On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:22:25 -0800 (PST), Stevie Nichts
<nix2nichts@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"I think his harsh style hurt Senator Clinton -- it polarized the
>campaign and polarized the electorate, and it also made it harder
>for Senator Clinton's positive message to break through," said
>Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and pollster who is not
>affiliated with any of the candidates. [...]
Ah, another "op-ed piece that has little or no
relevance to actual events (truth)
I've heard the re-runs of everything Clinton said---and
found nothing anyone could possible call "over the
line"
What IS over the line---is the stupidity of believing
that Obama is credible.
He claims he "was against the war" long before the
"vote to authorize"........which means (to me)....
That he ignored the universally held belief that Saddam
WAS a threat, that he had "massive quantities" of WMD,
and would, in possible, launch them against us or
Israel
However, then Came Joe Wilson and took apart Bush's
Claim of Nuclear weaponry, research, reconstituted
refinement of Weapons material,
The CIA debunked the "aluminum tube" lie
THe State Department would not confirm the Saddam/Al
Queda/Bin Laden connection and collusion
And Hans Blix shot down EVERY claim made by bush vis a
vis WMD, Labs (mobile, remember),
By February 2003, mere weeks before the Invasion---we
knew that Saddam was "clean" (But a "bad guy")
THis suggest that Obama, without any knowledge "opposed
the war"
That, is not an acceptable display of leader****p----
But then to run (now that we didn't find any
weapons)---on a platform of "being against the
war"----that's utter Sleaziness.
|
