Leaving the community

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:58:33 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

There is no evidence that the public was lied to

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is
once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and
Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

No where do you hear them saying: "Well we have some sources of
information that indicate Saddam may have weapons of mass destruction
but there are a number of operatives in the CIA who think that this
information is false." They did not say that, even though they knew
this was the case because they did not want the public to know there
was dissent. They especially did not want the Senate and Congress to
know there was dissent because they wanted them to give the White
House the go ahead for war. They were determined to go to war. They
were, according to a number of revelations from White House insiders,
interested in invading Iraq well before the attacks of Sept 11.

They also did not say that their source of information for WMD was
none other than an expatriot Iraqi group who wanted Saddam removed
from power. It now appears that this group was prepared to say
whatever the neoconservatives wanted to hear to make their case. This
conflict of interest should have made them automatically suspect, and
they were suspect to the CIA, but not to the White House.

This is so close to lying to the American public that it's hard to see
the difference.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote

This
conflict of interest should have made them automatically suspect, and
they were suspect to the CIA, but not to the White House.

This is so close to lying to the American public that it's hard to see
the difference.

Corky Scott

Oh, kinda like Clinton telling us under oath, that he did not have sexual
relations with Monica?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

Morgans,

Oh, kinda like Clinton telling us under oath, that he did not have sexual
relations with Monica?


Tell us again how many American citizens got killed or maimed by Clinton
doing that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:56:38 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:

Oh, kinda like Clinton telling us under oath, that he did not have sexual
relations with Monica?
--
Jim in NC

Oh please.

The Bush White House's selective use of information took us to war
where many thousands have now died (yes, I'm including Iraqi
civilians). Let me repeat that, they took us to war, and they took us
there by manipulating the only information that we and the rest of the
world had.

Whatever Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.

Death, destruction, misery, torture, refusal to abide by the Geneva
Convention and world condemnation, not to mention the cost in money,
which we the citizens have to pay. And we could be just getting
started here. There's no telling how this will play out with the rest
of the world eventually. Versus an oddball use of a cigar and a
stained dress. Yup, I sure can see the comparison.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

snip
Whatever Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.
snip

I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious. The president
of the United States commited PERJURY. Especially serious since he was the
president of the United States at the time. It goes way deeper than a
marital problem, I think he shamed the office a la Nixon. I agree that what
he tried to cover up was more of a personal problem, but when he lied under
oath, he knew exactly what he was doing: lying to you and me and everyone
else. It didn't have to be a big deal, but he made it a huge one.

I was a Clinton supporter until I found out that he would lie under oath. It
showed and shows a serious flaw in character. It made me wonder what else he
had done or was willing to do. I don't blame him for trying to cover it up,
but commiting perjury crossed the line for me.

The issue of President Bush's lying is open to debate because no one has all
the facts here and only time will tell. The fact that President Clinton
perjured himself cannot be debated. I consider a sitting president commiting
perjury to be extremely serious, no matter what he is lying about.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message
...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

snip
Whatever Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.
snip

I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious. The president
of the United States commited PERJURY.
Oh, lordy, another evangelickle pantie-sniffer. He's being deposed in the
fabricated PJ case charging sex harassment and asked if he had sex with
Monica (whom he didn't harass) and he denies it. Give us all a break from
your sanctimony. He didn't have sex; he didn't screw her. He got a
blow-job. Aren't you envious, though? You don't know the definition of
perjury either. Lying under oath is not always perjury. Do you also get
off on Bob Livingston's crotchless leather panties and Henry Hyde's
homewrecking adultery?

Trent,

I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious.


Well, in that case, I just have to wonder what you think about the
current president?

The issue of President Bush's lying is open to debate because no one
has all the facts here and only time will tell.

You've got to be kidding...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Corky Scott" wrote in message Whatever
Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.



BULL$HIT Corky, Every time BC got in trouble he chucked a missle at someone.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:33:22 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

BULL$HIT Corky, Every time BC got in trouble he chucked a missle at someone.

Gig, you'll have to explain where you're going with this because I'm
not seeing the connection with what I've written.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:33:22 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

BULL$HIT Corky, Every time BC got in trouble he chucked a missle at
someone.

Gig, you'll have to explain where you're going with this because I'm
not seeing the connection with what I've written.

Corky Scott

Damn Corky you're going to make me remeber what we talked about last week.
But from my response I'd be willing to bet that yyou said something to the
effect that Bush, unlike Clinton, likes to kill people with the military and
my statement refers to Clinton ordering Cruise Missle attacks on asprin
factories.