IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New This is what I'm on about.
This prurient obsession with age/sex/tits (Oh noes, Janet! End Of World Is Nigh! We Saw A BEWB! In the middle of the SUPER BOWL!) is exactly why it was a load of bollocks (hoho) in the first place. In a civilised country, women wash their clothes after the president's blown his beans on them.

It doesn't matter that Bill got a gobble. It double dog doesn't matter how old the gobbler was, be she 25 or 85.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
Expand Edited by pwhysall May 21, 2007, 09:41:35 AM EDT
New Ah, I see.
A man's choices say nothing about his character, then?

Its not that you don't have a very good point, just that the opposing camp also has a point. Even if you think its a repressed one.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Gibbering on and on about this, in order to relativise...
...the other thing -- or just to distract our attention away from it? One wonders... Or rather, one WOULD wonder, were it not for the fact that this is so well-worn an old tactic from you, Bill.

What a man's choice of age in his sex (or not, as the case and definition of 'is' may be) partners says about his character is all TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT compared to what the fact that he is prepared to LIE HIS COUNTRY INTO A WAR says about his character, isn't it?


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New First of all.
My read was this was about the AG crap. If its lying into a war that you're on about it would be very simple to produce quotes from damned near every politician in Washington talking about Saddam and WMD et al prior to the invasion.

That boat doesn't float..which is why, imo, you haven't seen a wholesale push by the Democrats to impeach. They don't want their pre-war comments brought back either.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New They may have thought that he had WMDs
But, they were still pushing for continued sanctions and working through the UN. Unfortunately, I think they are too worried about making Bush sympathetic to impeach him, but their pre-war comments do worry them.
Seamus
Expand Edited by Seamus May 21, 2007, 06:20:43 PM EDT
New You know...
that argument is getting really, really old.

I've seen Kathleen Parkers arguments on it as well. (No one thought Saddam didn't have WMD... Really? No one talked to Scott Ritter? Damn...look at his quotes, and tell me, in hindsight, the man didn't know what was talking about. But I digress...)

Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah, everyone thought he had WMD.

Defense concedes the issue and throws itself on the mercy of the court. Yes, everyone *cough* thought he had weapons of mass destruction.

And your point? That's why *EVEN THE FRENCH* wanted UN Weapon inspectors to go to Iraq.

Ah, so...I forgot, Saddam wasn't letting them in. I apologize. (That's why we had to pull out Hans Blix before we invaded?)
New My isn't revisionist history alive and well.
The Democrats were equally convinced of the threat here (Ritter aside) which is how we ended up with a majority vote in Washington...lest we forget the entire Kerry episode of voting for the war before voting against the war.

AND, maybe with the exception of the French, there wasn't anyone satisfied with the Iraq acceptance of inspectors. They were repeatedly not allowed the access specifically set forth in multiple UN resolutions.

And the "everyone" I should qualify as inside the beltway.

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."


John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. 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."
\t


Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."



Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."


Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."


Need more?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New they really didnt beleive it tho, snicker
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Thats why they voted for it b4 voting against it!
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Let's see what else Byrd said.
[link|http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/byrd_speeches_2003february/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_1.html|February 12, 2003]:

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

[...]

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.


Cheers,
Scott.
New Eloquent but irrelevant.
The hue and cry is to impeach Bush based on "lies" told to take this country to war.

The point is that even Democrats fully believed Iraq had weapons and/or weapons programs in place...and said so.

So, how can they impeach the President for saying the same things they themselves were saying?

Short answer. They can't.

PS. I happen to agree with his speech.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
Expand Edited by bepatient May 23, 2007, 10:13:21 AM EDT
New You're being too broad again...
The point is that even Democrats fully believed Iraq had weapons and/or weapons programs in place...and said so.


Weapons program != WMD

Find me a list of Democrats who "fully believed" [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html|Cheney's speech] to the VFW:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.


I don't think you'll find many. Maybe Lieberman. <rolls eyes>

Your statement is trivially true if you find at least 2 members of the Democratic Party who believed those things. It's hardly enlightening.

If one looks at the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution|vote]:

House: 296 to 133. 215/296 = 72.6% of the votes in favor were Republicans. 126(+1)/133 = 95.5% of the votes against were Democrats (+ the independent).

Senate: 77 to 23. 48/77 = 62.3% of the votes in favor were Republicans. 21(+1)/23 = 95.7% of the votes against were Democrats (+ the independent).

It's disingenuous to say that "even Democrats fully believed..." when the opposition to the War resolution was lead by the Democrats. If everyone believed it, one would think that the percentages wouldn't be so lopsided on an issue as important as an authorization to use military force.

Finally, [link|http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp|Snopes] gives more context to the quotes you cited. For example:

In October 2002, as the U.S. Senate debated Joint Resolution 46 authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, Senator [link|http://byrd.senate.gov/|Robert Byrd] of West Virginia delivered [link|http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:5iGVJ1wAe30J:byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_2.html+%22Robert+Byrd%22+speech+%22october+3%22+2002&hl=en&ie=UTF-8|remarks] regarding his belief that the "rush to war" was "ignoring the U.S. Constitution" and that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Among his remarks were the following statements:

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it -- we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.


If you haven't noticed by now, I get suspicious of isolated quotations. ;-)

Bottom line: The Democrats were not saying the "same thing" as the Administration.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I don't think so.
Others, like Rockefeller cite "unmistakable evidence" of Iraq's pursuit of nukes. He, Dick Durbin and John Edwards were all quoted similarly...and they were on the Senate Intel committee at the time..seeing the same things the administration was seeing at the same time.

They cannot say the admin lied to convince them...unless, of course, they admit to not doing their job...which I supposes is always a possibility.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Not so.
He, Dick Durbin and John Edwards were all quoted similarly...and they were on the Senate Intel committee at the time..seeing the same things the administration was seeing at the same time.


You shouldn't keep repeating Bush and Cheney's talking points, Bill...

The Senate and House intelligence committees [link|http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm|only sees what the Administration lets them see]. They didn't see the "same" intelligence that Bush and Cheney saw.

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.


[...]


Emphasis added.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Ok, so they don't get the President's Daily Brief.
Then again, they aren't the president.

USSSCOI

Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.


Like I said, they can't say they didn't know without admitting that they weren't doing their job.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New The "You didn't catch me, so it's not my fault" defense? :-/
New Hardly
Wondering what summaries of intel are being dealt to the President when you are responsible for the agencies creating that brief seems...well...a little backwards, don't you think?

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New You do remember who ran the Senate until Jan 2007, right?
The Republican party had control of the Senate and House leadership. They weren't much interested in investigating the Administration or doing vigorous oversight.

[link|http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html|Raw Story]:

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush issued an [link|http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/bushrestrictedintel.pdf|order] to the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, and his cabinet members that severely curtailed intelligence oversight by restricting classified information to just eight members of Congress.

"The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information," he writes, "are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate."

The order is aimed at protecting "military security" and "sensitive law enforcement."

[...]

The Senate and House intelligence committees were created in the 1970s after a series of congressional investigations found that the CIA had acted like a "rogue elephant" carrying out illegal covert action abroad.

By the late 1990s, members of the committees and their staffs were seeing more than 2,200 CIA reports and receiving more than 1,200 substantive briefings from agency officials each year to assist them in their role of providing proper oversight.

But the little-reported 2001 Bush directive changed that, ensuring that only two members of each committee received full briefings on intelligence operations, and preventing committee staffs from carrying out meaningful research.

Tom Reynolds, spokesman for the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Jane Harman (D-CA), downplayed the significance of the order, saying members continued to have access. He acknowledged, however, that the "gang of eight" had higher-level clearances.

The spokesman for the Senate Intelligence Committee deferred comment to the White House; the White House did not return requests for comment.

[...]

Whether Roberts actually saw the Niger forgeries during Hadley\ufffds briefings is unclear. What is clear is that by March of 2003, the Intelligence chairman was in a position to head off any serious investigation into concerns raised by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the committee's ranking Democrat and vice-chair.

Rockefeller has grave concerns about deceptive intelligence, so serious that he pens a formal letter to FBI director Robert Mueller.

Rockefeller urges Mueller to investigate the Niger forgeries as part of what he feared to be "\ufffda larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq," writes the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh.

Roberts declines to sign the Rockefeller letter, seeing the involvement of the FBI as inappropriate. As a result, Rockefeller's letter falls on deaf ears.

On July 11, 2003, faced with public pressure to investigate the Niger forgeries, Roberts blames the CIA and defends the White House.

[...]


It's hard to have oversight when the information is so restricted to so few people, when the interests of the Party superscede the oversight functions, and when too many people don't ask probing questions.

I fear we aren't going to make much additional progress on this topic, so I'll let you have the last word.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: I don't think so. (new thread)
Created as new thread #285685 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=285685|Re: I don't think so.]
lincoln

"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow


Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.


I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States.


[link|mailto:golf_lover44@yahoo.com|contact me]
New and which prrominant democrats running for prez
voted against?
I think you buy moveon.org hook line and sinker.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New See #285239. I don't read MoveOn.org.
Expand Edited by Another Scott May 23, 2007, 11:52:11 AM EDT
New Yes, yes indeed it is.
Let's be CRYSTAL clear....there is no chance that Democrats will impeach Bush for "spreading lies".

That said, the LIE that EVERYONE bought the argument that Saddam Hussein had WMD and had to be brought down by force is FALSE.

Washington Beltway Names only? Sigh...I can google as well as you can.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"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." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham (et al)

Of course, Kennedy, Boxer and Graham all voted against the resolution to use force. Shrug, go figure. Maybe they wanted a solution other than war?

I haven't even googled for the other 23 Senators who voted against the resolution.

Shrug - btw: for those who care. [link|http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm|http://www.thememory...powell-no-wmd.htm]
New Alright then.
A significant amount as opposed to "everyone". And you gave Teddy twice. Granted he's big enough for 2 quotes...but that's another matter ;-)

I'll give you that nit.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New What can I say, I just pulled them from RightWingNews (iirc)
New Never been to that site (new thread)
Created as new thread #285304 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=285304|Never been to that site]
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Nor is it a consistent one
If you are repo, the social conservatives will forgive, but they don't seem to forgive dems. Probably because the repos are so convicing when they apologize, yeah right.
Seamus
     What the f*** kind of question is that. - (bepatient) - (104)
         I blame Jimmy Carter. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             I was looking for his 'lust in my heart' line -NT - (Seamus)
         Same as the rest of the media and the American public. - (n3jja) - (5)
             Just caught that episode tonight - - (Ashton) - (2)
                 Re: those Stupid French! - (a6l6e6x)
                 In true noo-meeja style... - (pwhysall)
             Heard an interesting comparison of French politics. - (static) - (1)
                 OT: what is it with tiny text? - (pwhysall)
         Scratching head.... - (Simon_Jester)
         Yeah, almost as bad as elevating extramarital blowjobs to... - (CRConrad) - (94)
             WHAT! - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                 Oh, not at all unheard of. There is the small consolation... - (CRConrad)
             lying about blowjobs under oath is the same as - (boxley) - (91)
                 Point missed. - (pwhysall) - (2)
                     because of the paula jones lawsuit claiming sexual assault - (boxley) - (1)
                         Ah, the Paula Jones lawsuit. - (pwhysall)
                 NFW are they the same - (Seamus) - (30)
                     yawn, quick poll - (boxley) - (15)
                         Yes on both - HTF could anyone vote any other way?!? -NT - (CRConrad)
                         If Starr was going after Gringrich - (Seamus) - (13)
                             Im no champion, you have me confused wit someone else - (boxley) - (12)
                                 You were when the subject was Hillary - (Seamus) - (11)
                                     lets reason on this - (boxley) - (10)
                                         Yes, lets reason on this - (Seamus) - (9)
                                             I see, so getting a hummer while talking to senators - (boxley) - (8)
                                                 The Senate is PART OF Congress, mr Law Expert. HTH! -NT - (CRConrad) - (6)
                                                     I got yer suppah swingin - (boxley) - (5)
                                                         A) I'm not sure he got it wrong, and... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                             This is so great...you misspelled mistake :-) HTH -NT - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                 At the risk of killing the frog: What - you don't mean... - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                     Killing frogs? - (bepatient)
                                                         No Bill, I lumped the 2 together and didn't explicitly state - (Seamus)
                                                 I understand it just fine - (Seamus)
                     Numbers? - (bepatient) - (13)
                         If he can name 7, will you concede? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             Would just like to see some backup - (bepatient) - (1)
                                 You are a piece of work (new thread) - (Seamus)
                         Re: Numbers? - (Seamus) - (9)
                             Then don't do this - (bepatient) - (8)
                                 You expanded to include affairs - (Seamus) - (7)
                                     Strike 2 -NT - (bepatient) - (6)
                                         You struck out a long time ago. -NT - (Seamus) - (5)
                                             Right. Keep those blinders on firmly. -NT - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                 Again, utterly hilarious coming from you. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                     Right. You seem to be affected by the same... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                         "Toe". You *tow* a car, and *toe* a line. HTH! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                             Thank you Mr Roget. -NT - (bepatient)
                 I don't think you're getting it. - (CRConrad) - (56)
                     *applause* - (pwhysall) - (42)
                         Meanwhile, in France - (bepatient) - (41)
                             Why did you mention age? - (pwhysall) - (34)
                                 All part of the story. -NT - (bepatient) - (33)
                                     This is what I'm on about. - (pwhysall) - (25)
                                         Ah, I see. - (bepatient) - (24)
                                             Gibbering on and on about this, in order to relativise... - (CRConrad) - (22)
                                                 First of all. - (bepatient) - (21)
                                                     They may have thought that he had WMDs - (Seamus)
                                                     You know... - (Simon_Jester) - (19)
                                                         My isn't revisionist history alive and well. - (bepatient) - (18)
                                                             they really didnt beleive it tho, snicker -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                 Thats why they voted for it b4 voting against it! -NT - (bepatient)
                                                             Let's see what else Byrd said. - (Another Scott) - (11)
                                                                 Eloquent but irrelevant. - (bepatient) - (10)
                                                                     You're being too broad again... - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                         I don't think so. - (bepatient) - (6)
                                                                             Not so. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                 Ok, so they don't get the President's Daily Brief. - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                     The "You didn't catch me, so it's not my fault" defense? :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                         Hardly - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                             You do remember who ran the Senate until Jan 2007, right? - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Re: I don't think so. (new thread) - (lincoln)
                                                                         and which prrominant democrats running for prez - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                             See #285239. I don't read MoveOn.org. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                             Yes, yes indeed it is. - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                                                                 Alright then. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                     What can I say, I just pulled them from RightWingNews (iirc) -NT - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                         Never been to that site (new thread) - (bepatient)
                                             Nor is it a consistent one - (Seamus)
                                     More like all part of the "narrative" -NT - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                         Ok. Nit well picked. -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                             No. A distinction, not a nit. - (rcareaga)
                                     So why didn't you mention her religion? Or the colour of... - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                         Nope. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                             Ah, "relevance". That's a good one, coming from you. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                 Just easily distracted :-) -NT - (bepatient)
                             You're joking right? - (scoenye) - (5)
                                 Talk to Peter - (bepatient)
                                 I didn't say they weren't corrupt. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                     Ah! Well, yes, that is a bit alien to us as well... - (scoenye) - (2)
                                         signed up, had to choose the second life option tho -NT - (boxley)
                                         Thats why I love Belgium :-) - (bepatient)
                     your great skills in language match your ignorance of law - (boxley) - (12)
                         Another article about it: - (admin) - (11)
                             I like this one better - (boxley) - (7)
                                 In the end all that matters is what congress thinks of as - (Seamus)
                                 OTOH, Posner's book covers this stuff, too. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                     dont think much of posner's ideas -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                         Different strokes. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                             Im more aligned with Blackstone, Gerry Spence and Pliskin -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                                 Snake Plisken, I heard you were dead. -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                     sshhh! -NT - (boxley)
                             Interesting, but zooks that's broad... -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 think about it, Gore would have been president for 2 years - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Nope. - (Another Scott)

I like working for this guy.
He calls himself my towel boy.
He knows how to motivate me.
204 ms