The kind of endorsement the Administration doesn't want

From Yahoo/AP

Takes one to know one.

It kind of cuts the legs out from under a lot of the Democrat protestations.

Like I said, takes one to know one.

Lewinsky scandal:

First ""official"" explanation: ""I did not have sexual relation with that woman...""

Second ""official"" explanation: He had an ""innapropriate"" relationship and gave ""legally accurate"" answers to questions.

The Truth: He had a sexual relationship with her then lied about it in legal proceedings and to the American people.

Uranium scandal:

First ""official"" explanation: Statement ""factually accurate,"" but it ""did not meet the standard"" for a speech.

Second ""official"" explanation: Condie Rice says nobody in the White House knew about problems with it.

Third ""official"" explanation: Steve Hadley, Rice''s deputy in the White House, says he knew despite what she said.

The Truth: ?

Whatever. Democrats have always stood by their man and said that his lies were inconsequencial because they were only about sex.

Well, Clinton specifically stated that Desert Fox targeted Saddam''s nuclear weapons programs - go on the record, Rat - was he lying then?

And look at your examples:
Lewinsky -
Clinton: ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman""
Reality: His own semen proved him a liar.

Uranium -
Rice: Interestingly, Rat, you have no quote of what Rice said.
Hadley: I had information, BUT DIDN''T TELL MY SUPERIORS.

Even if Rice made the statement that no one in the White House knew, that means she was wrong. Hadley AFFIRMS HER STORY. And neither statement contradicts Tenets in any way.

You say you want the truth, but in fact that itself is a lie. The truth is coming out and matches what the administration has been saying all along. Don''t buy it? Fine. Bring out an ""unnamed US official"" to let us know that Hadley is lying. But until you do, quit misrepresetning the facts to make false accusations JUST BECAUSE YOU HATE THE PRESIDENT.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Even if Rice made the statement that no one in the White House knew, that means she was wrong. Hadley AFFIRMS HER STORY.

How do you add that up? Rice said nobody in the White House knew. Hadley said he knew. Rice''s story is wrong. How is that affirming her story?

Good lord, you can''t even admit that there''s a contradiction.

You know, maybe you should just read this before you stick your foot in your mouth again:

The new information amounted to an on-the-record mea culpa for a White House that had pointed fingers at the CIA for vetting the speech, prompting an earlier acceptance of responsibility by Tenet. But that abruptly changed yesterday after the CIA furnished evidence that it had fought the inclusion of the charge.

The disclosures punctured claims made by Rice and others in the past two weeks. Rice and other officials had asserted that nobody in the White House knew of CIA objections, and that the CIA supported the Africa accusation generally, making only technical objections about location and quantity. On Friday, a White House official mischaracterized the CIA''s objections, saying repeatedly that Tenet opposed the inclusion in Bush''s Oct. 7 speech ""because it was single source, not because it was flawed.""

Shortly after Friday''s briefing, Bartlett and Hadley said yesterday, Gerson discovered the first of two CIA memos to the White House from last October. The CIA memo, dated Oct. 5 and addressed to Gerson, Hadley and others, objected to a sentence that the White House included in a draft of Bush''s upcoming speech, saying Hussein''s ""regime has been caught attempting to purchase"" uranium in Africa. The officials did not release the memo but said the uranium information was on Page 3 of a four-page document.

Hadley said the CIA -- the memo was not signed -- noted that the amount was in dispute and that it was not clear the material ""can be acquired from the source."" The CIA also pointed out that Iraq already had its own supply, 500 tons, of the ""yellowcake"" uranium ore it was accused of seeking.

The second memo, dated Oct. 6 and sent to Hadley and Rice, was brought to the White House''s attention yesterday by the CIA, the officials said. In response to another draft of the speech that had already deleted the uranium reference, the memo included fresh CIA objections to the charge, saying there was ""weakness in the evidence"" and that the attempted purchase ""was not particularly significant,"" Hadley said.

How do you add that up? Rice said nobody in the White House knew. Hadley said he knew. Rice''s story is wrong. How is that affirming her story?

Good lord, you can''t even admit that there''s a contradiction

It''s like when you say to me that no one in your house has herpes, and afterwards your wife comes forward and tells you that, oops, she has something she forgot to mention.

Contradiction? Well, I guess. But a lie? Hardly.

Maybe you should start getting worried about all these things that the Administration ""forgot"" to mention.

It''s kind of hard for me to swallow (no pun intended) the two as the same thing. Did they both lie? Yes. Did they both try to come up with ways out of it? Yes. Did over a hundred US families have to bury their sons and daughters because of it? Well, therein lies the difference, at least to me. A lie about a hummer didn''t have the end result of families burying their dead.

New sig!

Did over a hundred US families have to bury their sons and daughters because of it? Well, therein lies the difference, at least to me. A lie about a hummer didn''t have the end result of families burying their dead.

200 (or so) US soldiers dead vs. the freedom of the Iraqi people for future generations. The US military made their choice about which was more important and thank God they had their priorities straight.

Besides, using Rat''s logic on abortion and CA politics, you guys don''t deserve an opinion unless you are a current US soldier or an oppressed Iraqi.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Besides, using Rat''s logic on abortion and CA politics, you guys don''t deserve an opinion unless you are a current US soldier or an oppressed Iraqi.

Now I''m for damned sure that''s crossing the line. And I doubt you are a current US soldier or a formerly oppressed Iraqi, so where do you get off telling us what the reality is for either of them?

[quote=""ralcydan The US military made their choice about which was more important and thank God they had their priorities straight.[/quote]

I must have missed that one on CNN...was it a questionaire, or a phone in vote, or what? The US military did not make a choice. Their commander and Chief did.

Oops. Damn, I gotta get better at that whole cut and paste thing.

Actually Rat, I don''t hold the opinion that if I''m not personally involved, I should butt out. But you keep using that as your argument, so I thought you''d want to apply it across the board.

Guess not. I assume you will now welcome my views on abortion and the state of California politics...

"Rat Boy" wrote:

New sig!

Wow...I never been a sig before!

"ralcydan" wrote:

Actually Rat, I don''t hold the opinion that if I''m not personally involved, I should butt out. But you keep using that as your argument, so I thought you''d want to apply it across the board.

Guess not. I assume you will now welcome my views on abortion and the state of California politics...

I fail to see how a national policy doesn''t apply to all of us. War is waged by an entire nation and reflects upon all of its citizens. You''re turning it into a personal war with me.

And no, I don''t welcome your views the state of California politics since you aren''t involved in California, yet you see fit to meddle in it.

And no, I don''t welcome your views the state of California politics since you aren''t involved in California, yet you see fit to meddle in it.

Technically, if he isn''t in CA, he can''t really ''meddle''.

Well, abortion is a national issue, and regardless of what you think, matters to and impacts the lives of men and women alike. Also, since California may end up needing some sort of Federal bail-out, not to mention that its immigration and tax poilicies cause problems for the whole US, I feel perfectly comfortable joining the fray. Again, your argument is really nothing more than an attempt to tell someone who disagrees with you to shut up, and I don''t give that a lot of credence...

I''m not turning this into a personal war with you. It''s just that your posts are the most in need of refutation... If you don''t like having your opinions confronted, maybe you should write them in MS-Word instead of publishing them to discussion boards on the Internet.

Tell that to the out-of-state Republican signature-getters Issa hired.

Tell that to the out-of-state Republican signature-getters Issa hired.

I suppose he could have hired illegal immigrants do get signatures. Then he couldn''t have been criticized by the Democrats.

Who said he was smart? I doubt the party thinks he''s electable, which is probably why they are twisting Arnie''s arm behind the scenes.

Ok so according to Rat, with regard to Iraq, Bush and Clinton are liars. I guess Kerry is a liar too.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/in...

So who''s telling the truth? Howard Dean the former governor from the great state of Vermont? What intel is Vermont privy too?

The reason Clinton made his statement about the uranium claim is that he relied on the same quality of intelligence that Bush did when Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998. He is worried that someone will figure that out and he''ll be lumped in this.

He doesn''t want any more digging into this story than Bush does:

''Clinton said ending tensions in Iraq should be the priority now "” another echo of the current White House''s talking points. ""We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq."" ''

Sorry, I think missed the part where Clinton started a war in Iraq.

"Koesj" wrote:

Sorry, I think missed the part where Clinton started a war in Iraq.

Bombing does more damage than just going in and taking down the government. The Iraqi people get hurt more by that than they do a war.

But it''s still different right? At least a perceived difference by the majority of the population, and that is something that does count.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Bombing does more damage than just going in and taking down the government. The Iraqi people get hurt more by that than they do a war.

Right, Bill Clinton and the US butchered a bunch of Iraqi civilians. Now you''re starting to sound like Tariq Aziz and Mohammed Saed al-Sahaf.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

Bombing does more damage than just going in and taking down the government. The Iraqi people get hurt more by that than they do a war.

Right, Bill Clinton and the US butchered a bunch of Iraqi civilians. Now you''re starting to sound like Tariq Aziz and Mohammed Saed al-Sahaf.

Straw Man. Never said anything like that. I just said it does more damage to try to kill the cancer with a few advils than to remove the cancer directly. More Iraqi''s died because we left Saddam in power than from the war.

See, unlike you I do not hate the President that I do not agree with. I do not like the fact that Clinton cheated on his wife, but I do not hate him. I agree with him on things.

More Iraqis died because George H.W. Bush didn''t follow-up on his pledge to aid the Iraqi rebellion following the Gulf War, not because Bill Clinton took out military and regime targets in Desert Fox.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

More Iraqis died because George H.W. Bush didn''t follow-up on his pledge to aid the Iraqi rebellion following the Gulf War, not because Bill Clinton took out military and regime targets in Desert Fox.

Did I mention Clinton was responsible for that? No. Can you read? Oh! Wait... BUSH = EVIL. I saw WE left Saddam in power. Meaning a country.

So, now America is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? No wonder the Arab world doesn''t like us. You certainly painted yourself into a corner with that one.