XPost: rec.travel.air, alt.travel
From: jenn@hmplc.com
In article ,
"Charlie C." wrote:
> 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.
Reagan and Bush Sr. both lied on serious substantive matters when
President -- and neither was impeached -- it WAS all about the blowjob
and the vendetta of the GOP against Clinton -- it has nothing to do with
lying under oath as it evidence given the current worship of a lying
administration
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
