mysteryman wrote:I am not concerned about that 12 billion for one simple reason,IT WASNT OURS!!!
That money was given to the Iraqi govt,what they did with it or what happened to it is their problem,not ours.
Should we have given it to them?
I dont know.
But once we did it was no longer our money to worry about.
well la dee da. We have here now a rabid right winger who has bent himself in contortions to attack Democrats and to do so thinks giving 12 billion dollars of US tax payer money is inconsequential and who doesn't even care if it falls into the hands of ant-American insurgents who use the money to kill American soldiers, since it is now, "their money.
How many bombs were made from that money? How many American soldiers died because of them
And you don't even care.
So let's be sure here, if you give your kid an allowance and he buys crack with it, well, its his money, and what he does with it is his responsibility?
Two words.... "don't procreate"
mysteryman wrote:As for corruption by a dem,lets not forget the South Dakota dem that slept with a Senate Page.
The dems did nothing to him,even though what he did was obviously wrong.
um, that was one man's word against another's. If you can't see the difference between that and Foley's admitted Republican proclivity with seeking sex from teenage boys you are not too bright and again are grasping at straws to defend your indefensible positions.
baldimo wrote:How about the SF mayor who slept with his "friends" wife who also happened to be one if his "trusted" political advisors. I guess we are going to redefine what is, is.
btw two more words... "Rudy" and "Giuliani" since you know certainly that he threw his own wife out of Gracie Mansion and installed his mistress as the woman of the house, and Rudy is running... as a what? what was that? a Republican PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. Have I heard you attack that? Nope, just the same double standard, and blatant hypocrisy by typical conservatives.
Asherman wrote:President Clinton did not face impeachment because of his sexual peccadilloes (married to Hillary, who couldn't sympathize), but because he committed perjury, a felony, in a Federal Court.
btw post a pix of your own wife before attacking another man's. Real men don't do that.
and ash, can you ever post things correctly or has your habit of strutting while sitting on your ass befuddled your brain again. Bill Clinton was not charged in the federal courts with perjury.
Clinton did not commit perjury. Most of the illegal leaks suggesting his testimony was perjurious falsely describe his testimony. First of all, the President never testified in the Jones deposition that he was not alone with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton never testified that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was the same as with any other intern.
To the contrary, he admitted exchanging gifts with her, knowing about her job search, receiving cards and notes from her, and knowing other details of her personal life that made it plain he had a special relationship with her.
Clinton has admitted he had an improper sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In a civil deposition, he gave narrow answers to ambiguous questions. As a matter of law, those answers could not give rise to a criminal charge of perjury. In the face of the Clinton admission of his relationship, the disclosure of lurid and salacious allegations can only be intended to humiliate Clinton and force him from office.
The law defines perjury very clearly. Perjury requires proof that an individual knowingly made a false statement while under oath. Answers to questions that are literally true are not perjury.
Even if an answer doesn't directly answer the question asked, it is not perjury if it is true , no accused has an obligation to help his accuser. Answers to fundamentally ambiguous questions also can never be perjury. And nobody can be convicted of perjury based on only one other person's testimony.
So let's make it easy for you; Can you please quote what part of Clinton's Grand Jury testimony is alleged to be perjury and how it's perjury according to the "Rule of Law"?
Surely such a wise and sage man can be capable of documenting his statement, or perhaps you could STFU and not embarrass yourself again about this.
Get over it and try getting it right next time.
and still no outcry from the traditional fiscal conservatives about $12,000,000,000 pissed away in Iraqi reconstruction......And there is a thread about it on A2K none of you posted to express your anger at being riped off.
But you piss and moan about a guy using government employees cutting the lawn of a state senator? So, as long as Republicans steal like thieves its okay by you folks. No wonder the American voter threw you out of the congressional leadership in disgust.