There are many links between Terrorists and Saddamn, so ES&D
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and now a member
of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he
believes Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after
al-Qaeda following the ship attack.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said.
"That's a difference of opinion."

mono sect wrote:
There are many links between Terrorists and Saddamn, so ES&D
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and now a member
of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he
believes Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after
al-Qaeda following the ship attack.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said.
"That's a difference of opinion."





Bill O'Reilly? Nothing more than another Limbaugh-type entertainer.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
mono sect wrote:
There are many links between Terrorists and Saddamn, so ES&D

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and now a member
of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he
believes Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after
al-Qaeda following the ship attack.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said.
"That's a difference of opinion."





Bill O'Reilly? Nothing more than another Limbaugh-type entertainer.

So what exactly did he say that was incorrect Harry? If you want to be
credible do not attack the messenger...attack the message.

jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
mono sect wrote:
There are many links between Terrorists and Saddamn, so ES&D

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and now a member
of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he
believes Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after
al-Qaeda following the ship attack.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said.
"That's a difference of opinion."





Bill O'Reilly? Nothing more than another Limbaugh-type entertainer.

So what exactly did he say that was incorrect Harry? If you want to be
credible do not attack the messenger...attack the message.



Look here, buttwipe, I have no interest in what you think is or is not
credible. Got it? O'Reilly is just another right-wing rabble rouser. You
may think he spews "the truth," but that's because you're a neocon
wanna-be.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
mono sect wrote:
There are many links between Terrorists and Saddamn, so ES&D


http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and now a
member
of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he
believes Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after
al-Qaeda following the ship attack.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said.
"That's a difference of opinion."





Bill O'Reilly? Nothing more than another Limbaugh-type entertainer.

So what exactly did he say that was incorrect Harry? If you want to be
credible do not attack the messenger...attack the message.



Look here, buttwipe, I have no interest in what you think is or is not
credible. Got it? O'Reilly is just another right-wing rabble rouser. You
may think he spews "the truth," but that's because you're a neocon
wanna-be.


I never stated anything about O'Reilly and whether I believe in what he
says. I simply asked you to address points of the message he gave that are
not true, something that you still cannot do. You then attack me and call
me childish names for doing so.

This is your typical MO when you are again caught in a corner. Laughable.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Look here, buttwipe, I have no interest in what you think is or is not
credible. Got it? O'Reilly is just another right-wing rabble rouser. You
may think he spews "the truth," but that's because you're a neocon
wanna-be.

A standard Krause response - focused, relevent, succinct. LOL

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Look here, buttwipe, I have no interest in what you think is or is not
credible. Got it? O'Reilly is just another right-wing rabble rouser. You
may think he spews "the truth," but that's because you're a neocon
wanna-be.

A standard Krause response - focused, relevent, succinct. LOL



Indeed, and perhaps someday you'll learn to think, write, and spell.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Look here, buttwipe, I have no interest in what you think is or is not
credible. Got it? O'Reilly is just another right-wing rabble rouser. You
may think he spews "the truth," but that's because you're a neocon
wanna-be.

A standard Krause response - focused, relevent, succinct. LOL



Indeed....he has yet to address the initial question.

It is fun though making Krause twist and turn like a puppet.

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
mono sect wrote:
There are many links between Terrorists and Saddamn, so ES&D

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and now a member
of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he
believes Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after
al-Qaeda following the ship attack.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said.
"That's a difference of opinion."





Bill O'Reilly? Nothing more than another Limbaugh-type entertainer.

So what exactly did he say that was incorrect Harry? If you want to be
credible do not attack the messenger...attack the message.



Look here, buttwipe, I have no interest in what you think is or is not
credible. Got it? O'Reilly is just another right-wing rabble rouser. You
may think he spews "the truth," but that's because you're a neocon
wanna-be.

Ahhh.. name calling. The last bastion of the intellectually inferior.
The final argument for the wiseguy without an arguement.

"Neocon wanna-be"... Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what EXACTLY
a neocon wanna-be really is?

(Cap) wrote in message
Ahhh.. name calling. The last bastion of the intellectually inferior.
The final argument for the wiseguy without an arguement.

"Neocon wanna-be"... Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what EXACTLY
a neocon wanna-be really is?

Neo- meaning *new*
con- short for *conservative
wanna-be- slang for someone who *wants to be*.

So, neocon is short for *new conservative*, a phrase coined to explain
the new age jackals that inhabit the right wing, and those that WANT
TO BE, but are a little short in the intelligence department, so they
don't quite know how.
Simple, really. I think that most people of average intelligence would
be able to figure out what a "neocon wanna-be" is.