"Sandman" wrote in message

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:37:09 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in
message ...
mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in
message ...

mikemckelvy wrote:


It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth
under

oath.

So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire
nation?

I see no difference.


You're right Clinton lied all the time.

So does Bush. Both are bums. The diffeerence, though, is that
Bush's policies are driving us to record levels of debt. Forget
about saving social security at this rate.

There's no way to save social security that the dems will allow.
Privatization is the possible hope.

Sort of like the obstructionist Repubs that have allowed 23,000,000
people who can't get health insurance...

We're spending as if we were in the height of the Cold War and
yet we squished the forces in Iraq in what - three weeks?

If you check you'll notice it's still a bit dicey there, plus we've
more of the Clinton legacy to deal with in Korea and Liberia.

You mean like we had to deal with the Reagan legacy in Iraq?

Is *that* what you mean?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html

This bit is especially telling:

"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or
German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents,
including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and
cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report
says".

Oooops! Once again, you bring something up, I counter it with worse
stuff...

Let him chew on this, Dave...

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19255

For a lawyer Sanders you seem to have zero appreciation of the meaning of
the word "hearsay".

Sanders, it's really too bad that Saddam's regime has already fallen, as a
person with your appreciation for the sanctity of his regime really needs to
spend a few years living there...