XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism   
   From: zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com   
      
   Christian Williamson wrote:   
      
   > Dan wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Christian Williamson"  wrote in message   
   >> news:402fe305$0$3079$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>> Cleland's a politician. He is not untouchable. He can be attacked just   
   >>> like any other politician.   
   >>   
   >> The point is not that he's not untouchable, it's the gutter smear tactics   
   >> the GOP used to impugn the patriotism of a man who served in Vietnam,   
   >> done at the same time our AWOL, Vietnam-avoiding, liar of a pResident   
   >> continues to play the patriotism card. Disgusting, vile, and wretched -   
   >> thy name is GOP.   
   >   
   > Yes, the point is that he is untouchable. Hence the indignation by the   
   > Dems.   
      
   The point of "indignation" is the slime that the Rethuglicans have   
   dumped out about him, when in fact he's the opposite.  Consider,   
   e.g., Coulter's horse manure, which you so willingly recite.   
   See other posts for the facts ... I expect an apology from you   
   for even quoting that slimebitch Coulter on this, when the actual   
   facts are in the record and prove her a liar (as if that's in   
   any way necessary any more).   
      
   > As far as gutter smear tactics, the Dems have no trouble using them to   
   > George Bush, even though he served his country in the Guard and received   
   > an honorable discharge. . . .   
      
   The question is whether he _did_ "serve[] his country".  Fair question,   
   no?  As for the "honorable discharge", I'm sure you've heard that   
   John Allen Muhammad, the DC sniper, also received an honorable   
   discharge, despite assaulting another officer and other sundry   
   misdeeds.  Care to think over whether that is any real indication   
   of how honourable the service is?   
      
   > . . . . . . . . .They have no trouble attacking the president   
   > about his election, either -- and he was duly elected -- in 2000.   
      
   Vote of 5-4, I heard. . . .   
      
   > AWOL? Prove it.   
      
   Five months of _no_ duty, even by _his_ records?  How about   
   disobeying a direct written order?   
      
   > Vietnam avoiding? Prove it.   
      
   Everyone around at the time _knew_ that the NG was one put from   
   combat service in Vietnam.  Believe me, I was around at the time.   
      
   > Liar? Prove it.   
      
   Dubya's lies are legion:   
      
   1). That he flew throughout his TANG service   
   2). All the WoMD crap   
   3). That Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in (twice)   
   4). "This man [Gore] has outspent me". (2000 campaign debate)   
   5). His passage of the Texas Patient Bill of Rights   
   .... anonanonanonan ....   
      
   There's web sites that list hundreds of them (some complete   
   with documentation and references for further research).   
   Just Google "Dubya" and "lies" and open your eyes.   
      
   > "Playing" the patriotism card? Prove it.   
      
   C'mon now.  The Rethuglicans have been doing this for over   
   two _years_ now.   
      
   > These are all opinions you hold, not based on fact.   
      
   Plenty of facts to back up those "opinions".   
      
   While you are reduced to quoting the lying bitch Coulter.   
      
   Even your dog would refuse to lick your shit-stained face.   
      
   Cheers,   
      
   				-- Arne Langsetmo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)