Re: Snow Job or Blow Job?
Green Witch wrote:Which is more disturbing to you - a politician who lies about their policies
(Snow Job) or one who lies about their personal morality (Blow Job). I think most politicians are guilty of one or the other, and in some cases both. I know a couple of names immediately come to mind, but try to think of the more general picture. Could you vote for a person knowing they lied about their politcal motivations? Could you vote for a person knowing they had lied about their personal behavior. Which is the lesser of two evils in your opinion?
I assume you're talking about Slick Klintler when you speak of blow jobs...
A blow job or any other sort of sex with grown women on his own time and his own dime would have aroused no interest in Washington D.C. at all. A blow job from a teenage intern in the oval office on government time while keeping foreign dignitaries waiting in the outer office arouses everybody's attention as well it should. There is no walk of life in America in which anybody gets away with **** like that.
Slick Klintler got impeached for abuse of power and not for blowjobs. The guy's basically a whack job and everybody in Washington knew it by 1994:
http://reason.com/9411/fe.efron.9411.shtml
Moreover, the demoshit party was morally obligated at that time to pack Slick Klintler's sorry ass off to St. Elizabeth's hospital where he belongs and hand the country over to Algor. I mean, that's what the vice president is there for. The fact that this didn't happen is inexcusable.
Other than that George W. Bush is not guilty of any sort of "snow job". If anything the case for invading Iraq has been understated in what I view as a misguided effort to provide cover for the previous administration.
I keep hearing this pinko mantra about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; somehow or other it rings totally hollow.
In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:
Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001. The NK government in all likelihood will not survive this year.
Then there's the case of 9-11. The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:
http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm
Then there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html
Thus it should surprise nobody that the first cases of anthrax turned up in neighborhoods where the 9-11 hijackers lived. The odds against that if there were no connection to the 9-11 hijackers are astronomical.
Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.
The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.
The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.
