I spoke of Clinton’s lies in post #25 and there was no mention of his world-famous blowjob. I could just as easily have been talking about his using Lewinski as a humidor, dropping his pants in front of women procured by his state troopers, or his denial of tapes in which he calls Jennifer Flowers ‘baby’ but calls her a fucking slut and later a whore when tapes of him advising her to lie about their relationship surfaced. The words ‘blow job’ first entered the thread when you said them in post #28.
And I’d lay dollars to doughnuts that it was either your specific first use of the term or my response to your first use of it that spurred Kyla’s assertion that I’m allegedly ‘obsessed’ with Clinton’s blowjob.
Have you actually been reading the thread? If so, you saw me asking her just what I said I did. Or do you need a post number also?
So, you take mhendo’s 9/11 commission report as gospel, a report in which the commission accepted the Clinton administrations lies (and we all know that lies are an integral part of any Clintonian endeavor, regardless of the gender of said Clinton), and you totally disregard my numerous sites (including one by an active participant hiimselfin trying to bring bin Laden to task) to the contrary?
Now I know Powell is a big boy and he went and did his job, but I am of the opinion that he did his best to avoid war. He just couldn’t stop the Bush train.
I wish I could disagree with your points, but I can’t. Isn’t there a saying that “success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan”?
George Bush didn’t come out of nowhere, seize power and rule as a tyrant. Well, okay, he did sort of, but with a lot of cooperation. Even though the 2000 and 2004 elections were questionable, Bush wouldn’t be in the White House if his simple-minded view of the world didn’t appeal to a lot of us.
Specifically, those members of “the public” who accused him of perpetrating a “wag the dog” scam when he did take some (admittedly insufficient) actions against bin Laden’s operations.
Do you not agree that had he not been guided by motives that were primarily political, he should have done the right thing and gone after bin Laden anyway rather than conveniently looking at it as a ‘police’ problem and passing it on to the next president?
This is one of the things I appreciate about Bush (and most Republican presidents); they do what they think is right rather than what is politically expedient and likely to pay off in tomorrow’s polls or next year’s election (which was Clinton’s M.O. to a tee).
Oh, I think I will bother since I have a little time to kill and it’s your brain that apparently doesn’t ‘work right’.
mhendo accused me of dishonesty when he said: "‘You mean, “If i had known that you would spot my duplicity and my (all-too-familiar) habit of making baldfaced assertions with no evidence, and using the words ‘I don’t have a cite handy’ as an excuse when people point out my dishonesty.”’
To this I responded with the fact that I said I was posting without a cite prior to any accusations of anything, and I quite reasonably called his own honesty into question as a result.
You then claimed – pursuant to claiming my brain doesn’t work right (an ongoing theme from you which you somehow seem to think gains some sort of traction) – that he didn’t call me dishonest but that he called me a dipshit instead.
Now, if you’ll go back to the beginning of the thread like a good little boy and use the search function to locate the first use of the word dipshit, you’ll see that it was not mhendo but you yourself who first brought it into play.
So you’re either dishonest or stupid (though certainly you can and have been both). In this case however, because the error is so obvious, I’m going to go with stupid.
Did Bush say he was regretful of hiring Donald Rumsfeld and slating Dick Cheney? Did he say he regretted ever approving torture? Does he regret the fact that Osma Bin Laden is STILL ALIVE AND FREE?
You may have confused Bill Clinton with Ken Starr.
Thanks to Ken the Puritan, Monica Lewinsky will always be known for one thing and one thing alone: for having Bill Clinton’s cock in her mouth.
Think of having to go through life, knowing that that’s the first thing anyone thinks of when they meet you, and knowing that will never change.
Think of how little relevance Lewinsky had, in January 1998, to any allegations Ken Starr was pursuing.
I don’t want to hear from the Clinton-haters about how Clinton damaged anyone else’s reputation, unless they’ve already railed to the skies about Ken Starr & Co. doing the same thing.
Not to mention an established record of off-the-scale-ranting at all the reputations, from the entire USA downwards, that the Incompetent-in-Chief has damaged.
Clinton was trashing women (after all, that’s what handling ‘bimbo eruptions’ was all about) long before Ken Starr and Monica Lewinski, so with your kind permission I think I’ll continue to bash him, Ken Starr mentions or no.
And besides, there are those of us who think that if Clinton hadn’t maneuvered his dick (and cigar) into the orifices of an impressionable young intern in the first place, there would have been nothing for Ken Starr to latch onto.
Bill Clinton is a user and abuser of women and he is far more responsible for Monica Lewinski’s fate than is Ken Starr.
Read for comprehension much? I don’t dispute that you asked that question; I dispute that you “merely” asked it. Where the word “merely” here suggests an innocent question, offered without any suggestion of an agenda behind it. I continue to dispute that, because, let’s be honest, it’s bullshit. You were trying to pull a gotcha. Unfortunately for you, the facts don’t seem to be what you want them to be.
This wasn’t some partisan organization with some agenda to vindicate Clinton. They looked at the evidence of the Clinton/Sudan connection and found it lacking. Perhaps later new evidence will come to light - they didn’t say there was no connection, just that there isn’t really any reason to believe there is one.
I looked at your cites, and they were mostly second-hand news reports of that claim, which the non-partisan 9/11 commission rejected. But there was the article by Mansoor Ijaz, in which he claims to have been an active participant in a negotiation, but that claim is uncorroborated. The fact that you’ll take the uncorroborated claim as ‘gospel’ while dismissing the 9/11 commission’s report says a lot more about you than the reverse says about me.
FarmerChick, I respect your post and points about Colin Powell, but I’ve been scornful of him ever since I heard about his part in trying to cover up Mi Lai, so that also colors my opinion of him. Could he have refused to go in front of the UN with those cheezy drawings and fuzzy photos if he had qualms? I don’t know. He would have been branded a traitor just like the rest of us who expressed doubts. Should he? In my opinion, of course. He’s redeemed himself a bit in my eyes for what he’s done since leaving the Bush administration, and I thank him profusely for endorsing Barack Obama, which surely made the difference in a lot of people’s votes, but I do have a hard time letting go of his part of responsibility, considering all the people who have been killed, maimed and terrorized in Iraq.
Golly gosh gee, when you’re right, you’re right. In post #25 you said:
and I said in #28:
Silly me for thinking that your use of “sexyul relations” was referring to the cigar and not the oral sex. How could I have been so off base? :rolleyes:
Speaking of cites? Now that you’ve had your beauty rest and all, have you had the time to track down that cite you seem to think that maybe you read somewhere, or something? Or may we take the default position, that you were talking out of your ass?