On 22 Feb 2004 16:49:32 -0800, jodyenglish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(JE) wrote:
>lazarus <lazarus33pjf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<1kpg309hnogjjp0hq2h7hpjf6av5jb9bhl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> On 21 Feb 2004 19:54:44 -0800, jodyenglish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(JE) wrote:
>>
>> >lazarus <lazarus33pjf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<cstc309k077k5ubmcqhm5d7974vpcdkdof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> >> On 18 Feb 2004 15:06:12 -0800, jodyenglish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(JE) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >lazarus <lazarus33pjf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<mt7230ttjo0rl7rsc4hmlosl81mitgolsm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> >> >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:32:55 -0600, "The Sentinel"
<Nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Ritter referred
>> >> >> >> to the war in Iraq as "illegitimate" and Miller
>> >> >> >> got on his high horse and had a cow - to mix my
>> >> >> >> barnyard metaphors. He got very self-righteous
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >He was no more self-righteous than Ritter was, arguably less.
Ritter seems
>> >> >> >to take any disagreement with himself very personally.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Understandably, since he's been proven completely right, after
having
>> >> >> his patriotism questioned previously.
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe it's just me, but I don't generally tend to trust 40 yr old
men
>> >> >who try to pick up teenage girls on the internet. Regardless of
>> >> >resume.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe it's just me, but when the charges are dropped, and the case
is
>> >> sealed, only to be revealed when the person in question is saying
>> >> things that the current administration doesn't want said, I get
>> >> suspicious.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe it's just me, but when someone says something that later turns
>> >> out to be true, I don't disbelieve it just because I don't like the
>> >> person.
>> >
>> >
>> >So do you think Ritter was set up? He has never actually denied the
>> >allegations that I know of. And he also had a previous brush with the
>> >law over luring teenage girls. And btw, I don't really care if there
>> >are any WMD in Iraq.
>>
>> He was never convicted. The charges were not only dropped, the case
>> was sealed.
>>
>
>O.J. wasn't convicted in a criminal court either.....the point is, I
>looked around the neet to see if I could see somewhere Ritter denying
>the charges. He never does. So I think he did it. Now did they monitor
>him a little closer due to his anti Iraq crusades? Probably, but they
>can't catch you doing something if you're doing nothing. So lets just
>agree he did it.
>
Bush has never denied he went AWOL or knew about the 9/11 attacks
ahead of time, either. So lets just agree he did it.
>
>
>> It was then mysteriously unsealed just enough to have the information
>> leaked at just the right time to discredit him when he was saying
>> things the Bush administration didn't want said.
>>
>> Things that later turned out to be completely accurate.
>>
>> So it doesn't matter if he was "set up" or not. He wasn't convicted.
>> And the fact that he was even investigated was only leaked when he was
>> discommoding the administration, illegally. Not the last time the
>> information was illegally leaked to discredit or harm or threaten
>> someone who was saying something the administration didn't like.
>> Valerie Plame sound familiar?
>>
>> And, btw, you shouldn't care so much about the WMD in Iraq as you
>> should the liars in the White House.
>
>
>Weapons or not in Iraq I dont care....... I'll take the liars in the
>White House now over the liars in the previous White House. It's gonna
>be another glorious four years watching you loonies.
Another glorious four years? What has Bush done that's so glorious,
btw?
This should be good. Care to list all the good things he's done for
our country?
--
laz
I am the Dread Pirate Roberts #23546.
Ask me about franchise op****tunities!
|
