On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:01:45 -0600, Ken
<ken@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Nicklas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> All your rhetoric means nothing.
Must mean something when you can't offer any argument,
KenLoon
But then again you've never been known for your
intellect, have you?
|
