Inmates in charge of the Asylum

[Seascamp]

I guess I was raised in a closet, but I fear to report that are already here but I didn?t recognize them for what they were. I have associated them with the concept of the ?pop heard around the world? and let it go at that. But they tend to inhabit the city areas and not the rural areas so that is my excuse for not being more vigilant. I?m going to have to get my shit together on this one.

Scamp

[SuperScout]

[The following was extracted from NewsMax, and only goes to prove previous points of inmates running the asylum, or idiots at the helm. Or as the Democrats state it, "Why is there so much blood on the carpet, after I shoot myself in the foot?" ]

Graham: 2004 Could Bring Bush's 'Impeachment'

Presidential candidate Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said Sunday that President Bush won't be impeached as long as Republicans control Congress, but added, "The good news is that in November of 2004 the American people will have a chance to both impeach and remove George W. Bush in one step."

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Graham reiterated his believe that the president had committed an impeachable offense by leading the U.S. into war under what he suggested were false pretenses, going so far as to accuse Bush of "dereliction of duty."

"Clearly, if the standard is what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the actions of this president are much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty for the president of the United States."

Graham insisted somewhat bizarrely that Bush's 16-word State of the Union address reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger was critical to the administration's case for making war on Iraq.

"It was central because the rationale of going to war was that the United States' people were under an imminent threat," he told Fox News.

When "FNS" host Brit Hume reminded the Florida Democrat that Bush had specifically warned that the U.S. couldn't afford to wait until the threat from Saddam was imminent, Graham retreated into semantics.

"This was described as not a preventive war, but a pre-emptive war," he explained. "The difference between preventive and pre-emptive is, how imminent is the threat. If this was a pre-emptive war, then the administration must have had some reason, or at least stated it had a reason, for that imminence. And the most significant threat was nuclear."

"We've known that they've had biological and chemical for a long time," Graham continued unconvincingly. "But the fact that they might be on the verge of having nuclear capabilities is what made it so imminent and therefore justified the pre-emptive war." [Question: is there a translator in the house, who can decipher this gibberish?]

[blues clues]

scout (Impeachment)is one thing this country dosen't need as far as 9/11 there's enough blame to go around, this country is living with all the insanity of the Clinton witch hunt, if they would have had the FBI looking for the people who were trying to blow up parts of our country instead of loking for every woman president was or might have layed or was going to lay or did lay maybe just maybe they could have found something that would have lead to the bad guy's the way it is or was if ben gone or saddam had been getting ready to go to bed with bill 9/11 wouldn't have happen.so no to impeachment just wait untill 2004 and tell him to go back to his ranch but then again he stays there most of the time anyway.

razz

[SuperScout]

Glad to see you're up and reading this morning! Don't recall mentioning anything about 9/11, or the so-called witch hunt that preceded Clinton's impeachment. And on that subject, why do you consider it a witch hunt, when he was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice? Are you aware of the fact that federal sentencing guidelines call for a more severe punishment for perjury than for bribery? And you boy got off with losing his law license! (not that anybody would be foolish enough to ever hire him as their attorney!)

Your speaking of hypothetical situations... "if the FBI had been looking for the Al Qeada..." is akin to the "... if a frog had a pocket, he'd carry a gun and shoot rattlesnakes..." Well, try this one on for size: if the Church Commission had not been adopted, the CIA and the FBI could have been sharing information long ago, but the Democrat-controlled senate placed this prohibition on the sharing of inteligence and informtion between the FBI and the CIA.

And yes, I can wait until 2004, when we'll rejoice in the reelection of George W. Bush, the election of more Republican senators and representataives, and a brighter day for people of virtue and vision.

On your remark about the President ging to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, consider this: at least his has a home t go to, as opposed to your boy Clinton, who had to manufacture one in New York, because apparently he had worn out his welcome in Arkansas! And as for traveling is concerned: Der Schlickmeister made 133 foreign trips in his 8 years, more visits than Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon combined. Yet he had the unrequeited gall to criticize George H.W. Bush for spending too much time overseas!! But what do you expect from a sexual predatory hypocrite?

[blues clues]

It just gose to show when one try's to agree with you or any other republican the first thing that comes back is a bash on Clinton I do wish you guy's would get over him he's been out of office for three years,and asfar as reelecting dubby if he wins it will be the first time the courts appointed him the first time but thats water over the dam. But if the people wants to have more of what we've had for the last three years then thats the way it will be, but as a vet. you of all people should want someone in the government to keep their word, and wait untill all these troops come back from the war and start going to the VA then they will find out how much good old dubby really loves them and so will their familys. but I know you didn't say anything about that eather, hope you have a good day Col.

razz

[Seascamp]

For the sake of discussion, let?s say that Graham succeeds at tacking Bush?s wet hide to the barn door. So what happens then? Do the Dems and Liberals magically get over their denial about Saddam?s intent, known equipment, track record, etc., or do they follow the party line and deny that all those horrid WMDs ever existed and it was all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. My contention is that it?s all still out there somewhere and we?re going to discover that fact the hard way if we do this denial deal and do this stupid, close, intense inspection of our individual large intestines. A bunch of political yip-yap is one thing but dangerous denial is quite another. Given a choice, I?ll hang with the mob that goes where the most credible risks are and deals with reality rather than the mob that pretends there is no risk at all for the sake of political leverage. And sure, for a quarter of a century we have managed to reduce many of our National security agencies to pitiful, moronic and lackluster outfits that can barley hit their butts with both hands. Until all that gets sorted out and set right, we can expect a ton of mistakes and misdirection plays. We are very fortunate that our US Military didn?t go with the flow and that is the good news. Someone knew what the next set of challenges would be and did something about well ahead of time.