to:ja...@excaliburfilms.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:43 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: RE: whew...
Agree.. when I drove the Jeep off the lot when I purchased it, the gauges
went out. That should have been a sign...
-Original Message-
From: Ray Champagne [mailto:r...@raychampagne.com]
Sent: Thu
Agree.. when I drove the Jeep off the lot when I purchased it, the gauges
went out. That should have been a sign...
-Original Message-
From: Ray Champagne [mailto:r...@raychampagne.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:25 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: whew...
My father (a mechanic
>
> Jeep sucks. Never by another Chrysler vehicle again.
>
> I had a 99 Cherokee.. what a piece of crap. Same with a Dodge 2001 pickup.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stewart [mailto:sstwebwo...@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:19 AM
12:35 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: RE: whew...
Jeep sucks. Never by another Chrysler vehicle again.
I had a 99 Cherokee.. what a piece of crap. Same with a Dodge 2001 pickup.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stewart [mailto:sstwebwo...@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:19
e 2001
> pickup.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stewart [mailto:sstwebwo...@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:19 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: whew...
>
>
> Chrysler and Fiat have come to an agreement. and Jeep is being
> saved :-)
>
&g
Jeep sucks. Never by another Chrysler vehicle again.
I had a 99 Cherokee.. what a piece of crap. Same with a Dodge 2001 pickup.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stewart [mailto:sstwebwo...@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:19 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: whew
I love my jeep. 95 yj. Looking to buy another this fall (as my Florida car).
Not sure if I love the new ones, though. Too much car, not enough truck.
(heck, its got shocks.)
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Scott Stewart
wrote:
>
> Chrysler and Fiat have come to an agreement. and Jeep is be
Chrysler and Fiat have come to an agreement. and Jeep is being saved :-)
I can still get a Wrangler :-)
--
Scott Stewart
ColdFusion Developer
4405 Oakshyre Way
Raleigh, NC 27616
(h) 919.874.6229 (c) 703.220.2835
~|
> Ken wrote:
> Never heard that before. However, I can tell you exactly where I was that
> night. I was a Sgt. in the Marines, first night on maneuvers just shy of the
> DMZ in South Korea.
>
That was an awesome story! I'm glad nobody killed Kenny. Any other
Korean and/or Army stories are we
Never heard that before. However, I can tell you exactly where I was that
night. I was a Sgt. in the Marines, first night on maneuvers just shy of the
DMZ in South Korea.
I had landed in Seoul about 4:00 pm. I was then herded into a trucked heading
up north. On the way out of Seoul our truc
It might seem odd to celebrate a 23rd anniversary but every year since
I heard of this man I go out and raise a glass to his memory. In truth
you can get most journalists to raise a glass to anything but in this
case I'm thanking him for my life.
On 26th September 1983 the hero of the day, Colonel
can't find the
bio I found on him a couple of days ago.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> Thu
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> Thursday, 16 March 2006, 09:52 GMT
>
> Libya wants to use nuclear energy to tackle projected wa
Thursday, 16 March 2006, 09:52 GMT
Libya wants to use nuclear energy to tackle projected water shortages
Libya and France have signed an accord for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4811300.stm
?
You may be right about the following but if so I am not fi
To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> It's Tony Blair who still stands by it. The Butler report says that
Tony
> Blair is full of it. As for "expand commercial relations"... since
when is
> that a synonym for "let&
It's Tony Blair who still stands by it. The Butler report says that Tony Blair
is full of it. As for "expand commercial relations"... since when is that a
synonym for "let's defy UN sanctions"? I realize we are talking diplomacy here
but... is it possible that Iraq wanted to sell something? Buy
The two things the Pres authorized Libby to release was the claim that
Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium." Which the British
still stand by and that Wilson had reported he had learned in 1999 an
Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial
relations.
On 4/11/06, Nic
visit. And wasn't something in the news not too long ago about Libya and
their nuclear program?
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:06 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause
now.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:23 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
>Wissam al-Zahawie was not the chief nuclear official. He was the
>am
And what was his job prior to the UN sanctions?
As for why Niger sold them Uranium before, I don't know completely know.
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:23 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause
Wissam al-Zahawie was not the chief nuclear official. He was the ambassador to
the Vatican. And why do you think that Niger (not Nigeria) had sold Iraq
uranium before?
>So you believe the Iraqi chief nuclear official went to Niger to
>convince them to stop the flight embargo?
>
>A country that
So you believe the Iraqi chief nuclear official went to Niger to
convince them to stop the flight embargo?
A country that sold Iraq uranium before.
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:47 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: whew
ent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:37 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
>I just re-read the Washington Post article. It says something completely
>different. Either you are simply chosing not to believe it or I am
>missing somet
The 1999 Meeting between Wissam al-Zahawie and Nigerian officials?
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:37 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
I just re-read the Washington
d docs. The meetings and the intent to purchase was still
>factual.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:15 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
>
The only stuff that was false that they declassified were a couple of
the forged docs. The meetings and the intent to purchase was still
factual.
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:15 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: whew! it&#
the rest of the world wanted facts. GW wanted to invade.
>Didn't the rest of the world think the same thing we did? The difference was
>that we wanted to act on it, whereas they didn't.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/
yes, and they knew this when they were "declssifying" it to "explain."
>Doesn't matter that at the end of the day all this supposed
>intelligence was completely wrong. Therefore there was no reason to
>invade.
>
>On 4/11/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Washington Post reporters and a few gul
Is that what you thought you were doing? Ummm. Court filing by special
prosecutor. Spin by right-wing screed. Who to believe ;)
C'mon Sam.
> Didn't I just debunk this article?
> Yes I did, go up six messages to the post with:
> Michael Ledeen
> Sixteen Words, Again
> The myth of a great sin li
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/
Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country warned the United
States several times that Saddam Hussein's regime was planning terror
attacks on the United States and its overseas interests.
Interesting article:
Saddam's Delusions:
ginal Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:02 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> > Nick wrote:
> > Invasion before
> > such thing would be the only way
Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:04 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
no.
The rest of the world, germany in particular, wanted to wait and try
to get the UN Inspectors to have more time and use more diplomacy to
find
Yeah, I still don't know what is up with that. Of course its hard to get
complete quotes on any of this stuff.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:32 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it'
I have never heard them admit any of this, at least not without
immediately contradicting themselves with a completely different
story.
Take Cheney for instance. He TO THIS DAY is still hinting that Saddam
was responsible for 9/11.
He says "there was no link", then prevaricates and says "But, we
.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:20 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> Then why, Nick, don't the have the balls to just say that?
>
> Just co
I was referring to the oil-for-food scandal.
It is interesting that Germany was against us going in but gave us
intel for the attack
On 4/11/06, Nick McClure wrote:
> I just figured they really wanted to see if we would go in alone.
I just figured they really wanted to see if we would go in alone.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:15 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> I t
Then why, Nick, don't the have the balls to just say that?
Just come straight out and say that.
If they were honest with the American people on this, I still think
most people would be behind them.
It is all the lying, and half-truths, and excuses, and prevarications
that have people so disillus
I thought the wait was due to financial reasons
On 4/11/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
> > gMoney wrote:
> > Didn't the rest of the world think the same thing we did? The difference was
> > that we wanted to act on it, whereas they didn't.
> >
>
> Exactly - the rest of the World suspected and followed the
Don't you think there was more to it?
The sanctions against Iraq were getting harder to keep going. Should the
inspectors find nothing, then it would be very easy for Iraq to start
lobbying to get the sanctions lifted.
That would allow Saddam to overtly acquire materials for chemical or nuclear
w
Well, its to late if the confirmation is a big mushroom cloud over LA.
But if the confirmation is that they have a facility to actually make
the bomb, and we know it is at the corner of Baghady and Third, right
behind the tire dealer, then waiting made a whole lot of sense.
On 4/11/06, G <[EMAIL
> Exactly - the rest of the World suspected and followed the process to
> find out. We decided that a confirmation didn't matter.
Well that's an interesting point, because what happens if you do wait for
that confirmation? Once you get that confirmation, isn't it already too
late?
(playing dev
It's a sad day when the Germans don't want to invade something
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:04 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
That is what I thought also.
> -Original Message-
> From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Didn't the rest of the world think the same thing we did? The difference
> was
> that we wanted to act on it, whereas they didn't.
>
~~
> gMoney wrote:
> Didn't the rest of the world think the same thing we did? The difference was
> that we wanted to act on it, whereas they didn't.
>
Exactly - the rest of the World suspected and followed the process to
find out. We decided that a confirmation didn't matter.
~
no.
The rest of the world, germany in particular, wanted to wait and try
to get the UN Inspectors to have more time and use more diplomacy to
find a solution.
On 4/11/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Didn't the rest of the world think the same thing we did? The difference was
> that we wanted
> Nick wrote:
> Invasion before
> such thing would be the only way to deal with it.
>
Israel dealt with it via surgical bombing strikes. Why couldn't we
just bomb the nuke/WMD plants/locations?
Answer: Because we didn't know IF they had WMD much less where they
were. That is, our intelligence w
> The idea was that we, the US, know better than the rest of the world
> and so we can't wait for them to catch up - we have to disarm Hussein
> now.
>
> Turns out, the rest of the world did know better and that Hussein
> didn't have any WMD and that we should've followed the process.
Didn't the r
> tBone wrote:
> That's not the only reason to invade another country.
>
But that was the reason the American public was sold - that we had to
act before our suspicions were confirmed "with a mushroom cloud".
And it wasn't just that we should do something, it was that we should
act IMMEDIATELY de
Sure. Why didn't we use one of those reasons to go to war?
On 4/11/06, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not the only reason to invade another country.
>
> Were we wrong to go to war with Japan and Germany?
>
> Isn't oil a vital national defense issue?
>
> Didn't Sadaams government violat
to build a nuclear weapon. Invasion before
such thing would be the only way to deal with it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying an
2:28 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
That still was not a reason to invade. the only reason to invade is if
Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and nuclear weapons which he intended to
use.
That was not so.
On 4/11/06, Nick McClure <[EM
That still was not a reason to invade. the only reason to invade is if
Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and nuclear weapons which he
intended to use.
That was not so.
On 4/11/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you believe the senior most Iraqi official in charge of nuclear resour
ghdad?
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:00 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> Doesn't matter that at the end of the day all this supposed
> intel
Doesn't matter that at the end of the day all this supposed
intelligence was completely wrong. Therefore there was no reason to
invade.
On 4/11/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me explain it again for you. The forgeries appeared three months
> AFTER Wilson returned from Niger. They were no
Didn't I just debunk this article?
Yes I did, go up six messages to the post with:
Michael Ledeen
Sixteen Words, Again
The myth of a great sin lives on.
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200604100726.asp
The first paragraph is:
Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman provide their gullible reader
As I said before, I agree with that. It is misleading and unethical.
But to claim the lied about the entire thing is going a little too far. We
know we have to read every line of everything these people say and do.
Simply relying on some reporter to tell us everything isn't going to work.
> -
> Nick wrote:
> They wanted to public to recognize that when they made the statement they
> felt it was true.
>
The problem is that this administration is caught again and again with
lies of omission. They cherry pick information to share, leak,
whatever, that is only part of the picture - the pa
unsuccessful.
They wanted to public to recognize that when they made the statement they
felt it was true.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 1:11 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, c
LOOK SAM LOOK:
Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers
filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early
July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents:
an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and
> I do get it. It's not false and never was.
well... The administration itself seems to disagree with you.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:203610
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/thread
I do get it. It's not false and never was. And it's Clinton's law that
gives the president the power to declassify whatever. Nobody is
disputing the President has that power so get over it :)
As for slick wiley gg brought him up.
On 4/10/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
> You still don't get it. It was
You still don't get it. It was false and classified then they "declassified" it
-- except they forgot to mention the part about it being false -- then they
lied about that, then they stalled the investigation into that and now they say
it's all ok :) Because they really did have the power to dec
Exactly!
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:56 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> > Nick wrote:
> > Or a bunch of hippy type people
> Nick wrote:
> Or a bunch of hippy type people from the 60s and 70s had kids that have now
> grown up.
>
I don't say it too often, but I totally agree. However I wouldn't so
much characterize them as liberal or conservative as much as selfish,
self involved, and petty.
I think Bush's term is th
Using your position as Governor to sexual abuse women and then lie
about it under oath is OK in your eyes?
When you say leaking classified information do you realize your
referring to the attempted purchase of uranium. It's old news and was
declassified after the war started. Why should it remain c
I thought it was about equal, it just so happens there are about three more
conservatives.
> -Original Message-
> From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 9:27 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyw
sage-
>> From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 9:11 AM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>>
>> >
>> > How did our country g
Or a bunch of hippy type people from the 60s and 70s had kids that have now
grown up.
> -Original Message-
> From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 9:11 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
&g
>
> How did our country get so full of fuck ups?
>
Illegal immigration?
I kd, I ked.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:203492
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.c
> Dana wrote:
> ding ding ding ding ding. Definitely post of the night, lol.
>
Yeah, apparently having a little lovin' in the Whitehouse is the
height of immorality.
However bringing your country to war over faulty intelligence and
smearing anyone who disagrees with you by leaking classifing
info
To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> Not exactly. The issue is they used the powers of the president to
> "declassify" information that they knew to be wrong in order to
> justify a war that has filled the coffers of th
Not exactly. The issue is they used the powers of the president to
"declassify" information that they knew to be wrong in order to
justify a war that has filled the coffers of their political cronies
and caused the death of thousands of innocents, and over 2000 US
soldiers.
On 4/9/06, Dana Tierne
but see -- he was just kidding too! See how easy it is when you believe.
Seriously, Bush said get the information out. He did not specify by Libby, but
he did say get it out.
Dana
>According to the article (and I've seen no rebuttals) that's the
>information Libby was told to give the reporte
ding ding ding ding ding. Definitely post of the night, lol.
Dana
>But its nice to see someone bringing honor and integrity back to the
>White House after that asshole who got his dick sucked.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusio
oh I know, we are making the world safe for democracy or something. Bush was
only kidding when he said otherwise in the State of the Union speech.
>Your timeline is all wrong. See my previous post. The Niger uranium
>was not the major reason for going to war, this author tricked you
>into thinkin
I'm not talking about Plame.
>Your mixing issues here. We still don't know who leaked Plames name.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:203477
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
S
the issue is that they used the powers of the president to "declassify"
information that they knew to be wrong in order to make themselves look good.
Let me amend that, to make themselves look somewhat less foolish.
> No, like Nick or Rob mentioned already it was old pre-war info,
> didn't
> ma
According to the article (and I've seen no rebuttals) that's the
information Libby was told to give the reporter.
> Your timeline is all wrong. See my previous post. The
> Niger uranium was not the major reason for going to
> war, this author tricked you into thinking that.
> On 4/8/06, S. Isaac
> That's not true at all. The CIA accepted the state of
> the union speech. It wasn't until months later when
> the forgeries appeared that the 16 words were being
> questioned.
> As for that article it's seems a shame the loony left
> is so desperate to hang Bush they become blinded to
> the fact
No, like Nick or Rob mentioned already it was old pre-war info, didn't
matter that it was declassified. As mentioned they were working on
declassifing it anyway. What's the issue?
On 4/9/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
> ok :) Read it again tomorrow though. From the top, the infor was
> classified, argu
Your timeline is all wrong. See my previous post. The Niger uranium
was not the major reason for going to war, this author tricked you
into thinking that.
On 4/8/06, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> Okay, I'm not going to claim that I'm great at descyphering
> media/politico/legal-ese (as this appreas to
Your mixing issues here. We still don't know who leaked Plames name.
The information they're talking about has nothing to do with that
leak. What they're talking about is different info altogether.
Does make me wonder why Fitpatrick even asked Libby these questions,
what do they have to do with Pl
ok :) Read it again tomorrow though. From the top, the infor was
classified, arguably being declassified (though see my thought experiment in
the other thread) and probably also false.
Ok so, the point is that this discredited classified information that they
"declassified" by leaking it? The
That's not true at all. The CIA accepted the state of the union
speech. It wasn't until months later when the forgeries appeared that
the 16 words were being questioned.
As for that article it's seems a shame the loony left is so desperate
to hang Bush they become blinded to the facts.
Wilson cla
Thus bringing us to the next question. What did we go to war over?
hmm?
check out what they are saying in Louisville:
Saturday, April 8, 2006 E-mail this | Print page
The leaker in chief
So it turns out that in 2003 George W. Bush, who with the conservative media
machine regularly demo
> Let me ask this. Has somebody proved that Saddam didn't
> seek to acquire uranium from Africa?
That wasn't in question. The lie was that they claimed the information
about uranium in Niger which the CIA had already largely dismissed was
the primary reason for going to war in Iraq. You don't go t
Lies within lies within layers of lies. And all of them lying lies with brave
kids dying for them. Motherfuckers. They have done untold harm to this country.
okokok I really do need a chill pill.
>7. The Plame case is brought to court. Bush backslides and says it's
>okay because, although the
Nick McClure wrote:
> I'm still not exactly sure what lies they've told.
As I read it, that the rumored purchase of uranium in Niger was a "key
judgement" for going to war, which the CIA had already told them was
not.
Okay, I'm not going to claim that I'm great at descyphering
media/politico/le
What do you make of Bush's statement when asked about the leak?
"I don't know of anyone who leaked classified information".
What did you think when you heard him say that?
a) That he did not know who leaked it?
b) That he was lying outright?
c) That he was deliberately misleading the American peo
Proved, no. But we have the special prosecutor saying for the record that they
portrayed this as the CIA's opinion, when it knew very well that it was not.
Dana
(going to take a big chill pill now)
>Let me ask this. Has somebody proved that Saddam didn't seek to acquire
>uranium from Africa?
>
ok then we agree, because here is where I am. Hard as it may be for some of you
to believe, I don't blindly subscribe to the Democratic agenda and I would be
screaming just as hard if it had been them in power. And where the hell were
they when all this was happening? Trying not to piss anyone
CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> The problem I have is not even with the Bush Administration in this
> case. I expect politicians to lie, cheat and steal. It seems to be
> part of the job description. And they lie and cheat
Let me ask this. Has somebody proved that Saddam didn't seek to acquire
uranium from Africa?
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:47 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: whew! it's all ok, cau
The problem I have is not even with the Bush Administration in this
case. I expect politicians to lie, cheat and steal. It seems to be
part of the job description. And they lie and cheat more the longer
they have been in office. Fortunately, they don't seem to get any
better at it over time. They s
Because that would be the honest way to proceed?
As for the lie -- they made a false statement in the State of the Union speech,
knowing it was false, then they leaked false statements about classified
information knowing that the classified information was false.
Now, maybe in your eyes and i
IL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 9:54 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: whew! it's all ok, cause they were lying anyway
>
> As often as I think that the Bush administration has hit bottom n it's
> ability to shock me. It outdoes itself.
>
> They layer
As often as I think that the Bush administration has hit bottom n it's ability
to shock me. It outdoes itself.
They layers of lies! Has anything the Bush administration ever done been honest?
Next up -- I expect to see ole Scott telling us the information wasn't
classified because it was wrong
Forgot to mention that metro has a trip planner on their home page
that may be useful. BTW its a cf site as well.
http://www.wmata.com/default.cfm
larry
On 10/3/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good luck. Give yourself an extra hour just in case.
>
> larry
>
> On 10/3/05, Scott St
Yeah my drive up here from Alexandria really blows.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:16 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Whew!!
>
> ya, remember that there's that last mile to contend with. I
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
