svttim Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Nope, and I didn't say it was but if you want to ignore the entire premise by throwing that out there fine discussion over! Someone didnt have thier Hot Cocoa before bed time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Someone didnt have thier Hot Cocoa before bed time! Sorry! The "move on" really hit me the wrong way...you're just getting the blow back... sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Nope, and I didn't say it was but if you want to ignore the entire premise by throwing that out there fine! If you think you can compare a lie about a sexual affair in a split second moment, as part of a partisan witch hunt, versus something done with thought and purpose as part of the President's official duties, discussion over! Sorry, but $60 million and 4 years of investigations and that's all they could get? Say what yo will about the Clintons I dare say few others would be so clean under such a glass. How do you go back and define torture now, and prosecute retroactively. It was not torture as defined by none other then Bill Clinton. If we now drfine it differently, so be it, going forward. And, as intelligent as Bill Clinton is, I was disappointed he didnt use his (big) head, at least while he was president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSGT500 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I couldn't have cared less about what Billy Bob Clinton and Monica did. What got Clinton in trouble was his lying about it. He could have told the American public that it was none of their business, instead he looked right into the camera and stated that he did not have relations with that women. He deserved what he got. And don't forget that Bush helped rehabilitate Clinton. Bush brought Clinton in on charitable missions that helped Clinton overcome his past. If Clinton would have paid more attention to Osama Bin Laden and less to Monica, 9/11 would never have occurred. As far as some terrorist getting his head dunked in a bucket of water. I'm glad it happened. He would have gotten worse treatment if I had been there. These are people that want to kill millions of Americans. I'm thankful that we have CIA and military people that will volunteer to go after them. I'm not going to second guess those people from the comfort of my keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Thank You , I am Proud of my irrational knowledge of the, So Called Enemy '. Your Welcome......... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCMM Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 PELOSI IS IN NO POSITION TO OPEN HER BIG MOUTH. IT IS AMAZING THAT SOMEBODY ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE HASN'T STUCK A SOCK IN IT. I thought maybe this was a typo...I wasn't thinking sock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 And, as intelligent as Bill Clinton is, I was disappointed he didnt use his (big) head, at least while he was president. Oh ya?????? Just ask Monica Louinsky????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Unclassified Documents point to Pelosi’s Knowledge of EIT http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2237865/posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 How do you go back and define torture now, and prosecute retroactively. It was not torture as defined by none other then Bill Clinton. If we now drfine it differently, so be it, going forward. And, as intelligent as Bill Clinton is, I was disappointed he didnt use his (big) head, at least while he was president. I will ask this again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 What kind of Republican hypocricy is this? Move on? Humm..didn't we say that back in 1998 when we were wasting of time and money impeaching a President for sex and the meaning of the word "is"! Oh that's right ! It became a web site... movon.org! No here we have something far worse such as what is the meaning of the word "torture" and when can the government have secret prisons, secret wiretaps, delete emails, or refuse to give documents to the national archives under the idea that the Vice President isn't part of the Executive branch! Hey...let the courts decide! But seriously, we spent a combined $60 million on Ken Starr's fishing expedition with Bob (I took my wife for an abortion) Barr and Dan Burton leading the charge. THAT WAS A WASTE OF MONEY. That was a lie about sex found in a partisan investigation that found no wrong doing by the Clintons, however this is the rule of law and the stakes are the rights of all Americans, hardly a waste of money in my opinion. But you can disagree! It won't surprise you that I do. If Bill was half as smart as people say he is (or he thinks he is), when he was asked, he would have just said, "None of your business" or words to that effect. Trouble was, for some reason that only he knows, he didn't. He told all of us wagging that bony, witch-like finger in our face, "I did not have sex with that women, Monica Lewinski". But even that wasn't worth $60 MM. However, when he, the Commander-in Chief, the President of the United States, the highest elected official in charge of defending the Constitution, said under oath, under sworn testimony, that he did not have sex, then it became an issue. It wasn't the sex, it was the sworn lie, the perjury. Now I'm not as smart as Bill, but if you want to pin the $60 MM blame on someone, blame Bill. All he had to say is: "I refuse to answer". In my opinion, his ego wasn't worth $60 MM and being impeached which he would not have been if he had just refused to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I will ask this again How can you prosecute without evidence?????????????? Evidence going public now.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 How can you prosecute without evidence?????????????? Evidence going public now.......... It was Clinton who last defined torture and waterboarding was in the OK catagory. How far back are we going to go? Clearly, the evidence so far is that all parties knew it was being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 It was Clinton who last defined torture and waterboarding was in the OK catagory. How far back are we going to go? Clearly, the evidence so far is that all parties knew it was being used. Okay; However Clinton is not on the list this time and should not be considered???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSGT500 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I just saw Sen. Patrick Leahy on Face the Nation. What a flaming idiot! He's proposing a bi-partisan commission to look into this situation. The idiots in Congress can't figure out the economy, health care, or illegal immigration. They can't secure the borders or save Detroit, but they can form more useless commissions. I think I'll get ready for the next terrorist attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Remember when they say a bi-partisian committee it will be weighted with liberals so they already know the outcome. Yet they will claim it was a BI_PARTISIAN conclusion. Then it will go to the democrat House and the decision is already forgone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Remember when they say a bi-partisian committee it will be weighted with liberals so they already know the outcome. Yet they will claim it was a BI_PARTISIAN conclusion. Then it will go to the democrat House and the decision is already forgone. Sort of like Clinton's Impeachment ! Don't worry! You can all run into the country of Texas! :happy feet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDT Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Just the thaught of GW Bush back in charge as President??????? Yes he would make TEXAS Proud????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSGT500 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Sort of like Clinton's Impeachment ! Don't worry! You can all run into the country of Texas! :happy feet: If Clinton had not committed perjury, he could not have been impeached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 If Clinton had not committed perjury, he could not have been impeached. I've already commented elsewhere how I feel about that and I think it's STILL BS. Lying about an affair, that had nothing to do with his official duties, under questioning as part of a four year partisan witch-hunt, doesn't come close to what most of America was an impeachable offense. I can't for the life of me see how that was impeachable but yet some believe that subverting the Constitution and lying to the American people (had it been under oath called perjury) about WMD as the reason for going into Iraq, all of which have everything to do with his official duties, well these are something a President should get a pass on. I guess we don't agree! I think Republican Sen. Arlen Spector has it right in next month's NY Book Review and all American's should support his efforts! http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2007GT Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I've already commented elsewhere how I feel about that and I think it's STILL BS. Lying about an affair, that had nothing to do with his official duties, under questioning as part of a four year partisan witch-hunt, doesn't come close to what most of America was an impeachable offense. I can't for the life of me see how that was impeachable but yet some believe that subverting the Constitution and lying to the American people (had it been under oath called perjury) about WMD as the reason for going into Iraq, all of which have everything to do with his official duties, well these are something a President should get a pass on. I guess we don't agree! I think Republican Sen. Arlen Spector has it right in next month's NY Book Review and all American's should support his efforts! http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656 Getting a hummer under his desk while he was supposed to be working and then lying about it, speaks volumes as to his lack of character. I wasn't a big Bush fan but I at least think he believed there were WMD in Iraq. I honestly believe he did what he thought was right. He continued to do unpopular things when he thought they were the right things to do. You have to admire a man with convictions (no pun intended) as opposed to "any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me" Bill Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormeaston Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I've already commented elsewhere how I feel about that and I think it's STILL BS. Lying about an affair, that had nothing to do with his official duties, under questioning as part of a four year partisan witch-hunt, doesn't come close to what most of America was an impeachable offense. I can't for the life of me see how that was impeachable but yet some believe that subverting the Constitution and lying to the American people (had it been under oath called perjury) about WMD as the reason for going into Iraq, all of which have everything to do with his official duties, well these are something a President should get a pass on. I guess we don't agree! I think Republican Sen. Arlen Spector has it right in next month's NY Book Review and all American's should support his efforts! http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656 What he (Clinton) should have said is................."Ya, I banged her, so what", "look at that old bag I'm married to"........"if you where married to that old bag you'd jump at the chance too"!!!! Now get over it!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I've already commented elsewhere how I feel about that and I think it's STILL BS. Lying about an affair, that had nothing to do with his official duties, under questioning as part of a four year partisan witch-hunt, doesn't come close to what most of America was an impeachable offense. I can't for the life of me see how that was impeachable but yet some believe that subverting the Constitution and lying to the American people (had it been under oath called perjury) about WMD as the reason for going into Iraq, all of which have everything to do with his official duties, well these are something a President should get a pass on. I guess we don't agree! I think Republican Sen. Arlen Spector has it right in next month's NY Book Review and all American's should support his efforts! http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656 Again, You have no proof Bush lied, in fact, there is evedence to the contrary. You really should be less partison Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I've already commented elsewhere how I feel about that and I think it's STILL BS. Lying about an affair, that had nothing to do with his official duties, under questioning as part of a four year partisan witch-hunt, doesn't come close to what most of America was an impeachable offense. I can't for the life of me see how that was impeachable but yet some believe that subverting the Constitution and lying to the American people (had it been under oath called perjury) about WMD as the reason for going into Iraq, all of which have everything to do with his official duties, well these are something a President should get a pass on. I guess we don't agree! I think Republican Sen. Arlen Spector has it right in next month's NY Book Review and all American's should support his efforts! http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656 Jeff, if you have any history in Intel then you should know about the WMD issue. The democrats were quoted as saying their were WMDs in Iraq. The French, Israeli's, Brits, Egyptians, Germans and other intelligence agencies all stated their were WMDs in Iraq. A real leader has to listen to his advisors, make a decision based on AVAILABLE INFORMATION (NOT 20/20 HINDSIGHT). So Bush listened to all of them and made the decision to proceed. And by the way, who was in charge of the CIA at the time???? George Tenet, appointed by Klinton. Bush made a decision based on available information and in good faith. You can't take that away from him. He is an honorable man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Jeff, if you have any history in Intel then you should know about the WMD issue. The democrats were quoted as saying their were WMDs in Iraq. The French, Israeli's, Brits, Egyptians, Germans and other intelligence agencies all stated their were WMDs in Iraq. A real leader has to listen to his advisors, make a decision based on AVAILABLE INFORMATION (NOT 20/20 HINDSIGHT). So Bush listened to all of them and made the decision to proceed. And by the way, who was in charge of the CIA at the time???? George Tenet, appointed by Klinton. Bush made a decision based on available information and in good faith. You can't take that away from him. He is an honorable man. You are correct, but it won't do any good. The left only hears out of their left ear and only when liberals are speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Jeff, if you have any history in Intel then you should know about the WMD issue. The democrats were quoted as saying their were WMDs in Iraq. The French, Israeli's, Brits, Egyptians, Germans and other intelligence agencies all stated their were WMDs in Iraq. A real leader has to listen to his advisors, make a decision based on AVAILABLE INFORMATION (NOT 20/20 HINDSIGHT). So Bush listened to all of them and made the decision to proceed. And by the way, who was in charge of the CIA at the time???? George Tenet, appointed by Klinton. Bush made a decision based on available information and in good faith. You can't take that away from him. He is an honorable man. LOL....what ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 You are correct, but it won't do any good. The left only hears out of their left ear and only when liberals are speaking. Right back at ya! Umm...right ear of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCMM Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I can't for the life of me see how that was impeachable but yet some believe that subverting the Constitution and lying to the American people (had it been under oath called perjury) about WMD as the reason for going into Iraq, all of which have everything to do with his official duties, well these are something a President should get a pass on. So how about Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs invasion? Granted the plan was put in motion when Eisenhower was president but Kennedy got bad intel; went ahead with the operation and we know the outcome of that. Same thing happened to Bush. He got bad intel and reacted to it. For the sake of argument, what would have happened if there was something in Iraq and it was used on U.S. soil? I'm sorry Jeff but with what happened on 9/11 I don't think Bush was willing to roll the dice on this one. Can you honestly blame him? That was a darn tough call. And he took the heat for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Again, You have no proof Bush lied, in fact, there is evedence to the contrary. You really should be less partison Jeff Sorry! Here ya go! http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/20..._wmd/index.html Even Colonel Powell has come out since to suggest that he tried to convince the President that Iraq was a bad idea. I think he even warned the President that the evidence wasn’t there, but being the trooper that he was, he did his job. He sold the war to the American public and the World long enough to get us deep into a war that can’t easily be left behind. The question that we need to ask now is ‘how much did Bush and his Administration know’ when they were working on selling the war to the public. This war is going to cost a lot more than the lives of our troops, it will cost well over a trillion if not two trillion dollars when all is said and done. Whenever wars are entered into, there are a lot of invisible costs that people don’t recognize until a decade or more has passed. Economy is about to blow up, recession is on the horizon, a potential showdown with Iran, long-term defense will be an issue now that we’ve pissed off so many people that our enemies have multiplied. Lets not forget that we already had enemies that were threatening our interests.. remember North Korea? Iran? Oops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSGT500 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Hey Tim. I think I figured out a way to get Jeff to run Road America this summer. I'll invite Monica, and tell Jeff that if he's the fastest in his group, she'll meet him in the hospitality tent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCMM Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Hey Tim. I think I figured out a way to get Jeff to run Road America this summer. I'll invite Monica, and tell Jeff that if he's the fastest in his group, she'll meet him in the hospitality tent. Hey Tim...rememeber when I said I was on the bubble in regards to RA? Well if this should happen; I'm there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.