Professor Hobitbob apparently isn't fond of Representative Tom De Lay.
In view of the fact that there will be a few more seats in the House from Texas due to the new redistricting, there may be a new Speaker of the House after Nov. 2004- Tom DeLay.
If so, I'll be glad to remind Professor Hobibit.
Italgato
Italgato, May the Bird of Paradise fly up Tom DeLay's nose!
---BumbleBeeBoogie
Doesn't matter how long Kennedy spent time in the service, he reapplied and was accepted into Harvard. The community college remark I will ignore as it is none of you business where I graduated from.
Kennedy re-applied AFTER being expelled for Cheating on his exam.
The comment on your college was made only after a gratuitous comment made by Lightwizard who said: "Harvard is easy to bribe" It is certain that LightWizard knows nothing about Harvard.
What Lightwizard doesn't know is that scumbags like Ted Kennedy are thrown out on their ears when they cheat.
Again, if Harvard was easy to bribe, it would have been bribed by the bootlegger, Joe Kennedy, to keep his son from being expelled.
Lightwizard knows nothing about Harvard.
Lightwizard
Lightwizard, apparently Italgato, while attending his institution of "hier" learning missed school the day the course on "how to effectively persuade people to your perspective" was presented.
Isn't it sad when some people's education is so deficient that it weakens their ability to effectively communicate with others?
---BumbleBeeBoogie
Took long enough to admit Kennedy went back to the school he had been "expelled" from and reapplied and was readmitted. Not that I am advocating anyone should cheat on an exam by enlisting a fellow student to take a test and I'm sure it's been done before will be done again -- it's getting caught that has consequences and it seems difficult to explain why someone would be able to reapply. I wasn't emphatic (I guess) that anyone had to "bribe" or (as it's more formally known) give Harvard a bunch of money so he could later reapply but the suspicion is nevertheless there. If anyone wants to believe that no institution of higher learning has ever accepted money for student acceptance, that's their privilege. In the end, Kennedy is just another politician and some may feel very frustrated that he has any influence in the Senate but it's just another fact of life. I suggest checking into the background of every member of the Senate. I'm not letting it raise my blood pressure.
Kennedy's 'Uncivil' Truths on Iraq
Published on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 by the Boston Globe
Kennedy's 'Uncivil' Truths on Iraq
by Thomas Oliphant
GIVE OR TAKE a couple of nouns -- "bribery" and "fraud," to be precise -- here are the facts behind what Senator Edward Kennedy had to say last week about the mess in Iraq.The secrecy surrounding the way President Bush is spending military billions appears to have a purpose, one that has nothing to do with keeping valuable intelligence from our enemies. In addition to keeping secret the actual expenditures for specific activities, the president is also keeping secret the precise destinations of the dollars, one of which just happens to be the treasuries of other countries. One example is the "international" division of troops on the scene, nominally led by the Poles. As far as anyone can determine, not a dime of the costs associated with this division's presence in Iraq is being paid for by any of the countries participating in it. The United States is paying all the freight, and those troops would not be in Iraq -- their governments would not have sent them -- if it weren't.
Take another, more troubling example. Over the weekend, the Bush administration signed papers for an $8.5 billion package of loans and other goodies for Turkey -- the country that stiffed us on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, eliminating the possibility of an attack from the north. This package is a cousin to earlier attempts to use grants, loans, and other economic concessions to get Turkey into Iraq -- which is a dangerous idea even on its merits, given Turkey's miserable record vis a vis the Kurds.
In announcing that the package had been finalized, triggering a Turkish Cabinet meeting to consider sending forces into Iraq, Treasury Secretary John Snow denied that the package of goodies was explicitly conditioned on Turkey's joining America's band of bought-and-paid-for allies. However, he did acknowledge that it assumed Turkey's "cooperation" on Iraq matters -- a distinction too cute for hacks like me.
This raises an interesting question. Just what do you call a payment of money to a government in return for its performance of an act like sending troops to Iraq that it would not perform but for the payment of the money? Those who call it bribery may be accused of being accurate and tough but hardly inaccurate and not at all "uncivil" (to use President Bush's complaining adjective).
As Kennedy said in his Boston interview last week with the Associated Press, the diligent folks at the Congressional Budget Office have encountered nothing but roadblocks in attempting to track Bush's military money and do not accept the administration's rough estimate of the ongoing costs: nearly $4 billion a month.
Kennedy was referring to a CBO report earlier this month summarizing its efforts to get at the truth. It included this sentence: "CBO believes that the $3.9 billion figure may include some one-time costs that CBO would not incorporate in its estimate of the costs of long-term occupation."
I'm told that was in part a reference to these payments for other countries that meet all the dictionary tests of bribery.
As for the war itself, consider the facts again. The president chose March 20 as an invasion date arbitrarily, not for any reasons involving a threat to our nation that demanded an attack then, much less an attack with only Britain as a major ally. Just as arbitrarily, he chose to justify the date on the basis of supposed threats from Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and "ties" to the terrorists who attacked the United States two years ago.
As the facts have unfolded in ways that make these claims, shall we say, spurious, other justifications have emerged after the fact (transforming the entire Middle East, stopping a human rights violator from his murderous ways). This is the substitution of one bill of goods with another bill of goods. The old bait-and-switch is one of the classic elements of what is called fraud with legal precision.
And lest anyone be shocked at the suggestion by Kennedy that politics was involved in all this, I invite a reading of White House guru Karl Rove's intemperate speech to the Republican National Committee early in 2002 and the subsequent use of "national security" and morphed images of Saddam Hussein to question the loyalty of Democrats in that year's ugly congressional campaigns.
Such political habits die hard -- hence Tom DeLay's reaction to Kennedy, accusing him of attacking Bush with more verve than he ever used against Saddam Hussein, or Attorney General Ashcroft's repeated equation of opposition to the Patriot Act with subversion.
Like nearly all Democrats, Kennedy is prepared to support more money for Iraq, possibly even to support something like the $87 billion Bush has requested.
The essential precondition for all this money, however, is the truth. Kennedy raised a lot of eyebrows with some tough language, but unlike the president he had the facts behind him. Instead of complaining about language, Bush would be wiser to realize that the truth about bribery and an end to the fraud would be much more productive.
Russians: Bush had no info or Iraq WMD before war
2003-09-28 - Russian News Service Novosti
WHITE HOUSE HAD NO INFORMATION ON IRAQ POSSESSING WMD BEFORE WAR
WASHINGTON, September 28 (RIA Novosti corr. Arkady Orlov) - American congressman Porter Goss accused the US secret services of using ambiguous "fragmentary information" when they informed the White House on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and on Baghdad's links to Al Qaeda. This is said in the congressman's letter to the CIA director, The Washington Post reports today.
The newspaper has got a copy of the message. Beside Goss, who chairs the Intelligence Committee of the US Congress House of Representatives, the letter was signed by Jane Harman, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
The letter's authors criticized the US secret services for inability to get reliable data from Iraq or employ technical capabilities to discover the WMD in Iraq.
The lack of confirmation of Iraq destroying its chemical and biological weapons was assessed as proof of their continued existence, the message emphasizes.
White House Says It Had Iraq WMD Intelligence
Sorry Condi, we don't believe you any longer. You've lost all credibility.
----BumbleBeeBoogie
An enrichment of intelligence. Hmmm... does she mean the intelligence was akin to manure?
Hobitbob, are you claiming the Bush administration is BS'ing us?
I'm surprised that so few perceived Bush's hidden agendas (this was only one of them) and took so long to expose them. It's never what politicians claim they will or will not do, it's what is in the dark recesses of their mind. If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush II is the Great Manipulator.
I am very much afraid that Lightwizard doesn't know a thing about Harvard University.
Do some Universities take bribes?
I think so.
Does Harvard. I don't think so. Now, if Lightwizard who obviously doesn't know a thing about one of the finest Universities in the world( which probably wouldn't even allow him to walk on its grass) can show that Harvard can be "bribed" he should do it.
Lighwizard is obviously so addled that he thinks that an Institution like Harvard would put its "CREDIBILITY" in jeopardy for cash, he is really living on another planet.
Again, the scumbag Ted Kennedy was kicked out of Harvard for cheating.
The scumbag Ted Kennedy allowed a woman to drown in his car when he drove off a bridge.
The scumbag Ted Kennedy was divorced by his wife for being a philanderer.
The scumbag Ted Kennedy is widely known in DC as an obnoxious drunk.
If that's the best the Democrats have, I feel sorry for them.
Bumble Bee Boogie is sadly mistaken when he says the White House had no information that Iraq had WMD's before the war.
Bumble apparently is not aware that the most brilliant president of the twentieth century, one Bill Clinton said, in his speech of December 16, 1998, in his order to bomb Baghdad,
quote
"So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION."
Apparently Clinton knew before the USA went into Iraq.
Does anyone think that Bush and his administation did not read Clinton's 1998 speech????
Wouldn't allow me to walk on their grass.
You are a comedian after all.
(Again ignoring that either Harvard's standard aren't that high, letting a cheater reapply and be readmitted to the institution or....)
You're also not letting a particular word sink in -- contain WMD (an acronym, I'm not shouting!) It appears that containing WMD was working and there was no evidence before the war nor is there evidence now that Irag had them.
Lightwizard apparently can't read---
Clinton said that the Iraqis had WMD's.
Why don't you strain your brain and look up Clinton's December 16th speech?
As for walking on the grass- that is an allusion to the fact that they don't let stupid people near Harvard.
As a West Coast Denizen you probably attended San Francisco University. That would explain your ignorance about Harvard.
Harvard, unlike reverse bigots from Market Street, does allow people a second chance.
But you cannot exculpate Kennedy from his "manslaughter" at Chappaquiddick, his notorious womanizing( for which his wife divorced him), his total immersion into alcohol and,worst of all, his massive hypocracy.
Ted Kennedy talks a good game but he doesn't deliver.
Just two of his votes prove it.
Kennedy voted against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol( I hope you know what that is- Light) and
for the Patriot Act.
.
