
> > > point.
> >
> > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee. There
> > were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for discovery
>
> Not really. It had absolutely no bearing on the lawsuit which had to do with
> sexual harrassment. How could a consensual relationship have any bearing on a
> sexual harrassment case?
It's like this: the lewinsky affair would show a pattern of sex with
employees which would reflect on jones' charges, which themselves came
up with respect to whitewater because they would show a pattern of
abusing privilege which would reflect on the whitewater charges.... near
as i can figure, he was found in contempt for not cooperating fully with
the investigation of the investigation of the investigation of the crime
being investigated.
>
> >
> > (which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was under oath.
> >
> > He could have simply answered them honestly.
>
> No, he should have taken the 5th and left the assholes (sorry) guessing. I will
> admit that Clinton made the wrong choice on this one for sure, but I still
> admire the man and can completely understand why he lied....as would any other
> person under the same circumstances. Just remember that he is very well
> respected around the world despite his indiscretion because the man had proved
> himself in so many other areas.....and the world trusts him. Bush will NOT and
> is not receiving that same respect around the world because his lies have caused
> more harm to humanity and world peace (and probably eventually to all Americans)
> than good.
>
> Liana
>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Hooda Gest
> > "The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:40:35 -0700
Hooda Gest wrote:
>
> "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFB808C.AED25446@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Hooda Gest wrote:
> >
> > > "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Doug Kanter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What transpires
> > > between
> > > > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would have
> > > been
> > > > > home
> > > > > > free.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging. If
> I'd
> > > been
> > > > > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If you
> have
> > > > > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something more
> > > > > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
> > > >
> > > > I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were either
> taking
> > > the
> > > > 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of law
> > > (outside of
> > > > America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown out
> > > since it
> > > > had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the
> prosecutions
> > > stand
> > > > point.
> > >
> > > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee. There
> > > were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for
> discovery
> >
> > Not really. It had absolutely no bearing on the lawsuit which had to do
> with
> > sexual harrassment. How could a consensual relationship have any bearing
> on a
> > sexual harrassment case?
> >
> > >
> > > (which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was under
> oath.
> > >
> > > He could have simply answered them honestly.
> >
> > No, he should have taken the 5th and left the assholes (sorry) guessing. I
> will
> > admit that Clinton made the wrong choice on this one for sure, but I still
> > admire the man and can completely understand why he lied....as would any
> other
> > person under the same circumstances. Just remember that he is very well
>
> Like I said in another post... "and then the spin doctors moved in." And you
> just sucked it up because you wanted to. You can choose to do so, that's
> your business. I don't happen to like people who cheat on their spouses, lie
> to anyone and everyone, and then don't have the decency to admit they were
> wrong.
>
> Personally, I think that Monica was sent to the Pentagon to work so she
> could ingratiate herself with Lina Tripp and get her to commit perjury
Personally I think that you don't even know who won the jones case.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:51:29 -0700
bostnbob wrote:
>
> "Quentin Burward" <quentin@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB205935.F718%quentin@no-spam
> >
> > Doug Kanter at <dkanter@no-spam> says in
> > <_JiKa.12133$ke.11820@no-spam>:
> >
> > (snipped)
> >
> > > Clinton was impeached for getting head in the White House
> >
> > (snipped)
> >
> > Not exactly. In my present message I'm not taking sides in relation to the
> > unfortunate chain of events, but regardless of the peachiness of the head
> > that activity alone, even in the USA, would not have been cause for
> > impeachment.
> >
> > According to the instigators of the impeachment of Bill Clinton the reason
> > for the impeachment was that he'd continually failed to come clean---he'd
> > lied---about whether any such activity had occurred.
> >
>
> Should, God forbid, GWB be elected in 2004, and Democrats at some point
> during his term of office gain control of the House, the Republicans may
> well
> have cause to bitterly regret this and a good many other of the terrible
> precedents
> they set in their foul and lunatic efforts to destroy Clinton. Republican
> politicians,
> of all people, should have known better than to make lack of truthfulness an
> impeachable offense.
naw, democrats don't have the sheer pitiless venom, destructive hatred,
bottomless pit of unsatisfiable rage, and frustrated sense of divine
entitlement that fuel this new malignant growth that has swallowed the
GOP. If they did, they wouldn't be democrats. such it ever has been
throughout history, in one form or another; sooner or later raw
agression is eventually rewarded.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:11:01 -0700
Hooda Gest wrote:
> You forgot to remind him that it was 7 "political hacks" (who hold their
> positions for life and, therefore, are not controlled by anyone) who voted
> to stop the Florida Supreme Court from making unconstitutional rulings.
how exactly are florida's election practices specified in the
constitution?
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
thanks for the new .sig ralph. very well done.
"ralph" <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFBDB61.56E3@no-spam
...
> naw, democrats don't have the sheer pitiless venom, destructive hatred,
> bottomless pit of unsatisfiable rage, and frustrated sense of divine
> entitlement that fuel this new malignant growth that has swallowed the
> GOP. If they did, they wouldn't be democrats. such it ever has been
> throughout history, in one form or another; sooner or later raw
> agression is eventually rewarded.
> --
"ralph" <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFBD516.48BD@no-spam
> Hooda Gest wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Impeach Bush!
> >
> > On what grounds?
>
> Impersonating a human being.
If that were a criminal charge, most Democrats would be in jail.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
"ralph" <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFBDFF5.1FA6@no-spam
> Hooda Gest wrote:
> > You forgot to remind him that it was 7 "political hacks" (who hold their
> > positions for life and, therefore, are not controlled by anyone) who
voted
> > to stop the Florida Supreme Court from making unconstitutional rulings.
>
> how exactly are florida's election practices specified in the
> constitution?
It would be nice if you actually understood how the courts work and what
happened in Florida...
Florida's election practices are codified in law.
The State Supreme Court interprets the Florida Constitution in determining
the validity of those laws.
The State Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in ordering things that were
not defined in those laws and were not covered under the Florida
Constitution.
The USSC ordered the Court to re-evaluate its first ruling allowing the
recounts (and extending the certification period).
The USSC also ruled that the FSC violated the US Constitution in its second
ruling regarding the recounts which held up the final certification of the
election.
You Bush-haters all overlook the very simple fact that Gore lost his home
state and that is what actually cost him the election.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:OTNKa.27775$Ab2.54180@no-spam
>
> Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bdMKa.23338$3o3.1780843@no-spam
> >
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:VEKKa.28156$e26.17158@no-spam
> > >
> > > Hooda Gest <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:7fIKa.23081$3o3.1759285@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "thunder" <thunder@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:bdff6h$sceet$1@no-spam
> > > > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:58:07 +0000, Hooda Gest wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government
employee.
> > > > > > There were no prosecutors. The questions were completely
> legitimate
> > > > > > for discovery (which is when they were asked) in that type of
case
> > > > > > and he was under oath.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He could have simply answered them honestly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the judge ruled the Lewinsky affair not material. I
have
> > > > > never been a Clinton fan, but the Starr investigation was a
> > > > > witch-hunt and damaging to the *Office* of the President. That
same
> > > > > Office may shortly be tested again and once again damaged.
> > > >
> > > > After the fact (meaning after the deposition in which presented a
> false
> > > > affidavit. And based upon the false affidavit.
> > > >
> > > > Please do some actual research into the case so that you can
> understand
> > > why
> > > > the investigation developed as it did.
> > > >
> > > > In simple terms, it went like this:
> > > >
> > > > Paula Jones sued Clinton over sexual harrassment.
> > > > Clinton, after fighting tooth and nail, finally was ordered to give
a
> > > > deposition.
> > > > Clinton offered a known (to him) false affidavit from Lewinsky.
> > > > The judge ruled that the relationship question regarding Lewinsky
were
> > > > non-material based upon that affidivat.
> > > > The Independant Counsel learned that the affidavit was allegedly
false
> > and
> > > > pursued an investigation into the circumstances of the affidavit.
> > > >
> > > > Then the spin doctors moved in.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Hooda Gest
> > > > "The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
> > >
> > > It is any man's right, when accused of a crime, to refuse to testify,
> or,
> > if
> > > asked to be a witness in a case, refuse to do so because of the
> > possibility
> > > of self incrimination....This constitutional right is guaranteed under
> the
> > > 5th amendment, and there is no exception for presidents.....They are
> > > citizens, even as you and I. When these leaders give up their
> > constitutional
> > > rights, they give them up for all of us....This is why those two guys
> who
> > > beat the crap out of Rodney King were tried twice for the same crime.
> The
> > > same with O.J.Simpson....Tried twice. Just because the government
> changes
> > > the name of the crime, or changes the court, of the name of the judge,
> > > doesn't make the infringement of a persons 5th amendment right to
escape
> > > double jepordy any less unconstitutional.
> >
> >
> > Clinton did not refuse to testify under the 5th Amendment. He tried to
> claim
> > privilige as president not to be sued while in office then tried
executive
> > privilige to avoid a deposition. The court overruled him on each. He
then
> > went to the deposition and offered a false affidavit into evidence
> knowingly
> > and willfully. In the end, that is what cost him the lawsuit (he lost in
> > default) by Paula Jones.
>
> It is my considered opinion that a President should not be subjected to
> cival suits while he is in office. Only the congress should be able to
bring
First, you want to give him the status of "just another human being" who
should be able to lie about his transgressions and then you elevate his
status so he gets protections from civil suits that the rest of us don't.
I wish you would make up your mind.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
"ralph" <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFBD8D3.73ED@no-spam
> Hooda Gest wrote:
> >
> > "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3EFB808C.AED25446@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Hooda Gest wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3EFB2502.33A10499@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug Kanter wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:8gpKa.16999$Bg.9998@no-spam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exactly, and all he would have had to do was say, "What
transpires
> > > > between
> > > > > > > me and any white house aid is our own business." and he would
have
> > > > been
> > > > > > home
> > > > > > > free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly. But unfortunately, his attackers would've kept digging.
If
> > I'd
> > > > been
> > > > > > Bill, I would've answered all questions on the subject with "If
you
> > have
> > > > > > nothing more important to discuss, you need to find something
more
> > > > > > important. Come back when you've done that. Next question?"
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not so sure he had that choice. I think his choices were
either
> > taking
> > > > the
> > > > > 5th or answering the questions....however, in any other court of
law
> > > > (outside of
> > > > > America I suppose) this line of questioning would have been thrown
out
> > > > since it
> > > > > had no bearing on the trial at hand.....at least not from the
> > prosecutions
> > > > stand
> > > > > point.
> > > >
> > > > It was a lawsuit over sexual harrassment of a government employee.
There
> > > > were no prosecutors. The questions were completely legitimate for
> > discovery
> > >
> > > Not really. It had absolutely no bearing on the lawsuit which had to
do
> > with
> > > sexual harrassment. How could a consensual relationship have any
bearing
> > on a
> > > sexual harrassment case?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (which is when they were asked) in that type of case and he was
under
> > oath.
> > > >
> > > > He could have simply answered them honestly.
> > >
> > > No, he should have taken the 5th and left the assholes (sorry)
guessing. I
> > will
> > > admit that Clinton made the wrong choice on this one for sure, but I
still
> > > admire the man and can completely understand why he lied....as would
any
> > other
> > > person under the same circumstances. Just remember that he is very
well
> >
> > Like I said in another post... "and then the spin doctors moved in." And
you
> > just sucked it up because you wanted to. You can choose to do so, that's
> > your business. I don't happen to like people who cheat on their spouses,
lie
> > to anyone and everyone, and then don't have the decency to admit they
were
> > wrong.
> >
> > Personally, I think that Monica was sent to the Pentagon to work so she
> > could ingratiate herself with Lina Tripp and get her to commit perjury
>
> Personally I think that you don't even know who won the jones case.
Personally, I know you don't or you would not have made that remark.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:OTNKa.27775$Ab2.54180@no-spam
> I think
> the supreme court was wrong when they ruled that Richard Nixon had to turn
> over his tapes to them. Even if Nixon was guilty of ordering the
Whitewater
> break-in, he should have not had to face charges for it until after his
term
> of office was ended, or, the Congress should have instituted impeachment
> proceedings without forcing him to testify against himself by turning over
> those tapes in violation of his 5th amendment rights.
By that time, Nixon was exhibiting behaviors which put his staff in the
position of protecting him from himself. He was unstable. He was suggesting
to Kissinger that we use a nuclear weapon on Hanoi. It was absolutely
correct to rein him in, fast and hard. Demanding the tapes put him on notice
that his end was near.
Clinton, on the other hand, was not a threat to national security, and his
shenanigans didn't involve melting a city.
"Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFBA695.7BFF7204@no-spam
> and it's still a complete mystery to me why someone's personal
> sex life is so important to Americans.
>
People need other creatures to compare themselves to, so they can have a
sense of superiority and control. They deal with the superiority issue by
throwing stones at other people for any reason at all, and the juicier the
reason, the better. They deal with the control issue by having dogs as pets.
"Liana Doran" <ldoran@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFB7CA9.D9DD9E85@no-spam
>
> Clinton didn't lose any respect in the world......the world looked down on
the
> USA (more specifically the Republicans) for the fiasco they made out of
> something that should have never been made public in the first place.
>
> Liana
Exactly. It's convenient to forget the various "man/woman on the street"
interviews wherein reporters asked walkin'-around Europeans what they
thought of the fiasco. The consensus seemed to be "And....your point is
what?"
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:cnLKa.27242$Ab2.51037@no-spam
> >
> >Fortunately, most of the voting public, both republicans and democrats,
are
> not the radical children I encounter on this newsgroup. These people
> represent the extreme in their ideas.....They compare our president to
> despots like Saddam Hussein, which says a lot for their
> creditability.........And frequently makes me think I am wasting my time
by
> trying to teach them anything........
>
Not all of us view Bush as a monster. Wolfowitz, maybe. And Rumsfeld clearly
modeled his career after watching the movie "Dr. Strangelove" too many
times. But without an office full of real people to back him up, Bush hasn't
got the intelligence necessary to be evil.
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message news:<542Ka.9646$Fy6.3461@no-spam>...
> z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0306240706.1a41d6ab@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<zuQJa.4733$Ab2.15896@no-spam>...
> > > ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3EF7EE31.1F4F@no-spam
> > > > I just feel grateful that they didn't have to dig down to reason 4
> > > > 'saddam strangled puppies and kittens',
> > >
> > > How about, "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million
> people,
> > > including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> > > period?"......If that isn't reason enough, then exactly what would it
> take
> > > for you to decide to do something about it, and put some, "American
> kids"
> > > (read, soldiers) at risk?
> >
> > Should be more like
> > "Saddam strangled, raped, and tortured about a million people,
> > including men, women, and children in his dungeons over a thirty year
> > period during which Rumsfeld did his little job as go between between
> > Saddam and the Head Office in Washington, and Cheney made a tidy
> > profit supplying Saddam with the tools he needed to get the cash to
> > fund his little enterprise, and now that Saddam got too big for his
> > britches and had to be put down like a vicious dog that finally bit
> > somebody a little too important to ignore, all the people who've spent
> > thirty years calling Saddam and his good buddies a bunch of vile
> > butchers are immoral if they don't cheer that the butcher's bosses
> > finally decided to see if they could wash the blood off their hands?"
> > That what you mean?
>
> Sure....That'll still do for my purposes........Just so long as you admit
> that Saddam did all those things, so he should be put to death like any mass
> murderer.......I don't care how he came to be a M.M.......Or who conspired
> with him to be one. I'll leave you to worry about that.......:^)
Policeman: 'we caught the guy who tried to kill you'
Woman: 'that's great, I hope you put him away for life'
Policeman: 'Well, unfortunately, he says he was hired by your husband'
Woman: 'Well, that isn't important now, as long as you put that guy away'
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:qxLKa.27495$3d.15941@no-spam
>
>
> Wrong.....That isn't what he was, "impeached" for........
That may not be what the official records will say, the ones our
grandchildren see, but sex was clearly the hook which Clinton's attackers
needed to keep the National Enquirer-fed public interested and bitching and
whining the whole time.
>
> But you guys don't want to, "fire" the president.....That you can easily
do
> in the elections of 2004.
Sure I do. Remember - I used the corporate CEO analogy. If GE had a
perfectly good reason to terminate Jack Welch, they would not have waited
for his contract to end. This is the analogy to impeachment.
"Hooda Gest" <Be@no-spam> wrote in message
news:EYXKa.23975$3o3.1839092@no-spam
>
> "ralph" <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFBDFF5.1FA6@no-spam
> > Hooda Gest wrote:
> > > You forgot to remind him that it was 7 "political hacks" (w