Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

[mac davis]

a bikini trim?

Mac

[Dave Hinz]

Actually, our representative (Jim Sensenbrenner) has pretty much that whole "regular guy" thing going on, no false pretenses. "Here's who I am, here's what I believe, and if you agree with me more than you disagree with me, I'd like to get your vote" kind of a guy. Definately "haircut" rather than "hairstyle" there. Not saying he's typical, though.

Guy has amazing memory. He comes to our Fireman's Picnic every year to talk to folks. I ran into him elsewhere, completely out of context, and he greeted me with "Hi Dave, how are things in (home town)?". I see the guy once a year, and he's got _that_ good of a memory. (No, I wasn't wearing a nametag or my home town on my jacket or anything).

So, they're not all fakey like the two trying to become pres & VP at the moment...

Dave Hinz

[Steve Knight]

the debates are a joke. they have a 30 page list of what they can and can't do. there is no real debating anymore. 20/20 did a great report on it.

[Charlie Self]

Steve Knight responds:

Missed the report, but read about the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Puts this stage-managed hocus-pocus to shame. But hell, Bush couldn't even get it right with thirty pages of directions. Maybe if the put it on the heel of his boot, he can figure out how to pour piss out of the boot without Cheney pulling his strings.

Charlie Self "The really frightening thing about middle age is that you know you'll grow out of it." Doris Day

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:27:25 GMT, mac davis calmly ranted:

No, that's my favorite, a shavetail. Yum, no fur in the teeth!

--- - Friends don't let friends use FrontPage -

Dynamic Website Programming

[Steve Knight]

I guess the rules are so biased towards showing off the candidates that no real debate can now happen. well hell just listening to it I thought something was wrong. but I agree bush would die in a real debate.

[Charlie Self]

Steve Knight responds:

They wanna look good, and figure no one really listens to them anyway. Which may be pretty close to true.

Bush wants to be folksy (silver spoon and all), but he strikes me as the guy who sits around the room until the discussion gets to something he knows, say snakes, when he tells you all about the racer snakes that outrun men (and women) and the hoop snakes that roll right on by you. Which make for nice tales, but isn't heavy on facts.

Charlie Self "The really frightening thing about middle age is that you know you'll grow out of it." Doris Day

[Charlie Self]

Larry Jaques responds:

C'mon, man. With some people, that's the only way they floss.

Charlie Self "The really frightening thing about middle age is that you know you'll grow out of it." Doris Day

[bob peterson]

There is great fear on both sides about having a wide open real debate ala Lincoln-Douglas. Personally I would prefer such a debate between the candidates without interference from a moderator (except for enforcing a very few administrative rules - like potty breaks and time limits). Such a debate would not do well on TV though, as TV needs short sound bites to be effective. It would also favor substance over style which would tend to give Bush a huge advantage so Kerry probably would never agree to such a thing, because eventually he would be forced to say what he really believes as opposed to what the Clinton people are telling him to say so he has a chance of being elected.

Personally I think Kerry had a better shot at it if he had just come clean and said what he thinks, although now he really can't do that. After being lied to and scammed almost continuously for the 8 years of the Clinton administration, I suspect enough of the voters are able to spot someone who is just saying what he thinks he has to say to get by instead of what he really believes.

Kerry came close to telling the truth about what he really believes when he said US action has to pass a "global test". He has always believed that the US should not use force in its national intersts without permission from the UN and has been very clear about this throughout the last 30+ years, and even voted against the first gulf war which did have UN sanction. Interestingly, he did not apply this logic to the Balkans effort of the Clinton era.

The other problem with such a format is that it cannot be controlled. Its bound to get into areas no one wants to discuss such as the oil for food scam where Sadaam used a humanatarian program to bribe European and Russain officials to sell him arms. This is a huge hot potatoe that no one wants to deal with. I have to wonder just what will happen with the congressional investigation that is going on now. Will anyone ever be locked up for this? Probably not since many UN officials have diplomatic cover. It also might open up other areas for discussion such as the selling of arms to Sadaam by the French, Russians, and Germans while there were UN sanctions against such sales.

My guess is Kerry really believes in the UN nonsense, which makes him far more dangerous than a guy like Clinton who believed in nothing other than what was in his own best interest at the time.

Its entirely likely that the Islamic terrorist problem will not go away anytime soon. My guess is those of us over 40 will probably die wondering if Americans will ever feel safe again getting on a commercial aircraft. It's certainly far better to go after them where they live, train, and are supported than allowing them to strike first, even if the intelligence you have is not complete. You have to act on the information available to you at the time and all this Monday morning quarterbacking about "no WMD" found is just politics. John Kerry and other high ranking democrats had access to the same intelligence infomration the Bush administration did and I don't recall a single one of them did anything other then support the position that Sadaam had WMD and was likely to distribute and/or use them, and needed to be dealt with, including the use of force. What bothers me is that its an absolute fact that he had chemical weapons, and may well have had biological weapons, and no one seems to be all that worried about what happenned to them. I would certainly feel better if they turned up in Iraq rather than in the hands of some group that imported them into the USA, but I suspect they passed over to Syria prior to the invasion (remember how Sadaam sent his Air Force to Iran during Gulf War I), and God only knows where they are now, or who is in control of them.

[Andrew Barss]

: Kerry came close to telling the truth about what he really believes : when he said US action has to pass a "global test". He has always : believed that the US should not use force in its national intersts : without permission from the UN

If you look at Kerry's quote in context, it's very clear that

a) he used "global" in the sense of "comprehensive", not "worldwide". (You can look it up in a dictionary if you need to).

b) He said quite explicitly, and I quote:

"I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country".

which makes your statement above about the UN either a befuddled mistake or a partisan lie.

-- Andy Barss

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Screw them. I care less about their preference than I do about yours.

But if you want to think about that, who was the candidate who benefitted the most from the bombing of the Cole?

[Mark & Juanita]

... or makes Kerry's subsequent statement about a global test a contradiction of his first statement. i.e., taking both sides on the issue

-- not that a politician has ever done that before.

Andy, as an apologist for Kerry, the idea that he was using the term "global" as a synonym for "comprehensive" in the particular debate answer in question is really stretching things beyond credibility.

Kerry's own words refute that interpretation:

"The test I was talking about is a test of legitimacy ? not just in the globe, but elsewhere," he said. "If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of other people, it's very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you. " Which pretty much seems like judging what you are going to do by what others are going to think of you. But Kerry then went on and said "I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country. No one gets a veto over our security. No one." Again, this is in direct contradiction to his first sentence. There are going to be times when protection of US interests is *not* going to make others think highly of us, but is absolutely essential. This kind of situation is going to cause some significant problems with the above two contradictory statements.

[Andrew Barss]

Mark & Juanita wrote: : ... or makes Kerry's subsequent statement about a global test a : contradiction of his first statement. i.e., taking both sides on the issue : -- not that a politician has ever done that before.

Actually, looking more at the conterxt, I think he (unfortunately) used the term "glocal" in both its senses (comprehensive; worldwide), or some conbination. Here's the quote:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America".

That's pretty darn clear, and shows the OP's idea that he will ask for a UN permission slip to do anything to be wrong.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

That's also pretty clear, I think. He's saying, basically, that when a serious action, like going to war, with global consequences, is made, the justification for it has to pass muster with US citizens, and hasd to be *understandable* to other countries. Since he was talking about the need to build international alliances and coalitions to help with the quagmire that is Iraq, the remark seems sebsible, and underscores a big difference between him and Bush.

-- Andy Barss

[Andrew Barss]

: Andy, as an apologist for Kerry

I'm not an apologist for Kerry. He doesn't need one. Bush needs apologists aplenty, given the horrendous record he's established.

-- Andy Barss

[CW]