Cynical Nation

Barry,
You are wrong. We all know that Saddam was not near having a bomb. However, we dont know whether the information that the incompetent Bush administration let go on the internet could be used by terrorists to make primitive dirty bombs. We simply dont know. But the obvious question is, how incompetent one can be to post on the internet ANY information relating to nuclear bombs, for anyone to see. Unbelievable.

> We all know that Saddam was not near having a bomb.

Your favorite newspaper doesn't know it. Or at the very least, they know it then later un-know it, depending on whether it will help/hurt Bush at any given moment.

Thats not true. The info was from the early 90s!!! Look at the dates. The argument you make has no basis.

By the way, I used to think that Karl Rove was a(n) (evil) genius. I dont think that anymore. After the Kerry fiasco, he convinced me that he is not that smart anymore. The Kerry issue will backfire. You can not underestimate the intelligence of a whole country (by trying to switch attention from the Iraq war to the idiotic jokes of Kerry) and expect the country to vote for you. People are not that stupid.

> The info was from the early 90s!!! Look at the dates.

"...Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002..."

"....and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war...."

The information was from the 90's. They were just providing it to the inspectors in 2002. Dont you remember?

Sure he does, but the Rush Hannity O'Reilly spin on this story is to Rove attention away from Chimp publishing real, useful information about making an atomic weapon to the entire Muslim world, IN ARABIC no less, and instead confuse the matter by saying it proves Saddam was minutes away from having nukes and killing us all.

Chimp/Shooter posted that info because they wanted wingnut bloggers to sift through it all and find things that could be distorted to scare Americans.

The sad fact is that these traitors don't give a shit about America, safety, or security. It's all about them in power.

Read the following paragraph:

"European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq."

In other words, this comprises the same evidence that the administration put forward prior to the invasion -- the same evidence that the NYT has repeatedly dismissed as bogus. Now, however, in an effort to embarrass the Republicans prior to election, they're giving it new legitimacy.

I understand why they might want to have it both ways, but they can't.

> ...the Rush Hannity O'Reilly spin on this story...

Did Rush and Hannity actually comment on this? If so, I'd be surprised, since it's in this morning's NYT, and neither of them will be on the air for several more hours.

Chimp/Shooter posted that info...
Actually, Congress had it posted, and the impetus for posting it came from Rick Santorum and others who were assailing the administration for their reluctance to make this information public.

> ...the Rush Hannity O'Reilly spin on this story...

Did Rush and Hannity actually comment on this? If so, I'd be surprised, since it's in this morning's NYT, and neither of them will be on the air for several more hours.

Chimp/Shooter posted that info...
Actually, Congress had it posted, and the impetus for posting it came from Rick Santorum and others who were assailing the administration for their reluctance to make this information public.

Posted by: BNJ | November 3, 2006 10:18 AM

Ah hell, Barry, why let the facts get in the way of anti-Bush rhetoric?

Killjoy!

From YOUR link, dumbo:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

Now, let's all read this together, shall we? This is your source. Who released the documents? Why were the documents released?

Rush Slannity O'Liely spew out propaganda 24/7, they aren't limited to their radio show time shots.

I know that facts, and the modern information era, confuse you Barry, but you could at least read your own sourced, if only the VERY FIRST paragraph, before going into neocon lie-attack mode.

Yes, that's all fine, Bailey. As I said, congressional leaders made this happen by pressuring a recalcitrant administration into publishing the documents. You made it sounds as if the executive branch was itching to hand these docs over to right-wing bloggers. That wasn't the case. It was congress who made this happen.

Now go back to mind-reading what Rush and Sean are going to say before they say it. You're the only person on this entire site who gives rat's ass what they say anyway.

LOL! JMK and others repeat almost verbatim the talking points from these shows every day, and on every topic. I have a rather long commute every day, so I switch back and forth listening to many shows, including Air America which is still on the air despite being pronounced dead 487 times.

Oh, it is doesn't take a genius to figure out what Rush & Co. are going to say about any topic.

When Foley preys on young boys, they blame these "beasts" for "playing tricks" on the poor innocent guy. You can't sink any lower than that.

On the other hand, consensual sex with an adult by Bill Clinton is an abomination.

Reverend Falwell just declared so, saying that what Foley had done was NOTHING compared to Clinton's sexual conduct!

Just imagine for a second if the facts were reversed -- good god they would be melting the radio antennas.

"However, we dont know whether the information that the incompetent Bush administration let go on the internet could be used by terrorists to make primitive dirty bombs." (BW)
(BW)


Do you even know what a "Dirty Bomb" is, BW?

It has nothing at all in common with a conventional nuclear weapon.

Anyone who can rig any conventional explosive and get their hands on any low-grade nuclear matierial - a very easy thing to do, what with the tons of medical waste and cesium 137 (the stuff they irradiate food with) being around in abundance - neither is all that hard to get your hands on.

Two sticks of dynamite and a cannister of nuclear medical waste = a RDD (radiological dispersal device) or "Dirty Bomb." There's nothing more technical about an RDD than that. RDD's are called Weapons of Mass Disruption - they're not any more dangerous than any conventional explosive, they're designed to cause widespread panic, a major clean-up and considerable economic disruption.

There is absolutely no connection between a conventional nuclear weapon and a RDD or "Dirty Bomb."

The former requires enriched uranium, a major nuclear program and a high degree of technical knowledge, the latter requires only some low-grade nuclear waste and some conventional explosives, coupled in any number of imaginative designs.

JMK,
Are you defending the incompetent Bush administration? Do you think that it was ok that they put that info online in response to right-wing bloggers?

"Now, let's all read this together, shall we? This is your source. Who released the documents? Why were the documents released?" (BH)
that information will help terrorists - as no terrorist organization currently has the capability to develop a full scale nuclear program and none of that information is at all pertinent to making an RDD.

There is little, if any chance of a terrorist group using a conventional nuclear weapon, as they lack the missles and airplanes needed to transport such a weapon.

The real "nuclear threat" today is found in the 84 yet "unaccounted for" Soviet "suitcase nukes."

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West recruited as many Soviet scientists as they could (which was probably most of them), but some have "almost certainly gone rogue."

The "conventional wisdom" put out by the likes of the NY Times has always been that "Even if terrorists did get their hands on one of these "suitcase nukes," it (1) probably wouldn't work, (2) wouldn't deliver the throw rate it was designed to and (3) couldn't be maintained by a rag-tag group of terrorists.

The U.S. Military disagrees with and debunks all of that "conventional wisdom. The prevailing military view is that of the 84 "unaccounted for," probably somewhere between three and five have gotten out into the "wrong hands."

It would NOT be at all difficult for a group to "maintain" such a device, as the only degradable parts of that device are the batteries and the conventional explosives and the throw rate would almost certainly be the same as it was designed to deliver.

In short, the U.S. Military claims the conventional or prevailing "wisdom" is wrong on all counts.
"When Foley preys on young boys...", I've been working an awful lot of overtime lately, but did I miss something? Some new charges???

My understanding of the matter is that Mark Foley wasn't charged with having any sexual relations (preying) on any "young (underaged) boys"...in fact, he resigned over exchanging inapparopriate emails and IMs with Pages who were "over the age of consent."

Seems as though you've got the Foley affair mixed up with Mel Reynolds' sordid tale of woe.

It was Mel Reynolds who actually "preyed" on young "underaged" high school girls in Chicago...Foley is apparently guilty of passing inappropriate emails, as not one Page has come foward alleging any sexual relations.

Apparently you misread and misunderstand most of the things you come across.

No wonder you oppose property rights, applaud higher taxes, revile legal immigration and still call yourself "a Conservative."

Blue, I took YOU to task for a hysterical over-reaction on your part.

You imply that such information could be "used by terrorists," when that is clearly NOT the case.

It WOULD BE, IF a "Dirty Bomb" and a conventional nuclear weapon were similar devices, but they are not!

Like I said, anyone who could get their hands on two sticks of TNT and a cannister of nuclear medical waste could fashion an RDD or "Dirty Bomb." That's all the "technical information" one needs to do that.

Personally, I think ALL the information gleaned from Iraq should be made public, to see why, not only the CIA, but the UN, M-9, Italian, Czech and German intelligence all believed Saddam's Iraq still had stockpiles of WMDs.

The fact that Saddam Hussein apparently was merely pretending (even to his own Generals) that he had chemical, biological and hinted at a possible nuclear program, didn't make invading that rogue state wrong, or misguided.

Saddam Hussein was the leading "State Sponsor of International Terrorism" between 1991 and 2003...for that reason alone, he had to be deposed.

There are many Americans who still don't get that, which means they don't get the seriousness of the entire WoT.

I believe you're among them...and in your case it seems to be a deliberate, or willfull refusal to understand the WoT.

JMK,
Nope. You have trouble understanding the WoT, not me. Iraq has nothing to do with the WoT and it has been a diversion from the real WoT. If all the money and effort that went into Iraq had been invested going after the terrorists who attacked us, Afganistan will be stable now and we would have caught Bin Laden. Thats what the democrats want to do. Act responsibly. The terrorists are happy that we are waisting our efforts in Iraq. Dont you see it? It is so simple.

Actually Blue, I based my presumption upon a basic fact; You obviously DON'T understand the actual nuclear threat - a "Dirty Bomb" or RDD is not a thermonuclear device requiring any sort of technical knowledge, either to build or to use.

In the Mideast, Saddam's Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda (al Qaeda's Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq) against a common enemy - the Kurds.

Saddam's Iraq was not merely "A leading State Sponsor of International Terrorism," BUT "THE leading State Sponsor of International Terrorism," between 1991 and 2003, according to the most reputable source on such things, of all, the U.S. State Dept.

Saddam's Iraq opened the Salman Pak terrorist training camp and assisted various terrorist groups in their training.

Here's another thing that most Liberals just DON'T seem to get - al Qaeda is NOT even the primary target in this "War on Terrorism." (WoT)

In fact, even among "Muslim extremists," al Qaeda comprises a very small minority of those groups - both Hamas and Hezzbolah, for instance, are larger than al Qaeda.

BUT that's not all!

Our fight is not merely against "Muslim extremists," or "pan-Islamicists," like bin Laden, the fight that is central to the current global WoT is that between ALL "Sharia-based Islam" and the West.

In Kashmir, it's not "Muslim extremists," it's traditional or "Sharia-based Muslims" against the Hindus.

In Kosovo, it wasn't al Qaeda or "Muslim extremists," but traditional or "Sharia-based Muslims who committed the first acts of genocide against the Christian Serbs in Kosovo.

In Darfur, the Sudan, it's not al Qaeda or "radical Muslims" who are carrying out the systematic rape and genocide against the non-Muslim Africans, it's practitioners of traditional or "Sharia-based Islam."

This is a global struggle, a global conflagration and virtually EVERY Western Liberal and many Republicans as well, simply don't get that.

It's one of the good things about Giuliani - he certainly DOES "get it."

Iraq's nearly done.

As I've said forever, I'd have supported merely invading and deposing Saddam, scouring that country for WMD caches and then let that place re-partition along ethnic lines, on its own, BUT I don't have a background in geo-politics and those who do claim that that strategy would've only strengthened and emboldened Iran creating even more havoc and instability in that region and even greater problems not far down the road.

Still, U.S. patience with Iraq's refusal or inability to take control of the military and policing operations is waning...BUT after Iraq, our focus isn't going to be "solely on Afghanistan."

I'd agree with all those U.S. Military leaders who say "troop strength in Afghanistan is more than sufficient."

No, after Iraq comes showdowns with places like Iran, Syria, Somalia, the Sudan...the list and the timetable stretches on like a long, bloody ribbon.

There isn't going to be any "quick fix" or "timely exit" from this WoT.

It IS and rightfully so, primarily a Military war because the primary targets are those rogue states (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc, etc) who've sponsored, harbored and assisted the jihadist terrorists, using them as a weapon the same way the old "Barbary States" used their pirates in the Mediterranean.

That is the crux of the WoT.

You seem to misunderstand that as badly as you do the distinction between a conventional nuclear weapon (an atmoic bomb) and a "Dirty Bomb," or RDD.

OK JMK, Foley didn't prey on young boys, he just tried to break into their dorm at night intoxicated and had cybersex with them and so on. Since it hasn't been proved, on video, to you that his penis entered the anus of some boy, he isn't a predator. OK. Whatever you say.

Everything you say is lifted directly from the Rush Hannity O'Reilly natterings of the day. You are in absolute lockstep with everything these dolts spew out, defending the indefensible, blindly and ferociously defending your *man* (Chimpboy), constantly blaming Clinton, etc ...

Not only that, but you try to bark everyone down with your filibuster lenth snoozefests, just like Hannity. If only you had the Limbaugh mute button too!

It isn't a matter of "proof"...as there hasn't been a charge of sexual relations...that's an established fact.

Neither you nor I have any reason nor standing to speculate on whether or not an uncharged person indeed had sexual relations, since we lack any direct link or "inside information" on the matter.

Foley hasn't been alleged to have had any sexual relations with any Pages.

Foley wasn't charged with any actual sexual acts.

Moreover, since like Gerry Studds, he didn't engage any "underaged" partners, he couldn't possibly ever be alleged to be a pedophile, even if he DID have a sexual relationship with a 16 y/o Page.

In fact, neither could even be charged with "statutory rape" due to the existing "age of consent" (16 years).

I worked for a guy who ran a group of auto-body shops when I was younger. I repossessed cars for him, among other things.

He was wrongly smeared by some jealous business rivals of being a "mobster" (completely untrue) and the local papers ran with it, trying to link him, through various relatives who'd been convicted of criminal actions and alleged (not proven, mind you, just alleged) to have been involved with "organized crime."

Sonny was always honest with me and a straight shooter.

I was fortunate to have known people in local politics through my family and had a lot of people stand up for Sonny and he was eventually cleared (the investigations were dropped) and Sonny even successfully sued some of those libelous business rivals.

Look, Sonny certainly cut some corners and like a lot of businessmen, had to occasionally circumvent the law..."bend it a bit," but he wasn't guilty of being a "mobster," not by a long shot.

Same with Foley. He's guilty of being a goofball. A guy who exchanged inappropriate emails with Congressional Pages, but no one has even alleged that he had sexual relations with any of these "above the age of consent Pages," nor has he been charged with any kind of actual sexual abuse.

He rightfully resigned because the emails and IMs alone were proof of his poor judgment...a disease I believe I proved conclusively infests both Parties, possibly the other one even more.

Moreover, Democrats and many of their constituents don't seem to see such flawed judgment as the serious issue it is when a Studds or a Reynolds should step down.

Bottomline, you have no grounds on which to argue against any of this.

JMK,
You always find ways to amaze me. How could you defend Foley? The guy was despicable and disgusting. In this case, the whole world agrees on that, but you still trying to find ways to defend him. For what? Because he is rebublican? Give me a break.

"How could you defend Foley?" (BW)
"He rightfully resigned because the emails and IMs alone were proof of his poor judgment..." (JMK)

Opps! You meant that, didn't you?

Well, not quite "a defense."

I'm not allowed, by law, to either "engage in, or fail to challenge illegal statements," believe me, long story, suffice to say, I understand "illegal statements" to include slanderous, libelous and other obviously untrue statements.

I can't let go unchallenged statements that insinuate that this Congressman (Mark Foley) has been charged with sexual relations (as kooky Barely does), or statements outside the actual facts of that case, to wit - that Foley resigned over inappropriate emails and that despite a thorough investigation, no further charges appear likely to be filed.

Same thing qith ANYone else. I could not and would not for instance let stand a statement such as, "Bill Clinton is a known rapist," as (1) he has never been convicted of that and (2) there appears to exist no evidence that would back that statement up.

That is generally why I confine my own comments to matters of economics, terrorism, the WoT, etc and try to avoid talking about the people involved, though I did comment on the recent Kerry debacle, though only to point out that his gaffe must be looked at in the broader context of his long history of assualts on America's troops, which I believe is allowed.

I have to be careful about what discussions I get into and what I let go unchallenged, as some people have viewed unchallenged erroneous statements as my "agreeing with" those sentiments.

That can be a problem for me.

So Blue, we're in agreement, or at least OK now over the distinction between a "Dirty Bomb" or RDD and a conventional nuclear weapon...and on the rightful focus of the WoT being a military incursion against various rogue states...a clash between Sharia-based Islam & the West???

I certainly hope yes.

" I certainly hope yes.

Of course, not :)

What part?

You mistakenly believe that a RDD is related to a conventional nuclear weapon?

IT'S NOT.

Or you mistakenly believe that international terrorism is a criminal justice matter?

IT'S NOT.

It's not enough to believe, Blue, if you had any conviction, you could make a case for the WoT being a CJ matter.

Of course there's no case to be made over mistaking a RDD for a conventional thermonuclear weapon, or believing that "conventional nuclear weapons designs could help terrorists build a "Dirty Bomb"/RDD."

If you still think your even partially right on the RDD/conventional nuclear weapon viewpoint, I'd bet you $1,000 American...and I do have a PayPal acct.

P.S.

Please don't take that bet, it's a sucker's bet. What I explained to you in the above posts is 100% unadulterated and accurate.

I have to add one more thing. I studied nuclear physics in college, and eventuqlly went on to get a Ph.D. in the field. Back when I was in college, the "hot" thing to get one's hands on was a badly-Xeroxed copy of a story that appeared in "The Nation," in which a nuclear scientist who had formerly worked with the military gave away all the "secrets" of making a hydrogen bomb.

What "The Nation" was thinking, who knows? But I can tell you there were few if any surprises there to someone who had an understanding of nuclear physics. The really difficult obstacles to creating a nuclear weapon are engineering issues, not theory or design.

Of course we want to keep as tight a lid on this stuff as possible, but that being said, the theory and design of a nuclear bomb is not that complicated. It's the actual building and machining of the switches and so forth that are the big barrier, as well as the raw materials.

"...the theory and design of a nuclear bomb is not that complicated. It's the actual building and machining of the switches and so forth that are the big barrier, as well as the raw materials." (BNJ)
(BNJ)


There you go, that's why so much of the world had such a keen interest in Iraq's dealings with Niger awhile back.

As you say, a nuclear program is expensive to implement.

Sadly, you don't need much (if any) "expertise" to construct a "Dirty Bomb" or RDD - a couple of sticks of dynamite and a cannister of medical grade or agricultural grade radiologicals (like Cobalt-60, strontium-90 or various isotopes of cesium).

So-called "Dirty Bombs" are just that, conventional explosives coupled with a low-grade radiological source that will create widespread panic, a massive clean-up and sever economic dislocation.

It's highly unlikely that there are any "self-respecting" terrorists who don't know how to consruct such a device...and the intel from Iraq on a conventional nuclear weapons program wasn't going to "help any terrorists make a "Dirty Bomb."

I'm glad you added your own expertise to this, as you know a lot more about conventional nuclear weapons than I ever will.

The only reason I know anything at all about RDDs is because we're constantly drilling on that kind of scenario. If more people knew just how incredibly easy it is to construct an RDD...

You sound pretty well-versed, JMK, which is reassuring. :-) Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't take much to throw one of those together, other than the will to do so.

Well, you heard it here.

JMK and BNJ agree that posting "How to Make a Nuke" in ARABIC is OK, and that Mark Foley was just a goofball who made a dumb mistake and had to design.

LOL! What a world these two live in.

Clinton gets a BJ and it lead to IMPEACHMENT! Clinton selling old computer equipment to the Chinese SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY!

You guys are true party hacks. Your idiocy and hypocrisy get funnier every day.

Whoa Bailey!

First off, Mark Foley didn't "have to resign."

If Reynolds and Studds didn't "have to resign," neither did he and that's a fact.

Studds actually had consensual sex with a 16 y/o Congressional Page and Reynolds was CONVICTED of having sex with underaged HS girls!

Foley has not been charged with having sex with anyone! What part of that last fact don't you understand? Foley isn't accused of having sex with any Congressional Pages.

That is a fact.

The emails and IMs though inappraopriate, don't necessarily point to any sexual relationship...and no Page, to date, has come forward to accuse Foley of that.

Moreover and you apparently don't understand this, but Bill Clinton wasn't impeached over a sex act.

Clinton ws impeached for lying to Congress, an altogether separate and different matter.

And YES, it's important, even VITAL that ALL (at least as much as is possible) of the intel found in Iraq is released to the general public, so the public can better understand why the CIA, M-9, the UN, France, Italy, Germany, etc ALL believed Saddam's Iraq had a stash of WMDs.

Otherwise people are going to get the idea that the Bush administration purposely lied and deceived the American people into a war we had no right to fight.

Very important stuff, there Barely.

"You sound pretty well-versed, JMK, which is reassuring. :-) Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't take much to throw one of those together, other than the will to do so." (BNJ)
(BNJ)


I'm sort of well-versed on the terror aspects of rad, but I don't have the physics background to understand the schematics of a conventional nuclear device.

I do know that such programs are expensive and, for most smaller nations, a poor choice of weapons system, as you need some kind of reliable air force or missle capability to use those effectively - even more expense.

In NYC we've focused on explosives (the cheapest, most common and most probable route of terrorist attack), chemical and rad - generally RDDs, as there's not much we're going to be able to do in the event of a suitcase nuke - except assist in an immediate evacuation and start a clean-up some 24 hours after detonation.

The First Responder credo has changed in the twenty-plus years I've worked.

First Responder safety is now PRIOTITY ONE.

The adage is "If you go down, you can't help anyone else and only add to the problem," so no one rushes in without a deliberate assessment of the risks and possibilities of a successful outcome.

JMK says: "Moreover and you apparently don't understand this, but Bill Clinton wasn't impeached over a sex act. Clinton ws impeached for lying to Congress."

Oooooh-kay. That's news to me, and the rest of the world as JMK goes on making up things.

Clinton was the victim of a never-ending wingnut witch hunt into any and every aspect of his life, because only Clinton stood in the way of the free-for-all of theft and corruption enriching Repugs and Friends today.

Repugs funded and fueled anyone willing to make up anything ugly about Clinton. Lewinsky ends up being taped by some Repug troll so that they can finally prove that Clinton was the first president ever to get a BJ.

Then, though it is absolutely none of their business, they force Clinton to answer questions about his sex life.

Bush hasn't had to testify even about lying to lead the country into a Corporate war to enrich his friends, costing almost 3,000 American lives, 20,000 casualties (blindness, head injury, limbs blown off), and probably 100,000 Iraqi deaths, men, women, and children.

Bush, Cheney, nor any corporate War Profiteers have had to give sworn testimony. Oil Executives did not have to give sworn testimony for gouging, price fixing, and collusion as they make record profits.

No, no, no. Not necessary. What was necessary was that Clinton answer questions about his PERSONAL LIFE under oath.

Oh well, that's all about to change.

Fred, every single time you disagree with me you make a fool of yourself.

"President Bill Clinton was impeached as President of the United States on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice..."

"An Analysis of the Impeachment Charges:

"PERJURY IN THE PAULA JONES DEPOSITION

"PERJURY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY

"IMPROPERLY INFLUENCING WITNESSES
(MONICA LEWINSKY & BETTY CURRIE)"

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/evidenceanalyzed.html

Go ahead and look for documents that'll support the inane contention that he was impeached for ANY other reason...there are none.

Those were the charges.

I'm just looking out for you Fred. Just setting the record straight.

"Then, though it is absolutely none of their business, they force Clinton to answer questions about his sex life." (BH)
Hey stupid! ALL public officials, even all office holders in publically traded companies can have their on-the-job trysts looked into. It's kind of a big deal.

Most of the time, a CEO who has sex with an underling is canned over "judgment concerns" - "If he's that reckless and irresponsible in his personal judgments, then how responsible could he be in his business dealings."

Not to mention the obvious questions of coercion when considering sexual relations between a boss and an underling.

Same is true for any public servant/politician who'd have sex in the office.

God bless ya boy - cause ya dumber than dirt.

Hey JMK, you said Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress. Then you post your 'FACTS', which refute your very argument. Lying to a grand jury is NOT--repeat, NOT--the same as lying to Congress, ya idiot! Get YOUR facts straight.

Hey JMK, you said Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress. Then you post your 'FACTS', which refute your very argument. Lying to a grand jury is NOT--repeat, NOT--the same as lying to Congress, ya idiot! Get YOUR facts straight.

Hey JMK, you said Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress. Then you post your 'FACTS', which refute your very argument. Lying to a grand jury is NOT--repeat, NOT--the same as lying to Congress, ya idiot! Get YOUR facts straight.
And the personal insults you seem to love tossing at anyone who disagrees with you is charming. We pity your poor wife.

Fred, you always do this...and it makes you look even dumber than you actually are, which is a pretty neat trick.

You took issue with my statement that Clinton was impeached for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice and tacitly agreed (agreeing without mentioning) with Barely's position that Clinton was impeached for having inappropriate sex, as that's what the post, "Oooooh-kay. That's news to me, and the rest of the world as JMK goes on making up things," in repsonse to my asserting that Clinton was NOT impeached over a sexual indiscretion, implied.

Have the grace to acknowledge you were wrong about Clinton being impeached over a sexual indiscretion and move on. Often discretion is the better part of valor.

The charges were Perjury & Obstruction of Justice, NOT sexual misconduct, as your post inferred.

And my wife is even more Conservative than I am, so I wouldn't dare insult her - she's a BIG Mike Steele supporter....she disdains Hannity & Limbaugh, but likes O'Reilly & Savage (she gets to listen to the radio when she occasionally works from home).

And take this under advisement, DON'T take me to task for "personal insults" when you don't take dipshit Leftists to task for the same...just don't do it.

Better clean your eyeglasses...you said Clintin was impeached for lying to Congress. He wasn't. He was impeached for lying under oath, but not to Congress. I never said anything otherwise. Perhaps you 'inferred' INCORRECTLY. Perhaps you were wrong--a word I doubt is in your vocabulary when speaking of yourself. Perhaps this time, it was who was dumb--that's a word you toss around, in boldface, pretty easily.
So, repeat after me--Clinton was not impeached for lying to Congress--as you wrote yourself, no inferring necessary.

I thought he was impeached because of a blowjob.

No, no. You're wrong. He was impeached for the $200 haircut by Cristof.

”Clinton gets a BJ and it lead to IMPEACHMENT!” (Barely Hanging)
”Moreover and you apparently don't understand this, but Bill Clinton wasn't impeached over a sex act.

Clinton ws impeached for lying to Congress, an altogether separate and different matter.” (JMK)
”JMK says: "Moreover and you apparently don't understand this, but Bill Clinton wasn't impeached over a sex act. Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress."

”Oooooh-kay. That's news to me, and the rest of the world as JMK goes on making up things.” (Fred)
“ In April, 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.

”Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . ."

”In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign.”
“You’re both wrong, Clinton was impeached over charges of Perjury (to a Grand Jury, not Congress...a minute distinction, since Congress used that deposition to ascertain the facts of that case) and Obstruction of Justice, and not over inappropriate sex.”

That is clearly NOT what you posted and even more clearly NOT what you meant.

And now you lamely try and clean it up, after the fact.

Look, when you lie down with Barely, I’m going to treat you the same way I treat Barely – with complete disdain and utter disregard for his flawed reasoning capabilities...and you know why?

Cause bottomline I don’t think either of you have either the equipment or the time to even attempt to prove me wrong using verifiable facts, and not mere opinion.

Clinton was charged with Perjury & Obstruction – two “high crimes” and NOT with “sexual misconduct,” as Barely attested and you agreed with – look at the above context and that tacit, or implied agreement is all too clear.

So let's review again, so the bold-faced, bald-faced liar (JMK, not Clinton) can see that, just this one time, he was wrong and may have jumped too fast on someone.
11/5/06 at 10:17, JMK wrote: "Clinton ws impeached for lying to Congress." A WHOLLY INCORRECT STATEMENT. I'm waiting for JMK to next tell us that the House Judiciary Committee voted impeach Nixon for breaking into the Watergate.
11/6/06 at 10:08, I wrote in response that "Oooooh-kay. That's news to me, and the rest of the world as JMK goes on making up things." JMK just made up out of whole cloth that Clinton was impeached for lying to COngress. Any dolt (a favored JMK insult) knows the FACTS (a favored JMK style usage).
11/6/06 at 9:59, JMK says: "Fred, every single time you disagree with me you make a fool of yourself." (Thereby getting the debate off to a civil beginning, as usual). Then he quotes a site that states:

'President Bill Clinton was impeached as President of the United States on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice...'

'An Analysis of the Impeachment Charges:

'PERJURY IN THE PAULA JONES DEPOSITION

'PERJURY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY

'IMPROPERLY INFLUENCING WITNESSES
(MONICA LEWINSKY & BETTY CURRIE)'

Then he goes on to challenge me to "Go ahead and look for documents that'll support the inane contention that he was impeached for ANY other reason...there are none.
"Those were the charges."

Yes, those ARE the charges--but nothing in JMK's rebuttal said anything about his original contention that CLinton was impeached for lying to Congress. And for good reason: it didn't happen.

Then at 9:38 on 11/7/06--after calling BH "stupid" and "dumber than dirt" and calling me "dumber than I actually am," JMK accused me of taking "issue with my statement that Clinton was impeached for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice and tacitly agreed (agreeing without mentioning) with Barely's position that Clinton was impeached for having inappropriate sex."
Find me the words, JMK, where I took issue with that. In fact, point me to where YOU said 'perjury and obstruction' (not including your citing of a source), because all you said prior to this was 'lying to Congress.' You never said 'perjury and obstruction' on your own.

And then this morning, JMK throws in that Clinton was charged with lying to Congress and that was what got his license to practice law revoked. Yet in the citations you include, I see nothing regarding 'lying to Congress.'
But I am glad that in your final sentence, you say that Clinton was charged "P & O" and not, as you initially stated (and have yet to admit you were wrong for stating), 'lying to Congress.'

Case closed. I think the heat from the fires you fight has singed your ability to not only reason at times, but to admit error. And a real man does know when to say he's wrong.

Heh, Ken Starr didn't write a $60 million pornographic report (payed for by taxpayers through a Repug congress) based on Clinton's PERJURY, did he?

Sure, sure, I know what the actual charges were, but we all know what it was really about, don't we.

It was about Repug abuse of power. Clinton should have flatly refused to answer any personal questions. His mistake was in answering the Repugs at all. We all know that Bush Sr. had an affair with his secretary, but nobody made him admit it in front of his wife and family.

It is the Repugs who did not respect the office of the president, did not support the president in "wartime" and set the tone that Bush now suffers under.

Bush is a traitor, a murderer, a thief, a liar, a drunk, a cokehead, a draft dodger, a chickhawk, and a coward.

You can that the Repugs for that statement.

Fred, I've gone this route with you a number of times and you're never man enough to own up to your mistakes.

Clinton lied under oath to the Grand Jury that Congress used to assess the facts of that case...lying to one IS, in effect, lying to the other.

Moreover, he also lied by ommission (failing to truthfully address questions asked of him in a forthright manner) before the Congressional hearings.

His legal charges were Perjury and Obstruction of Justice....in virtually every media outlet that was translated (and rightly so) into "Lying Before Congress").

IE. "It is time the American people hold their president accountable for his lying ways. And why not an impeachment? After all, President Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about something far more mundane."

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/letters/LT_unimpeachable19.html
NOT what our disagreement is about.

You never challenged me on my verbiage. I'm sorry, but you didn't.

That was made clear by the chronology and context above.

Barely claimed Clinton was impeached over sex....I asserted that he wasn't impeached for a sex act....and you jumped in, in what appears to be defending the "Clinton was impeached for a sexual indiscretion" point of view.

Then it appears that you realized your error and tried to worm out of that position by trying to act as though you were addressing a technical point that you didn't touch with your initial post defending Barely.

That's shameless.

Look, if you had even hinted that your initial disagreement with me was over verbiage, I'd cut you all the slack in the world, but since you didn't...I can't give you any benefit of the doubt at all.

FIRST: Barely claimed Clinton was impeached for a sexual act.

SECOND: I asserted he was not impeached for that reason.

THIRD: You jumped in and didn't take any issue with my verbiage, you simply sided (by implication) with Barely.

That's about as accurate a chronology of the events as I can muster.

Look, if I overlooked some statement by you in which you took issue with my verbiage, I'd apologize, if you can find it.

But absent that...the chronolgy of events makes it appear as though your point wasn't made over a disagreement in verbiage, but a more major one with content - that is, supporting the "Clinton got impeached for a sexual indiscretion."