It sure is.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fi...ysis.dean.wmd/

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:25:34 -0700, ModerateLeft wrote:

It sure is.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fi...ysis.dean.wmd/

Remember, W frequently said Saddam was a "clear danger" to the US. I
watched carefully, and never saw him use the phrase "clear and present
danger." If he had, he'd be impeachable. The administration knew they were
selling a bill of goods, so they knew better than to use the second phrase.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:20:25 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
wrote:

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

Not half as much offensive as posting this useless crap in a
woodworking newsgroup.

Bill.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:38:13 -0400, Bill Rogers wrote:

Not half as much offensive as posting this useless crap in a
woodworking newsgroup.

Bill.

Just turn on a filter. Searching for '^OT' works well. OTOH, think of it
as BSing around the cracker barrel. If your newsreader supports scores,
you can hide the OT posts without zapping them; then when you're in the
mood for some persiflage, the OTs are still there for your enjoyment.

Anyway, it's Usenet.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

I guess a little common sense would do wonders for your out look. But I
guess your brain is set in Democrat mode.


"ModerateLeft" wrote in message
om...
It sure is.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fi...ysis.dean.wmd/

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:38:13 -0400, Bill Rogers wrote:

Not half as much offensive as posting this useless crap in a
woodworking newsgroup.

Bill.

Just turn on a filter. Searching for '^OT' works well.


Not with this post - it didn't have OT in the subject.


OTOH, think of it
as BSing around the cracker barrel.

Perhaps. But this is *our* cracker barrel, and who the heck is this
one-time-wonder poster who introduces himself with a political thread in a
WW group? Why is his nick "ModerateLeft" instead of "Splinter"?


If your newsreader supports scores,
you can hide the OT posts without zapping them; then when you're in the
mood for some persiflage, the OTs are still there for your enjoyment.

This is political crap and is anything but persiflage (Light good-natured
talk; banter.).


Anyway, it's Usenet.


You say that like it's an excuse to be intrusive and rude.


Having said all that, I wouldn't have minded so much if the person was a
regular, and was in fact just BS'ing. Fact is, someone wandered in, ****ed
his politics, and waddled out again. Probably a 1.5 on the troll scale.

cheers,

Greg

Australopithecus scobis wrote in message e...
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:38:13 -0400, Bill Rogers wrote:

Not half as much offensive as posting this useless crap in a
woodworking newsgroup.

Bill.

Just turn on a filter. Searching for '^OT' works well. OTOH, think of it
as BSing around the cracker barrel. If your newsreader supports scores,
you can hide the OT posts without zapping them; then when you're in the
mood for some persiflage, the OTs are still there for your enjoyment.

Anyway, it's Usenet.

Unfortunately, this thread is not marked as "OT" and doesn't include
many of the most common words that those not wanting politics with
their woodworking would normally filter on. I guess if your filter was
left over from the Clinton years you might still have "impeac*" in
your filter and I guess some might have "war" in the filter, but
otherwise this thread wouldn't get caught by most filters. By the same
token, the delete key still works.

Dave Hall

I'd probably get the Porter Cable, mostly because I don't like yellow tools.

(ModerateLeft) wrote in message . com...
It sure is.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fi...ysis.dean.wmd/

I don't know, and I don;t care.

Is posting irrelevant political stuff on a woodworking group an PLONKable
offense?

Most definitely!

PLONK!

"ModerateLeft" wrote in message
om...
It sure is.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fi...ysis.dean.wmd/

Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!), then certainly a lie
that has gotten many thousands of people killed certainly is.

Back to lurking :^)

JK



ModerateLeft wrote:
It sure is.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fi...ysis.dean.wmd/

--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:14:11 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:
Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!),

It wasn't about the blowjob, it was about lying to congress _under oath_.
Maybe that doesn't bother you, and maybe SW standing up, staring into
the camera, and saying "I want you to listen to this...I did not..." while
lying right in our faces, but apparently you're more tolerant than I am
of that sort of thing.

weighing the balance...cost in lives from Mr. Clinton's lies, zero. Cost so
far in American lives due to Mr. Bush's lies, 1000 and counting...yep, it's
a good thing we're all less tolerant of lying these days...

John Emmons

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:14:11 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:
Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!),

It wasn't about the blowjob, it was about lying to congress _under oath_.
Maybe that doesn't bother you, and maybe SW standing up, staring into
the camera, and saying "I want you to listen to this...I did not..." while
lying right in our faces, but apparently you're more tolerant than I am
of that sort of thing.

"Larry writes:

It's Bush and his gang that scare me, not Republicans in general.

Basically agree, but what really bothers me is Bush's brain, Carl Roe and
the war hawks at the pentagon who seem to be running helter skelter with
absolutely no oversite.

These people are real trouble and Bush seems unwilling or incapable of
handling the situation.


--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the Southland)
Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett for Pictures

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:10:02 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"Larry writes:

It's Bush and his gang that scare me, not Republicans in general.

Basically agree, but what really bothers me is Bush's brain, Carl Roe and
the war hawks at the pentagon who seem to be running helter skelter with
absolutely no oversite.

These people are real trouble and Bush seems unwilling or incapable of
handling the situation.

Realizing that there is no way to overcome the visceral hatred of Bush,
but it seems that the idea of taking the war to the terrorists rather than
waiting around and letting the ACLU prevent any types of police actions
that might "profile" or "inconvenience" or "limit the rights of" potential
terrorists while they plan their next attack on us seems like a pretty good
idea and a practical course of action.

Also appears that Vlad Putin is signing up for this approach as well in
light of recent events. Kind of some interesting irony, here in the US, we
have rallys and protests objecting to and decrying the war. In Russia,
they have rallys and protests demanding action to deal with the terrorists
who targeted women and children.

Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.

"ModerateLeft" wrote in message
om...
It sure is.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fi...ysis.dean.wmd/

The notion that a perpetual witch hunt, coming up with nothing, devolved to the
level of getting a guy under oath so he could be asked unanswerable questions
about his sex life as basically a means of entrapment ... sorry, it boils my
blood. If I were the supreme being above, Ken Starr would have gotten a
lightning bolt any number of times. I will most likely never, ever again
respect, or suspect as being anything other than devious and underhanded, the
whole operating principal of the right.

So there. Disagree all you want. What's this got to do with sawdust anyway.
Heh, there's a nice hunk o' cherry sitting on the bench right now.

Kirby


Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:14:11 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:

Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!),


It wasn't about the blowjob, it was about lying to congress _under oath_.
Maybe that doesn't bother you, and maybe SW standing up, staring into
the camera, and saying "I want you to listen to this...I did not..." while
lying right in our faces, but apparently you're more tolerant than I am
of that sort of thing.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:31:05 -0700, CW wrote:
Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.

Last I checked, Gulf War 1 never ended, it was just a cease fire. No?
Hell, technically we could re-start Korea without a declaration, as
that one also isn't over.

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:34:44 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:
The notion that a perpetual witch hunt, coming up with nothing, devolved to the
level of getting a guy under oath so he could be asked unanswerable questions
about his sex life as basically a means of entrapment ... sorry, it boils my
blood.

Entrapment my ass. Clinton is physically unable to tell the truth, he
lies habitually and continuously. He alone is responsible for taking an
oath to tell the truth and deciding that, once again, he would lie. That
is nobody's fault but his own.

So there. Disagree all you want. What's this got to do with sawdust anyway.
Heh, there's a nice hunk o' cherry sitting on the bench right now.

Long as you don't stain it, we'll get along relatively well.

Dave Hinz

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:31:05 -0700, CW wrote:

Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.


Last I checked, Gulf War 1 never ended, it was just a cease fire. No?
Hell, technically we could re-start Korea without a declaration, as
that one also isn't over.

There was no declaration of war in Korea either. Remember the term
"police action".
j4

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:34:44 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:

The notion that a perpetual witch hunt, coming up with nothing, devolved to the
level of getting a guy under oath so he could be asked unanswerable questions
about his sex life as basically a means of entrapment ... sorry, it boils my
blood.


Entrapment my ass. Clinton is physically unable to tell the truth, he
lies habitually and continuously. He alone is responsible for taking an
oath to tell the truth and deciding that, once again, he would lie. That
is nobody's fault but his own.


So there. Disagree all you want. What's this got to do with sawdust anyway.
Heh, there's a nice hunk o' cherry sitting on the bench right now.


Long as you don't stain it, we'll get along relatively well.

Oh heavens no, I wouldn't do that :^)

JK



Dave Hinz

James T. Kirby wrote:

The notion that a perpetual witch hunt, coming up with nothing, devolved
to the level of getting a guy under oath so he could be asked unanswerable
questions about his sex life as basically a means of entrapment ... sorry,
it boils my
blood.

Well, actually, the simple fact that he waffled about it is more condemning
than the fact that he did it. If it were me, my answer would be "That,
sir, is not your concern." Alternatively, "While a gentleman never
discusses such matters, since she has already admitted it I'll make an
exception in this case. Yeah, she blew me, and damn good head it was.
Good cigar seasoning too. You oughta give her a try sometime. Doesn't
swallow though."

Instead he acted like a small boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

If I were the supreme being above, Ken Starr would have gotten a
lightning bolt any number of times. I will most likely never, ever again
respect, or suspect as being anything other than devious and underhanded,
the whole operating principal of the right.

So there. Disagree all you want. What's this got to do with sawdust
anyway. Heh, there's a nice hunk o' cherry sitting on the bench right now.

Don't let Bill Clinton near her.

Kirby


Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:14:11 -0400, James T. Kirby
wrote:

Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!),


It wasn't about the blowjob, it was about lying to congress _under oath_.
Maybe that doesn't bother you, and maybe SW standing up, staring into
the camera, and saying "I want you to listen to this...I did not..."
while lying right in our faces, but apparently you're more tolerant than
I am of that sort of thing.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

jo4hn wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:31:05 -0700, CW wrote:

Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.


Last I checked, Gulf War 1 never ended, it was just a cease fire. No?
Hell, technically we could re-start Korea without a declaration, as
that one also isn't over.

There was no declaration of war in Korea either. Remember the term
"police action".

But that was a _UN_ police action and thus all right. Of course the UN
didn't finish _that_ job either.

j4

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

do to some political NG

The last declaration of war was World War 2. We haven't had an official war
since then.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:31:05 -0700, CW wrote:
Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.

Last I checked, Gulf War 1 never ended, it was just a cease fire. No?
Hell, technically we could re-start Korea without a declaration, as
that one also isn't over.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , lid
says...

Well, actually, the simple fact that he waffled about it is more condemning
than the fact that he did it. If it were me, my answer would be "That,
sir, is not your concern."


Yeah. I've often wondered what would have happened if he'd just said
"As long as I'm not screwing children or animals, my sex life is none of
your $#@&! business. And I'm not sure animals should concern you."

But that would be too straightforward for a politician :-).

Witness Rumsfeldt the other day. The interviewer quoted him as saying
something and he denied ever saying it - twice. Then they played the
tape of him saying it - word for word :-). All he had to do was say
"Yes, I said that, but I've since found out I was wrong".

There ya go. The guy clearly has to go! (But he proved that a long time ago).


Once again, truth is too simple for a politician.


Clearly, Clinton should have just said "none of your business". What a
tactical error. But, in extension, if Ken Starr's real motive were to simply
ferret out actual legal violations and such, he shouldn't have asked the
question in the first place, because it, indeed, was none of his business.
But, then, uncovering wrongdoing was never the agenda.

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message

But, then, uncovering wrongdoing was never the agenda.

In politics, and most anything to do with lawyers and/or government
bureaucracy, it rarely is ... and that's exactly what we've come to expect
from those quarters.

It is, however, an indictment of the times that the media has become
"proactive" along the same lines, with no end to the blind fools whom they
can sway.

The reasonable doubts cast upon the authenticity of the documents which CBS
based their latest anti-Bush "agenda" this past Wednesday night are a case
in point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5956461/

To me this would have been expected and unremarkable coming from the Kerry
machine, or either side for that matter, but from those who foist themselves
off as "journalists" to the American public, it unconscionable, IMO.

I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind fool.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:09:22 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
Syria. But even without them, how could freedom loving people such as us
let a tyrant such as Saddam keep murdering a man every 30 minutes, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for over 20 years?

Nice troll :-). Or are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
country controlled by a ruthless dictator? There's a lot of them :-).

How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?

I fixed your sentence for you.
I mean, really!, when discussing _questionable_ military service,
ole shrub is leaps and bounds ahead of poor ole kerry. and more keeps
coming outta the woodwork (hey! got in a OWWR).

in fact, on a related note to impeachable, isn't not following a
direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?

Renata

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:48:31 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:
-snip-
I am more afraid of Bush. Questionable military service aside,
--------
-snip

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:09:22 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

Syria. But even without them, how could freedom loving people such as us
let a tyrant such as Saddam keep murdering a man every 30 minutes, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for over 20 years?


Nice troll :-). Or are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
country controlled by a ruthless dictator? There's a lot of them :-).


How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?


have we gone to war with one of those recently?

Man, I can't wait for this election. When Kerry loses, the left in this
country is going to have their heads spinning right off their bodies! But
nice way to try to confuse the issue. I'm not a military man, but I don't
believe that not following a direct order, if that's what actually happened,
would be considered treason. Perhaps insubordination. In fact, there are
times when you should not follow a direct order. Say, for instance, that
your superiors order you to establish a free-fire zone in an area with
civilians. That is contrary to the Geneva convention and you have the duty
to refuse the follow an illegal order. "I was just following orders"
doesn't quite cut it.

todd

"Renata" wrote in message
...
I fixed your sentence for you.
I mean, really!, when discussing _questionable_ military service,
ole shrub is leaps and bounds ahead of poor ole kerry. and more keeps
coming outta the woodwork (hey! got in a OWWR).

in fact, on a related note to impeachable, isn't not following a
direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?

Renata

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:48:31 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:
-snip-
I am more afraid of Bush. Questionable military service aside,
--------
-snip

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:34:44 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?

have we gone to war with one of those recently?

Gee, let's see. Um, yes. The lesson here should be "If you say that you're
gonna do bad things to us, and we know that you have/had WMD because we
bloody well _sold_ 'em to you, then it's a really bad idea to fsck with us
because we'll take you seriously and take you out".

Why is it that people keep forgetting about Libya?

In article , Renata wrote:
I fixed your sentence for you.
I mean, really!, when discussing _questionable_ military service,
ole shrub is leaps and bounds ahead of poor ole kerry. and more keeps
coming outta the woodwork (hey! got in a OWWR).

in fact, on a related note to impeachable, isn't not following a
direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?

OK, first off, the evidence is mounting that the documents purporting to show
that GWB allegedly violated a direct order, are -- forgeries, and clumsy ones
at that.

Second, only conduct occurring _during_ one's term of office is impeachable.
Anything that took place prior to that is not.

Third, disobeying a direct order is insubordination, but in no wise can it be
construed as treason. The Constitution is _quite_ clear on what treason
consists of: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort." [Article 3, Section 3]

Finally... it ill-behooves any Kerry supporter to suggest that GWB may be
guilty of treason, when Kerry's conduct after returning home from Viet Nam
approaches far closer to "adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and
comfort" than anything that George Bush ever did.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

And who would that be?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?

We had a war that I didn't hear about? When was that?

"Renata" wrote in message , isn't not following a
direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?


"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
And who would that be?


The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
regime.

dwhite

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:53:19 GMT, "Dan White"
wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?


"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
And who would that be?


The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
regime.

dwhite




yabut....
that same president of ours tried to assasinate him. they both failed,
and I pretty much figured that score was even.

wrote in message
...


yabut....
that same president of ours tried to assasinate him. they both failed,
and I pretty much figured that score was even.

He did? In any case, that's a pretty silly argument. Remember the original
point of the thread.

dwhite

wrote in message
...

But right
now, Kerry's _only_ chance (IMHO) is to change tactics for the next 60
days

Good post, and I agree with much of it. However, Kerry has no chance. This
will not be a close election, certainly nothing like the last one. BTW
Kerry's campaign has been in a constant state of change and it isn't
working.

dwhite

You never heard of Vietnam?

R

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:33:00 -0700, "CW" no adddress@spam free.com
wrote:

We had a war that I didn't hear about? When was that?

"Renata" wrote in message , isn't not following a
direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?

Not a war. Try again.

"Renata" wrote in message
...
You never heard of Vietnam?

R

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:33:00 -0700, "CW" no adddress@spam free.com
wrote:

We had a war that I didn't hear about? When was that?

"Renata" wrote in message , isn't not following a
direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?