Santos and Bush

[Guest Guest]

Let me get this straight.  Congress didn't have proof but you do ??  WOW !!  I'm impressed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe some day you'll learn to understand what you read?

[Guest Guest]

Let me get this straight.  Congress didn't have proof but you do ??  WOW !!  I'm impressed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe some day you'll learn to understand what you read? I NEVER claimed to have any proof, I guess it's hard to read with tunnel vision. I said that just because there's not enough proof to convict doesn't necessarily mean the accused is innocent, merely not guilty, distinctly different things.

[Guest Patriot]

Maybe some day you'll learn to understand what you read?  I NEVER claimed to have any proof, I guess it's hard to read with tunnel vision.  I said that just because there's not enough proof to convict doesn't necessarily mean the accused is innocent, merely not guilty, distinctly different things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm still trying to understand. You admit to not having any proof, but yet you make all these accusations about treasonous acts ?? Be careful, in the real world you'd be sued for libel.

[Guest Guest]

I'm still trying to understand.  You admit to not having any proof, but yet you make all these accusations about treasonous acts ??  Be careful, in the real world you'd be sued for libel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wel, it's a fact the Reagan administration was responsible for weapons sales to an enemy state, surely an action that would qualify as treason, sue away!

Then again you've proven yourself to be unconcerned with facts.

[Guest Guest]

I'm still trying to understand.  You admit to not having any proof, but yet you make all these accusations about treasonous acts ??  Be careful, in the real world you'd be sued for libel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What would YOU know about proof? YOU, who writes blatant lies about booklists and ratings and presents them as true?

Reagan himself admitted on 11/13/86 that weapons had indeed been transferred to Iran, an enemy state, that in itself is a treaonous act in my view. The fact that his involvement could be obscured by his convenient amnesia and the shredding talents of Ollie North and Fawn Hall doesn't change the fact it was just another administration that considered itself above the law.

Blather all you want, as far as I'm concerned a man who would preside over the transfer of weapons to an enemy state is a much greater threat than a man getting a BJ.

[Guest Patriot]

What would YOU know about proof?  YOU, who writes blatant lies about booklists and ratings and presents them as true?

Reagan himself admitted on 11/13/86 that weapons had indeed been transferred to Iran, an enemy state, that in itself is a treaonous act in my view.  The fact that his involvement could be obscured by his convenient amnesia and the shredding talents of Ollie North and Fawn Hall doesn't change the fact it was just another administration that considered itself above the law.

Blather all you want, as far as I'm concerned a man who would preside over the transfer of weapons to an enemy state is a much greater threat than a man getting a BJ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was a stategic reason arms were given to the Iranians, but your knowledge of this issue is so shallow that you don't have a clue. And I really don't feel like taking the time to educate you.

[Guest Guest]

There was  a stategic reason arms were given to the Iranians, but your knowledge of this issue is so shallow that you don't have a clue. And I really don't feel like taking the time to educate you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah right! Number 1: YOU are known to post lies, THAT's FACT!

And I know where the Holy Grail is but I don't feel like taking the time to tell you.

There were strategic reasons for my actions, that sounds like a Himmler defense.

Or Benedict Arnold: " Really! There was good reason for my treason"

Sounds like BS Republican spin to me.

[Guest Guest]

There was  a stategic reason arms were given to the Iranians, but your knowledge of this issue is so shallow that you don't have a clue. And I really don't feel like taking the time to educate you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know there was a very strategic reason for Clinton wanting a BJ but your knowledge is so shallow I just don't have the time or patience to educate you about it.

BS is BS no matter what side of the aisle it comes from.

[Guest Guest]

There was  a stategic reason arms were given to the Iranians, but your knowledge of this issue is so shallow that you don't have a clue. And I really don't feel like taking the time to educate you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're not even bright enough to look up a book's bestseller list status yet you're privy to presidential strategies? Remarkable!

May you're just trying to sell the GP a new holiday song.

There's a reason for our treason.......

Fa la la la la, la la la la

[Guest Patriot]

You're not even bright enough to look up a book's bestseller list status yet you're privy to presidential strategies?  Remarkable!

May you're just trying to sell the GP a new holiday song.

There's a reason for our treason.......

Fa la la la la, la la la la

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pull your head out of the Kool-aid jar, you're losing it.

[Guest Guest]

Pull your head out of the Kool-aid jar, you're losing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I'm keeping my sense of humor, it's needed to deal with people like you who claim to be in on presidential stategies and think that excuses whatever they do. The old adage "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" would certainly apply here.

I guess YOU meant well when you LIED about the Clintons' books?

[Guest Guest]

There was  a stategic reason arms were given to the Iranians, but your knowledge of this issue is so shallow that you don't have a clue. And I really don't feel like taking the time to educate you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'Given' to the Iranians? They were SOLD, you and FACTS just don't get along, do you?

And Ollie and Fawn were weraing out the shredders and Ronnie was busy forgetting because they'd acted legally?

Since when is having a strategic reason an excuse to ignore any and all laws you choose to?

So continue with your asinine Kool-Aid statements, YOU make no valid point whatsoever.

[Guest Patriot]

'Given' to the Iranians?  They were SOLD, you and FACTS just don't get along, do you?

And Ollie and Fawn were weraing out the shredders and Ronnie was busy forgetting because they'd acted legally?

Since when is having a strategic reason an excuse to ignore any and all laws you choose to?

So continue with your asinine Kool-Aid statements, YOU make no valid point whatsoever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, Genius, I'll give you a clue. Arms were "transferred" to Iran to help the Iranians in their war against Iraq. The U.S. was concerned about the Iranians losing the war against Iraq because the U.S. had intelligence that indicated the Soviets were poised to invade and take over Iran if they were defeated.

I know this information may be a little too deep for you to comprehend so you may want to ask your momma about it.

[Guest Guest]

OK, Genius,  I'll give you a clue.  Arms were "transferred" to Iran to help the Iranians in their war against Iraq. The U.S. was concerned about the Iranians losing the war against Iraq because the U.S. had intelligence that indicated the Soviets were poised to invade and take over Iran if they were defeated.

  I know this information may be a little too deep for you to comprehend so you may want to ask your momma about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As usual you write a lot and say nothing.

Since when is a strategic reason an excuse to violate whatever laws one chooses to? It's no defense. Didn't work at Nuremburg and doesn't work now.

Or is the concept of living within the law too deep for YOU ?

[Guest Guest]

OK, Genius,  I'll give you a clue.  Arms were "transferred" to Iran to help the Iranians in their war against Iraq. The U.S. was concerned about the Iranians losing the war against Iraq because the U.S. had intelligence that indicated the Soviets were poised to invade and take over Iran if they were defeated.

  I know this information may be a little too deep for you to comprehend so you may want to ask your momma about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, illegally transferring weapons to one enemy state to aid them in a war agAinst another enemy state is a good thing? Geez, it's getting hard to tell the enemy states apart without a program.

Here's smething that's apparently too deep for you, genius. There are laws in the US and they're meant to apply to all. If you think Ollie et al were shredding their ying hearts out because they'd acted legally you are even more stupid than your writings. But silly little twit that you are you'd rather cry BJ! BJ! BJ! than worry about weapons winding up in the wrong hands.

[Guest Guest]

OK, Genius,  I'll give you a clue.  Arms were "transferred" to Iran to help the Iranians in their war against Iraq. The U.S. was concerned about the Iranians losing the war against Iraq because the U.S. had intelligence that indicated the Soviets were poised to invade and take over Iran if they were defeated.

  I know this information may be a little too deep for you to comprehend so you may want to ask your momma about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah.............typical Republican strategy, trample the Constitution, break any law they choose, and try to justify it by claiming their intentions were good but only they could possibly understand it. Sounds like that liar Westmoreland with his --yes, I lied because you people wouldn't understand the truth. It may have been a good Nicholson movie line but in real life is just more spinning BS.

[Guest Guest]

OK, Genius,  I'll give you a clue.  Arms were "transferred" to Iran to help the Iranians in their war against Iraq. The U.S. was concerned about the Iranians losing the war against Iraq because the U.S. had intelligence that indicated the Soviets were poised to invade and take over Iran if they were defeated.

  I know this information may be a little too deep for you to comprehend so you may want to ask your momma about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another one of your delusions like your statement about books and bestseller lists? I'm onto your strategy, somebody calls you on one of your lies and you conveniently ignore it and tell other lies.

[Guest Patriot]

Another one of your delusions like your statement about books and bestseller lists?  I'm onto your strategy, somebody calls you on one of your lies and you conveniently ignore it and tell other lies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Delusions ? Stick your head back in the Kool-aid jar.

[Guest 1589]

Maybe some day you'll learn to understand what you read?  I NEVER claimed to have any proof, I guess it's hard to read with tunnel vision.  I said that just because there's not enough proof to convict doesn't necessarily mean the accused is innocent, merely not guilty, distinctly different things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope your not law enforcement

[Guest Guest]

Delusions ?  Stick your head back in the Kool-aid jar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good ol' PatRat, he's called on one of his lies that HE knows damn well is a lie and all he has is another asinine Kool-Aid remark.

[Guest Guest]

I hope your not law enforcement

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the difference? Do you seriously believe lawbreakers are always convicted? Or even always accused? If so I'd like to talk to you about a noce bridge to Brooklyn I have for sale.

[Guest Guest]

Delusions ?  Stick your head back in the Kool-aid jar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, DELUSIONS! YOU are delusional. You spout a bunch of crap with no factual basis and apparently believe it and expect others to. THAT is being delusional. So take your stupid Kool-Aid remark and stick it where you're probably deluded into thinking the sun is shining.

[Guest Guest]

Delusions ?  Stick your head back in the Kool-aid jar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU are the deluded WANKER who claimed neither of the Clintons' books ever made it to #1 on the bestseller list when the TRUTH is they BOTH DID so yeah, YOU are a LIAR or DELUSIONAL or both.

So stick YOUR head back up your butt.

[Guest Patriot]

Yes, DELUSIONS!  YOU are delusional.  You spout a bunch of crap with no factual basis and apparently believe it and expect others to.  THAT is being delusional.  So take your stupid Kool-Aid remark and stick it where you're probably deluded into thinking the sun is shining.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's more delusions I'm having...... I'm thinking Gore lost. I'm thinking Kerry lost. I'm thinking the next president in '08 will be Republican. I'm thinking the Democratic party is going down the tubes because the Kool-aid drinking radical left (like yourself ) is destroying it. I'm thinking international terrorism is here to stay and the American public will never elect a Democratic president in times of war. Better stock up on Kool-aid and re-new your subscription to the NY Times.

[Guest Guest]

Here's more delusions  I'm having......  I'm thinking Gore lost. I'm thinking Kerry lost. I'm thinking the next president in '08 will be Republican.  I'm thinking the Democratic party is going down the tubes because the Kool-aid drinking radical left (like yourself ) is destroying it. I'm thinking international terrorism is here to stay and the American public will never elect a Democratic president in times of war.  Better stock up on Kool-aid and re-new your subscription to the NY Times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who are you trying to BullS**t? We know you're incapable of thinking beyond stupid Kool-Aid remarks and your lies.

Thge only thing you're close on is terroeism being here to stay because Bush is a bumbling fool.

Put your head back up you butt and delude yourself that you see the sun.