On 10 Jul 2003 16:07:11 GMT, John H. Fisher <taxservice@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <slrn3vsbgqpqp.97el.kybyrd@no-spam>, kybyrd@no-spam
>(Karen Y Byrd) writes:
>
>>On 09 Jul 2003 17:03:53 GMT, John H. Fisher <taxservice@no-spam>
>>wrote:
>>>In article <slrn3vsbgo4it.b485.kybyrd@no-spam>,
>>kybyrd@no-spam
>>>(Karen Y Byrd) writes:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:42:15 -0400, Art Clemons <artclemons@no-spam>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>> Even
>>>>>Nixon would not have dared to grab a US citizen and hold that citizen
>>>>>as a non-combatant indefinitely without judicial review. Believe me I
>>>>>remember the Chicago 7 trial, and I note that the trial came about in
>>>>>part because the Justice Dept got a pro-prosecution federal judge, who
>>>>>ignored questions of evidence and Constitutional rights. That seems
>>>>>like a major improvement compared to now.
>>>>
>>>>This presupposes that his actions wouldn't have been just as punitive
>>>>if he had faced terrorist controlled jets crashing into the tallest
>>>>buildings in NYC
>>>>and their subsequent collape, another jet crashing and burning
>>>>into the Pentagon. And yet another jet possibly destined for
>>>>the Capital Bldg or White House, crashing and burning in western
>>>>PA. He didn't face any of those
>>>>challenges. How would he have behaved I wonder when he had
>>>>things like enemies list from which sprang the entire Watergate
>>>>debac
>>>
>>> http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-21.html
>> ^^^^^^^
>>Get real. I'm not reading anything associated with him now
>>or ever again.
>>
>
>Karen, the past three contributions were piggybacked off of Art's
>contribution. You haven't replied to Art.
Yes, I did!
> You have replied to me.
>If your emotions deprive you of facing the truth,
Often when people respond to posts they fail to include every
previous header from the previous posters.
Rest assured that my response was to Art. If you miss-understood
that so be it.
> that is a problem only
>you can address. I again revert to what you said in reference (not to
>Nixon) to Clinton "He didn't face any of those challenges"!!! When
>presented with a challenge, you appear to just shut out (run away from)
>the truth!!=(:
Sigh.
You still miss-read me. With "He didn't face any of those challenges".
I was referring to *RICHARD NIXON* and how *HE* didn't face any of those
challenges.
I know that Clinton dealt with the terrorist situation. I know
there was response to the first World Trade Center attack
in 1993 by the Clinton Administration. Really.... I didn't
sleep through his presidency.
I still don't like him for the reasons I've already declared.
Every President lies. However his lies and waffling
made whatever support I could have had for him
disappear. I had great hopes for him. I really did.
Believe me when he trotted out that film at the
'92 Dem. Convention showing his meeting with
JFK, of course, it had the desired effect on everyone
who remembers and lived through those years. I
was deeply affected by it.
But shortly afterward... shortly after his inaguration this
is what we got, "Oh wait.... I can't offer the gay people
serving our country the complete benefits of serving
like I said I would during the campaign. Gee it's too
much of a hot potato. And, oops, I can't do it! So here's
this useless compromise."
KByrd