they would immediately notice something rather significant.
If his lips are moving he is LYING!
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
they would immediately notice something rather significant.
If his lips are moving he is LYING!
Really reassuring in a major party's candidate for the Presidency!
Hi, Paul C.
Bush said that war would only be a last resort, and that there'd be international cooperation. Bush then takes that to mean Britain, Australia, and some hangers-on -- the intent of the resolution was a truly international coalition as in Gulf War I. Further, Bush et al. kept raising the bar on what "cooperation" with the inspectors meant. Youre post is clearly intended to try to do to Kerry what Romney's "I was brainwashed" statement about VietNam did in destroying his campaign against Nixon. Hopefully the American public won't be played for fools yet again, but only time will tell.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Also from Ms. Saunders' column:
A month before Kerry's "yes'' vote, Bush went to the United Nations and said the following: "Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times. Not once, not twice -- 16 times he has defied the U. N. The U.N. has told him after the (Persian) Gulf War what to do, what the world expected, and 16 times he's defied it. And enough is enough. The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out.'' (Emphasis mine)
President Bush said that at the UN, Dave. There's no way Sen. Kerry (or you) can say that he (or you) was somehow blindsided by the invasion of Iraq. The President spoke a month before Sen. Kerry voted for the resolution, for God's sake! He can't possibly say that he didn't know that we might act without UN sanction if the UN failed to step up to the plate and accepted its responsibility to enforce its previous 18 resolutions.
At best, Sen. Kerry is being completely disingenuous. At worse, he's either being completely dishonest (real bad, IMO), or displaying the intellectually laziness as the Bush haters so like to attribute to the President (even worse).
Hi, Paul C.
I gave it the attention it deserved. IOW, I scanned enough of the first paragraph to identify it as partisan republican drivel, then addressed some particular points in what you chose to post.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
carefully follow the debate and wording of the resolution itself when it was introduced (and unfortunately passed) those many months ago -- and there's passing little relationship between that resolution and Ms. Saunders' revisionist exegesis of same.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
If you READ the article Paul had represented it quite accurately.
It is you who are not doing so.
11. When confronted with unpleasant or uncomfortable history, rewrite it to fit the interests of the Democrat Party and/or its nominees.
4 of which I swiped from Neal Boortz. You modified #4 and I have seen some others suggested.
Someone needs to compile them all and periodically repost them so we don't forget.
Along with things like;
When you see that your candidate is a sleaze and cannot win, jerk him and substitute another after the deadlines have passed (the Torricelli Rule)
Bo
He yelled "Nixon" this morning. Wow, a 2 Nixon day, and the day is not over yet.
You read minds, Kiddpeat. It's now the next day, before noon, and he switched to "Watergate" in the Martha Stewart thread. Well, when he was talking about the problem being lying, obviously he would ignore the last administration and run to something over 3 decades ago.