XPost: rec.travel.air, alt.travel   
   From: charliec1_nospam@excite.com   
      
   Jenn  wrote in   
   news:jenn-DD69F5.11483112012004@news.vanderbilt.edu:   
      
   > 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   
      
   First, IF (and it's still and "if") Bush, Sr, Bush, Jr, and Reagan lied it   
   wasn't under oath.  All politicians lie (remember when Clinton said he'd   
   have the most ethical administration EVERY in the history of the U.S. or   
   that U.S. forces would be in Bosnia for ONE YEAR and only ONE YEAR?.  But   
   our whole justice system relies on people telling the truth when they take   
   that oath.  It's especially important when the person who takes that oath is   
   responsible for ENFORCING THE LAWS of the land.   
      
   Second, I don't think Bush, Jr. lied with regards to NBC weapons in Iraq.   
   Everyone thought they were there (Clinton, Germany, France, Russia,   
   everyone) so the question, "Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?" is   
   really a GREAT question.  Where are they?  Clearly they were there or every   
   Intel service on the planet was wrong.  So, if they were there, where are   
   they now?  That is the scary question.  Unfortunatly PARTISAN people are   
   trying to use this as a weapon instead of focusing on finding out what   
   Saddam did with them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)