Justice?

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

then Bill ( I never had sex with that woman) Clinton

They know all about justice.

What about W going AWOL from the reserve durning NAM
And W twisting the truth about WMDS inorder to get his Iruaq qar a war he was planning back when he was govorner in Texas
And lets not forget a lieing sack of crap govorner in FL in 2000 who riged an election
And yet you harp on Clinton because he got a BJ from a willing adult female and so he lied about it, something every single married man on the earth would do
and unlike W's lie no soliders were killed cause of it
If there was justice W, Rice, Channey and Romsfeld would all be brought up on war crimes and W would have been impeached for his lies to congress
the GOP wanted to impeach Clinton over a BJ and W they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen

[ila]

Originally Posted by transjen

...And yet you harp on Clinton because he got a BJ from a willing adult female and so he lied about it, something every single married man on the earth would do
and unlike W's lie no soliders were killed cause of it
If there was justice W, Rice, Channey and Romsfeld would all be brought up on war crimes and W would have been impeached for his lies to congress
the GOP wanted to impeach Clinton over a BJ and W they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen

I could never understand why your congress wanted to impeach Clinton over this affair. What happened had no effect on or consequences to the running of your country.

The biggest injustice in all this was how Monica was pilloried by the media and many citizens.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

I could never understand why your congress wanted to impeach Clinton over this affair. What happened had no effect on or consequences to the running of your country.

The biggest injustice in all this was how Monica was pilloried by the media and many citizens.

The Republicans jumped all over Clinton because he "lied". Why? Because they were doing everything possible to prevent him from accomplishing anything. It was an extreme form of harassment and politically motivated.
Hanky panky is a way of life in Congress, what a bunch of total hypocrites!

Clinton lied but nobody died (bumper sticker)

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

...Hanky panky is a way of life in Congress, what a bunch of total hypocrites!

There's a lot of truth in that statement, randolph. Politicians are either screwing each other or the public and it's nonstop.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

There's a lot of truth in that statement, randolph. Politicians are either screwing each other or the public and it's nonstop.

How about Canada? We don't hear much about what goes on up there.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

How about Canada? We don't hear much about what goes on up there.

It's the same with different players.

[shadows]

Originally Posted by randolph

How about Canada? We don't hear much about what goes on up there.

We'll let you know after the upcoming election.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

I could never understand why your congress wanted to impeach Clinton over this affair. What happened had no effect on or consequences to the running of your country.

I completely agree. The republicans just wanted any excuse to try and get him out. Did they really think it would work? All they did was waste the country's time and money, and distract Clinton from things that actually mattered, like the growing presence of Al Qaeda.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I completely agree. The republicans just wanted any excuse to try and get him out. Did they really think it would work? All they did was waste the country's time and money, and distract Clinton from things that actually mattered, like the growing presence of Al Qaeda.

That's so true.
What mystifies me is why officials in high places are willing to risk everything for a few moments of sex. I surely know what it's like to be horny but to spend thousands of dollars for a fuck or take advantage of an intern? What is up with these guys, does all that power make them obsessed with sex?

Anyway, the relentless harassment of Clinton was outrageous. It is to his credit that he survived and his Presidency survived. I think it was because the public realized it was unjust.

[franalexes]

they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen[/QUOTE]

The THEY you are talking about was a democrat congress.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen

The THEY you are talking about was a democrat congress.[/QUOTE]


Fran i fear you have being hanging with Tracy far too long as you seemed to have forgotten that when W lied the house and sen where under GOP control and was controlled by the same members that wanted to impeach Clinton for getting a BJ so the way it looks is that getting a BJ is the worst thing ever but starting a war on lies is okie dookie as long as you are GOP
Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Congress talks about jobs while they provide tax incentives to move jobs overseas. GE and other multinationals play games and avoid paying any taxes. What is the justice in that?

[smc]

A wise man once said that trying to have a rational discussion with people who do not understand the simple concept of moral inequivalency is perhaps the greatest waste of time to which humans wrongly aspire.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

A wise man once said that trying to have a rational discussion with people who do not understand the simple concept of moral inequivalency is perhaps the greatest waste of time to which humans wrongly aspire.

There is lots of discussions about moral equivalency on the internet but I could find nothing on moral inequivalency. Would you care to elaborate on its meaning?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

There is lots of discussions about moral equivalency on the internet but I could find nothing on moral inequivalency. Would you care to elaborate on its meaning?

It is simply my way of stating that the false moral equivalence so often proposed by some (e.g., invading Iraq on a lie or getting a blowjob from a White House interns as having some sort of moral equivalence in the pantheon of presidential behavior) should more correctly and accurately be called moral inequivalence.

In other words, the false moral equivalence established in arguments reveals moral inequivalence.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

And W twisting the truth about WMDS inorder to get his Iruaq qar a war he was planning back when he was govorner in Texas

Tell me Jen, was Bill Clinton lying in 1998 when he said this?

Originally Posted by Bill Clinton

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.

Was Hillary Clinton lying in 2002 when she said this?

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Was Clinton's secretary of defence lying in 2002 when he said this?

Originally Posted by William Cohen

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.

Was Ted Kennedy lying in 2002 when he said this?

Originally Posted by Ted Kennedy

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

There's many more quotes I could add, but we'll start with these for now.

Originally Posted by transjen

And lets not forget a lieing sack of crap govorner in FL in 2000 who riged an election

Evidence ?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Tell me Jen, was Bill Clinton lying in 1998 when he said this?


Was Hillary Clinton lying in 2002 when she said this?


Was Clinton's secretary of defence lying in 2002 when he said this?


Was Ted Kennedy lying in 2002 when he said this?


There's many more quotes I could add, but we'll start with these for now.

Evidence ?

Throughout history, one could find example after example where politicians from different sides of the fence (so to speak) utter similar assessments about this or that. What matters is what they DO. Hence, Tracy Coxx's litany of statements gets us nowhere. We can argue until the cows come home whether Bush and Kennedy, Clinton, Cohen, et al. made similar statements. But only Bush, none of these others, went to war over this when inspectors were giving evidence to the contrary. Only Bush preemptively invaded a country that had not attacked the United and lied about the connections between that country and those who had attacked the United States. Only Bush stood up before Congress and knowingly lied about Iraq, uraniam, and Niger as justification to send American soldiers to lose their lives for a lie. Not Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, not William Cohen, not Ted Kennedy, not any of the people in Tracy Coxx's litany of quotes taken out of the context of historical ACTION.

[smc]

^ Just to follow up:

What Tracy Coxx would have us believe by the manner of the post with quotes from others is the equivalent of saying that every politician who spoke out against the Contras in Nicaragua is complicit with the Reagan Administration in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Any reasonable person knows how ridiculous a notion that is.

[randolph]

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?
2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?
3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?
4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?
2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?
3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?
4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

I'm not saying a case couldn't be made that the Iraq war was unnecessary. I'm just sick of this bullshit that has been going around since the 2004 election that it was all Bush's fault and only Bush's fault. Bush followed what the intelligence from the CIA was showing, and has been showing since 1998 - that Saddam had WMDs and wasn't getting rid of them according to the UN resolution. The mistake has been the CIA's all along.

The country was pretty much one voice after 9/11. There were bipartisan intelligence committees in congress going over all the intelligence data. They were all on the same page about what it incorrectly showed. Bush did not start the Iraq war all by himself. The House of Representatives voted for it 297/133. The Senate voted for it 77/23. Based not only on the Bush administration's case but on the bipartisan intelligence committees findings.

Then comes the 2004 elections and the dems couldn't be seen agreeing with the president all the time. There would be no reason to vote for them if they were simply going along with Bush. So there was a sudden shift where all of Bush's bipartisan support evaporated and the presidential campaign was on. That's when WMD experts like Sean Penn, George palney and Michael Moore started the campaign against Bush. It was a circus full of lies and revisionist history and the opposition has been in this mode ever since the 2004 election.

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

What is the benefit? The billions of dollars spent? The thousands of lives lost? The bitter acrimony against the United States throughout the Muslim world? The lower oil prices from occupying an oil-producing country? The permanent military presence the United States will be able to establish in Iraq? Name the benefit. "Yes" is not sufficient.

Originally Posted by randolph

2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

I do know some Iraqis. While you're busy imagining what they think might be nice, they remind me that there was no sectarian violence in Iraq before the United States invaded, that despite living under a despot there was general peace in the country, that other than the criminal blockade that kept medicine (primarily) from children foodstuffs were generally available ... etc., etc., etc. At least one of my Iraqi acquaintances has told me that he would take the entire Hussein family in power for his entire life over the death of his 76-year-old mother in a bombing by the United States military.

Originally Posted by randolph

3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

The answer to this question is yes, even if Tracy Coxx reveals a profound lack of understanding of the region. The current Iraqi regime supported by the United States is closely aligned with Iran. Prior to the invasion and occupation, Iran had little influence in Iraq. Now, as the CIA itself acknowledges, Iran wields enormous political influence within the sitting Iraqi government. And who made that happen? The United States.

Originally Posted by randolph

4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

Iraq became "an Al Qaeda magnet" after the U.S. invasion, because there's nothing like an unwarranted invasion of a Muslim country to aid the recruitment of Muslim radicals and get them to go and fight the "infidel" in the invaded country.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Tell me Jen, was Bill Clinton lying in 1998 when he said this?


Was Hillary Clinton lying in 2002 when she said this?


Was Clinton's secretary of defence lying in 2002 when he said this?


Was Ted Kennedy lying in 2002 when he said this?


There's many more quotes I could add, but we'll start with these for now.

Evidence ?

AH yes the old blame Clinton stratagee, You would have a point if Clinton took the info and started the war which he didn't as unlike W Clinton didn't have a grugde agianst Sadam so he was smart enought to read the report raise an eyebrow and say we better keep an eye on this joker, W on the other hand took the report and twisted and fudged it and outright lied with his cabinet marching in step behind him


No matter how you try to spin it W lied and soliders died
And proof of FL sleaze of a governor he is W weasle little brother who put Kathrine Harris as head of elections even tho it was a pure conflict of interest as she was also the head of W's FL election camp and lets not forget the until 2000 FL never had ballot problems, Jed and Kathrine rigged the election and the unsupreme court on a straight partyline vote of 5-4 the USA and made the worst president ever the president and we have been surfering ever since
Jerseygirl Jen