OT: Apple, tree..not falling far from...etc

Page 1 of 5  
"Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's extraordinary." . . . . . What an arrogant piece of shit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Referring to the juvenile opinion the the student, of course?
Joe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on what your definition of the word "shit" is.
B.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

This is one that I'm going to side with Chelsea on. Seems everyone forgets that little detail. Check out "Shadow Warriors" by Kenneth Timmerman.

The student? Yeah
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What little detail?
Senator Clinton has admitted that she did NOT read the classified portions of the October 2002 NIE when they were made available to the Congress. So she didn't base her vote on the US intel.
An AUMF differs from a declaration of war in that it does not compel the nation to go to war.
The AUMF was necessary to force Saddam Hussein to open Iraq up for inspections. He did, the inspectors found that Iraq was not a threat, and then we invaded anyways.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Her tone was sooo Clintonesque, it made me want to barf. That snot- nosed Clinton crotchfruit hides behind the 'First-Kid-No-Touch' then snakes out and starts where Bill left off. I found it repulsive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Awe damn, Robatoy! Now I have to clean the coffee off of the screen and out of the keyboard.
"Crotchfruit" will now go into my thesaurus as a synonym for all to see :-)
Joe aka 10x
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The question is cheap rhetorical trick
Rob, If we asked you: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" would the answer be yes or no?
IMO, it was an appropriate response to something that happens way too much in US politics: media types (or plants by the oposition) that ask questions designed not to elicit an answer but to simply embarass recipient.
-Steve

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

A stupid and a rather inaccurate question......Her vote on its own didn't do much of anything (it would have easily passed if she had been out campaigning that day<G>) and there has not been a million deaths nor anywhere close to it. With 25 million people in the country 1 in 25 have not died. Such numbers in graveyards would even put to shame Saddam's ample mass graves .....Ignoring WMD existing or not Saddam was a very bad ruler whom had killed many, who was responsible for even more and had clearly ignored and violated the very cease fire he had agreed upon. Nonetheless the appropriate answer would have defended the original vote with a possible caveat that indeed Saddam should have been removed in 1998 when he kicked the inspectors out of his country. There is no hope for UN effectiveness if there is no muscle behind its resolutions....the corrupt Iraq food for Oil UN program obviously precluded much UN muscle flexing.
Incidentally numbers are odd little critters often used or grossly inflated for sake of argument by either side.....In Kosovo when attempting to paint Milosivic as a "bad guy" they often claimed 100,000-200,000 deaths when indeed when all was said and done they couldn't find 10,000 including the ones we bombed....they also called him a dictator in spite of him being legitimately elected three times and all seem to conveniently forget that he voluntarily left office when he lost the fourth election.....and when trying him for war crimes they could not make a case and simply left him in prison(4 yrs?) until his bad ticker took him......Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you have a basis for this other than wanting it to be true? If the estimates in the Lancet Studies are correct, there are several other countries with a higher simple mortality rate than Iraq.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

The Lancet studies did not suggest a million deaths so that point is clearly moot...... Numbers, cause or whom is responsible would seem to be the larger problem with the Lancet survey.
I do think the Lancet conclusions are erroneous since most importantly physical proof is lacking (bodies)....The small cluster sampling could easily be prone to magnified error, oddly in defense of the small sampling traditional political survey methodology is cited, of which is frequently wrong......Soro's funding would make any conclusion suspect.....Most other studies clearly do not support the Lancet conclusions, in fact not even remotely close except for the OSB studies which claims the Lancet study understates by almost half....the studies author has clearly defined anti-war prejudice.....original Iraq baseline death rates were probably minimized.... Strangely enough survey participant produced death certificates are used to validate the study(a claimed 90%) when in fact official death certificates issued only account for a very small percentage of the surveys conclusions, strongly implying a robust counterfeiting ring of death certificates<G>.......Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh?
Your basis for concluding that a significant number of the death certificates were fake (no body) is what, exactly?

Of course it's wrong, the question is, how wrong?

A robust counterfeiting ring of death certificates? For what purpose?
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Why Fred, I'm surprised that someone as widely read as yourself has not found the numerous refutations that have show the Lancet study results to be erroneous, used flawed methodology, was performed by an agenda-driven researcher who got his funding from an even more agenda-driven benefactor.
[No, I'm not going to provide references, there are plenty out there that are easy to find]

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. I've read many criticisms of the conclusions of the two studies, mostly by people who didn't even understand the conclusions in the first place.

No surprise there.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clairvoyance??? That was never necessary. We had weapons inspectors on the ground, in Iraq. Teams guided by Scott Ritter and Hans Blix followed US intelligence information from site to site and found - get this - NOTHING. That's right, NOTHING. It was only after these failures that the concept of "mobile weapons labs" was devised. At that point, Ms Clinton should have known they were making shit up. The Administration's reaction to each investigative failure read like satire. "We visited that site and found nothing." "Well, that's because they put biological weapons on trucks and move them around..." It would be funny if not for the final outcome.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The AUMF was approved BEFORE UNMOVIC had boots on the ground. It was the AUMF that forced Saddam Hussein to open Iraq up for inspections. Areas denied to USCOM, like the palaces, were open to UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC used helicopter to arrive at sites within hours of receiving the latest US intel.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Your timeline is correct and a better question would have been "Has your mother shown any remorse for how she handled herself during the ramp up to war?" I assume - perhaps incorrectly given the administration's belligerence - that Congressional intervention could have prevented the invasion. By the spring of 2003 - yes after the AUMF - it was clear the threat was non-existent yet opposition to the mounting invasion was nearly moot. Mrs. Clinton was on board well into the Iraq War. If she wants to run on experience that was amassed during her White House years, then we must assume she had access - either directly or through her husband - to an assessment of Desert Fox. Did she seriously think that Iraq was capable of reconstituting those programs while it was constrained by American force?
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:50:10 -0800, Jeff wrote:

Even Saddam had more sense than to cultivate biological weapons in those canvas-sided trucks Cheney showed us. They were, as specified by the British company that made them and sold them to Iraq, hydrogen generators for weather balloons.
But it's easy to demagogue stupid people into a war. Over half believed the propaganda that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Of course that's out of the same population where 50% reject evolution, 20% think the sun orbits the earth, and 40% haven't read a book since they got out of school.
Whatever happened to an "informed electorate"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am not fond of any Clinton but as for the response goes, if you ask a stupid question you may get the same type answer in return.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I'm about as far from being a Clinton fan as you're likely to find, but the student here was just being an obnoxious prick, and not really trying to make a point.
As for Hillary not reading the report, most senators did not read the report. They attended a briefing given by intelligence experts who gave them the meat of the report.
I don't blame her for voting the way she did, most americans were convinced that there was a real danger from Iraq.
The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans, when they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any danger at all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.
Iraq killed hundreds of thousands Iranians and its own citizens (those who didn't believe in the right branch of islam) with chemical weapons before we ever stepped foot over there. To deny that there were MWDs, or that Iraq was working to create bigger and better ones, is to deny the fact that they were already using these weapons for years. A foolish stance founded on political desire, not factual evidence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.