Wryword Wrote:While I understand that Billy Clinnon is not a candidate, there are at least two reasons why he is germane to this discussion. The first and obvious reason is that Hillary the Hun (his words, not mine) is certainly going to make a run for presidency. This means two things: First, she will likely try to sabotage a potentially successful Bolshevik candidate this year; and (2) if she does get the prize, Billy Clinnon will be her wet willie. Beyond this, nobody can really believe that Billy Boy isn't full into the game this year, albeit behind the scenes. Since he is Gawd to the Bolsheviks, yes, he is relevant.
On a broader scale, this thing about whose military stick is bigger sets up an illogical idea: If the notion is that Kerry, the war protestor, is a better pick for "national security" because he was in the ******, and he was, there is no reason to suppose that this would be true. I'd say the man has cancelled any idea of superior insight into "national security" when he threw somebody else's medals away while hanging with Hanoi Jane. So what I am trying to do, though not well, is point out that this whole debate is a sham and falsehood: Bush the Dumber is no war hero, neither is any Demo. So why are we having this debate? In any event, I think if we are going to have this debate, the "war" records of the movers and shakers of the parties are relevant, even if they are not "on point" Beware the men who are not in the limelight yet carry influence
Wry, I see your confusion on this topic in your most recent post.
Bill Clinton, I reiterate, was impeached for lying to Congress, the American people and the media. Bush has done the same thing, that is lie to all three of those bodies just mentioned. That is why this is pertinent for deep, thoughtful investigation. I, too, think it's sad that it has become more pertinent during an election year, but such is the nature of politics. Actually, this whole brouhaha over Bush's military involvement, or lack thereof, should have been dealt with in 1994 when he was first elected to the governor's office in TX. But those crazy Texans don't have a lick of sense!
Since that time, Bush wrote (or had a ghostwriter do it) an autobiography in which he laments on his duties in the Guard. The truth of the matter is that he didn't do anything in the Guard: meaning he lied (or he told the ghostwriter to lie). Nonetheless, it's his name on the book (really, do any of you think for a moment Bush can actually write the word c-a-t?).
The issue is honesty and while we all know that lying and politics go hand in hand like criminals and Florida State football, in theory, elected leaders of this nation are not supposed to lie, or at least, not supposed to get caught lying. Like I've said a 100 times now, Bush should come clean and say "let's move on." He'd win supporters that way, especially the ones on the Right that he's alienated with his reckless policies!
How do you know Hillary will seek the presidency? Do you know her personally and she's told you this?
Let's say for argument's sake, she does plan on seeking the White House someday. Even if she does, do you think she has a snow ball's chance in hell of making it? Judging from your opinions on this, I'd say you are terrified of her possibilities, which is completely irrational! Don't you realize that somebody would off her the moment any possible Hillary campaign gathered momentum.
Any reference to Hillary and her seeking the White House is assinine simply because she's as unelectable as John Kerry. The neo-cons rule this world now and no Democrat, including Jesus H. Christ, has a prayer of ever getting back into the driver's seat of national politics!