"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK

DSK wrote:
"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK



Why, the Democrat, of course. Killing people is perfectly okay if you
are a Republican conservative.


--
Email sent to is never read.

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:27:55 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

Good point. Perhaps Saddam was responsible for 9/11...and just used al
Qaeda mercernaries for cover.



And perhaps he was not. The previous deadly terrorist attack in the USA
was perpetrated by U.S. citizens. You do remember Oklahoma City, right?

Islamic terrorist groups seem quick to "take responsibility" for various
actions, and sometimes more than one group chimes in. The various
branches of the IRA used to do the same.

At some point we're going to need perpetrators and evidence that
satisfies civilian courts. "Military court" justice is an oxymoron.
Of course, the Bush-shippers just want to pretend they've caught the
real perps. That's one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in the absence of
real evidence.
What the hell do you know about military courts? Ever participated in a court
martial? Ever administered an Article 15? Ever conducted an Article 32
investigation? I didn't think so.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Am I supposed to assume "military justice" is any less an oxymoron than
"military intelligence?"



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:45:08 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith
wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.

One of the advantages of living in an earlier time zone I guess.

But yes, it's confirmed and of course in all the early Sunday news
reports here.

This is such a yawner. It took all of Bush's horses and all of Bush's

Apparently the rest of the world doesn't agree with your assesment that
"This is such a yawner." You must be working for Dean/Gore now, since
he's the one that's most hurt by this news so downplaying it is in his
best interest. Lieberman seemed pretty excited this morning.

Saddam has been out of power for seven months. It's nice that he's been
captured. But...now what, Steve? After his capture was announced, a car
bomb in Iraq took out 17 people.

The violence will probably go up for a while. But the capture of Saddam
is a requirement for an "out with the old and in with the new" attitude
that the average Iraqi needs to be able to express without fear. Now
they can, and can move on with forming a new government. We'll see what
happens in the next 7 months.

Steve

"DSK" wrote in message

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

Why, Person 2, of course. No contest.

Person 1, I presume by your reference, is Bill Clinton. You forgot to
mention that he then lied directly and deliberately about the events no less
than seventeen times, at least twice under oath.

Person 2 would be Saddam Hussein. I think 5,000 is a serious
underestimation, although everyone will agree he's a world-class slug.

Now, does this quiz have a point?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK



Why, the Democrat, of course. Killing people is perfectly okay if you
are a Republican conservative.


--
Email sent to is never read.

Or if you are a Democrat trying to cover up lies in a legal case. Perjury.
Kill a few in Bosnia, blow up an aspirin plant. That kind of killing is OK
in the Spinmeisters view.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Am I supposed to assume "military justice" is any less an oxymoron than
"military intelligence?"

You take great pleasure and self-satisfaction in denigrating and insulting
both the military and its dedicated members. The very self-same people who
protect and guarantee your right to be the obstreperous, petty little person
that you are. A sad case....

Yuh think? I'm thinking he'll be tried by Iraqis in Iraq. The Governing
Council is already calling for the trial. Justice may be quicker if left
to the Iraqis.

That would be an encouraging development. Let's wait and see.

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:45:08 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith
wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.

One of the advantages of living in an earlier time zone I guess.

But yes, it's confirmed and of course in all the early Sunday news
reports here.

This is such a yawner. It took all of Bush's horses and all of Bush's

Apparently the rest of the world doesn't agree with your assesment that
"This is such a yawner." You must be working for Dean/Gore now, since
he's the one that's most hurt by this news so downplaying it is in his
best interest. Lieberman seemed pretty excited this morning.

Saddam has been out of power for seven months. It's nice that he's been
captured. But...now what, Steve? After his capture was announced, a car
bomb in Iraq took out 17 people.

The violence will probably go up for a while. But the capture of Saddam
is a requirement for an "out with the old and in with the new" attitude
that the average Iraqi needs to be able to express without fear. Now
they can, and can move on with forming a new government. We'll see what
happens in the next 7 months.

Steve

I think it will be even better because he was found in a little hole, and
gave up without a fight. After telling his troops and followers to fight to
the death. Shows him as a coward, and lost all face to the Iraq people.

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Am I supposed to assume "military justice" is any less an oxymoron than
"military intelligence?"

You take great pleasure and self-satisfaction in denigrating and insulting
both the military and its dedicated members. The very self-same people who
protect and guarantee your right to be the obstreperous, petty little person
that you are. A sad case....


It's important to exercise what remaining Constitutional rights there
are before they are taken away by the Bush Administration, eh? And make
no mistake about it, they *are* being taken away by the Bush
Administration. Thanks to Bush and his pack of neoCons, we are being
becoming the kind of society we *used* to try to change, and devolving
into a police state.

It has *never* been my purpose or goal to change any of the mindless,
self-centered, selfish, lockstepped, right-wing opinion that sloshes
around this newsgroup.

Welcome to Amerika.



--
Email sent to is never read.