XPost: rec.travel.air, alt.travel   
   From: charliec1_nospam@excite.com   
      
   nobody  wrote in news:4001F6ED.5692E6DB@nobody.com:   
      
   > None wrote:   
   >> I did, it's not HIS book, it's someone elses.  Either way, the   
   >> interview should be quite interesting and provide a lot of needed and   
   >> necessary food for thought for all the right wing republicans who   
   >> can't seem to get a clue!   
   >   
   > It will take a lot more than this. The american public will simply   
   > reject that interview, just like it rejected all analysis that showed   
   > the Bush regime was lying.   
   >   
   > Clinton was almost impeached for getting a blowjob. Yet, the evidence   
   > presented by Powell to the world via the United Nations was PROVEN to   
   > having been fabricated. Yet, nobody in the USA cryed foul.   
   >   
      
   It's funny how people rationalize things.  At some points in people's lives,   
   they pick a "team".  Then they spend the rest of their lives rationalizing   
   their choices.  Clinton did not get impeached (he WAS impeached BTW, just   
   not convicted) for getting a blowjob (and I hope he actually got more than   
   one), he was impeached for lying under oath.  You change the charge (from   
   "lying" to "blowjob") to suit your political philosophy.  You also claim   
   that Bush lied to the U.N. but that's not okay.  So, it's not okay for Bush   
   to lie but it's okay for Clinton to lie?  I know, I know, lying about   
   blowjobs is not as serious as lying about Iraq, right?  But lying is lying   
   none the less.   
      
   You also say that there is "analysis that showed the Bush regime was   
   lying."  There is only speculation and opinion.  There is no proof.  There   
   is proof that Clinton lied.  Bush could have been wrong or received bad   
   advice but it has yet to be PROVEN that he made all this stuff up to   
   facilitate some grand conspiracy. But he could have lied.   
      
   It's not Bush that's going to destroy America.  It's partasinship.  If Bush   
   lied under oath (as opposed to the typical lying that all politicians do),   
   then he should be fired.  If Bush broke the law then he should be fired.   
   But until he's impeached and they can prove he broke the law (as they did   
   with Clinton) he's no better or worse then any other politician.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)