A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog health
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Absolutely OT - PETA caught in the act



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old July 1st 05, 11:43 AM
Melinda Shore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
wrote:
You didn't provide a source. Too embarrassed to reveal the ultra-left
paranoid kook website you heard that one from?


True enough. Here you go, you illiterate baboon:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/21/wag.the.dog/

If you do a web search for "Clinton" "wag the dog" on Google
you get 52,500 hits. A number of those refer to the press
conference in which William Cohen was asked if the
airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan were a wag the dog
tactic. Arlen Specter went on television and said that
Clinton may have had more on his mind than national security
when he ordered the airstrikes.

My favorite conservative webpage on the topic quotes the
Washington Times:
The Washington Times (12/18/98, p. 1) reports "The White
House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into
defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President
Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current
government officials charge.

and Robert Novak:
"As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton's
top national security advisers supported him. But majors
and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff
work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the
words of a senior officer, 200 percent opposed. They
disagree fundamentally. They know the attack on Iraq was
planned long before Butler's report and consider it
politically motivated."

and then there was Trent Lott:
The New York Times (12/18/98, p. A20) reported that
"Under criticism from both parties, Senator Trent Lott
of Mississippi, the majority leader, backed away from
his charge that the strikes were linked to
impeachment. After overnight reflection, he said, I am
satisfied this was a military decision....

and then there's everybody's conservative favorite,
WorldNetDaily:
Maybe it seems like old news not worth revisiting. But
the more I see Bill Clinton congratulating himself over
his "military victory" in Kosovo, the more it reminds me
that this entire operation began as little more than a
diversion from his latest political scandal.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=14770

I know exactly what I wrote.


Clearly you haven't one single clue, but it's adorable the
way you stamp on the floor and insist you're a reel smart
guy anyway.

Better than 250% response rate - wow!
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community
  #152  
Old July 1st 05, 10:32 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Melinda Shore wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
You didn't provide a source. Too embarrassed to reveal the ultra-left
paranoid kook website you heard that one from?


True enough. Here you go, you illiterate baboon:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/21/wag.the.dog/


More name calling. I know when I've got you on the ropes.


Here's what you wrote:
Actually, Clinton wanted to attack bin Laden's training camp
but his hands were tied by Congressional Republicans who
were accusing him of "wag the dog" tactics in order to
distract the country from the all-important impeachment
hearings. Duh. That worked out really well, didn't it?


"wag the dog"?? Your excuse for him is a lame one. He had no problem
launching missiles at the aspirin factory.


If you do a web search for "Clinton" "wag the dog" on Google
you get 52,500 hits.


Which is irrelevant...

A number of those refer to the press
conference in which William Cohen was asked if the
airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan were a wag the dog
tactic. Arlen Specter went on television and said that
Clinton may have had more on his mind than national security
when he ordered the airstrikes.


That still doesn't explain why Clinton didn't defend the country
against the numerous terrorists attacks on us during his
administration. Furthermore, if he was such a great leader (as you
assert), then why was he afraid of the little old republicans charges
(that turned out to be true) that he was distracting from his affairs
w/ a girl young enough to be his daughter? It still didn't stop him
from attacking the aspirin factory! He had no problem doing it then,
but he had problems w/ the republicans the rest of the time? A true
leader is going to press foward regardless of the consequenes if he/she
feels it is the right thing to do. The bottom line is that Clinton was
weak on national defense. America's enemies saw this and continued to
attack us. Yet you bemoan that fact that we are no longer "at peace".
I submit that it is Clinton's refusal to strike back at our (America's)
enemies (he was good at doing it to his domestic enemies, by the way)
that brought us to where we are now.


I know exactly what I wrote.


Clearly you haven't one single clue, but it's adorable the
way you stamp on the floor and insist you're a reel smart
guy anyway.

Better than 250% response rate - wow!
--


It's the website you used. Now when I use it, it's "wrong"? You're a
hypocrite.

Care to explain away the numerous attacks on America and American
interests that Clinton ignored? I didn't think so.

  #153  
Old July 1st 05, 10:56 PM
Melinda Shore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
wrote:
More name calling. I know when I've got you on the ropes.


Yeah, just like you know how to read survey results.

Which is irrelevant...


To the contrary. You didn't know that people in your own
party were accusing Clinton of "wag the dog" tactics when he
wanted to get tough with terrorists and with Iraq, and you
said that you thought I got my information off an extreme
left-wing site. I provided citations to CNN and to extreme
right-wing sites, as well as to DOD press conferences where
reporters were asking the Secretary of Defense about "Wag
the Dog" and the airstrikes Clinton ordered. So not only is
it not irrelevant, it's immediately responsive to your
question.

That still doesn't explain why Clinton didn't defend the country
against the numerous terrorists attacks on us during his
administration.


There weren't "numerous" attacks, and when he did try to
respond, Republicans complained about his motives being
purely political. Now, I'm not particularly thrilled with
his response, either, but I tend to blame partisan
Republicans for sucking the country into a stupid-ass
impeachment (GEE, THINK THERE JUST *MIGHT* HAVE BEEN A
BETTER USE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S TIME AND MONEY?) and Clinton
for not having the backbone to tell you cretins to go to
hell.

It's the website you used. Now when I use it, it's "wrong"? You're a
hypocrite.


It's not wrong, and I didn't say it's wrong. I said that
you're a moron and that you haven't got the foggiest idea
how to read data or write about them. That is to say, the
data are right and what you wrote about those data was
wrong. You'll never get off the loading dock if you can't
do better with understanding what you read, so go back and
take a look at what you actually wrote, not what you think
you wrote.

And, BTW, it's still the case the Bush is probably a
Communist fifth columnist. Nice try with the Clinton
distractions (and Clinton, bad as he was, still did a far
better job as president than Bush).
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -


Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community
  #154  
Old July 2nd 05, 12:46 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Melinda Shore wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:



Which is irrelevant...


To the contrary. You didn't know that people in your own
party were accusing Clinton of "wag the dog" tactics when he
wanted to get tough with terrorists and with Iraq, and you
said that you thought I got my information off an extreme
left-wing site.


No, that's wrong. Whatever gave you that idea? If Clinton really
wanted "to get tough" w/ terrorists, why didn't he? Because HE WAS A
WEAK LEADER!! That's why. Everybody at the time thought it was wag
the dog and, of course, it was. Clinton had no problem launching
missiles to distract from his sex scandals. He still didn't respond to
all the other instances of terrorism that were committed against the
U.S. PRIOR to his sex scandals being made public. The 1st WTC bombing
was in '93. That's just one example. Of course there are more.

I provided citations to CNN and to extreme
right-wing sites, as well as to DOD press conferences where
reporters were asking the Secretary of Defense about "Wag
the Dog" and the airstrikes Clinton ordered. So not only is
it not irrelevant, it's immediately responsive to your
question.


That's not what I meant by irrelevant. Perhaps you aren't as smart as
you think you are. Oh, and you're wrong again. If you consider the
websites that are "on the right" that you listed as "extreme" (what is
w/ you leftists always characterizing anything you don't agree with as
extreme??) then you must think CNN is an extreme left wing web site as
well. I suppose it's a waste of time trying to explain to you what
"irrelevant" means.

That still doesn't explain why Clinton didn't defend the country
against the numerous terrorists attacks on us during his
administration.


There weren't "numerous" attacks, and when he did try to
respond, Republicans complained about his motives being
purely political.


Oh, that's baloney and you know it. He TURNED DOWN OBL THREE TIMES!!
I've made the references to just some of the NUMEROUS attacks that you
want to ignore. And don't give me this stuff about the poor widdle
president tried to respond, but the big, mean rascaly republicans
wouldn't "let" him. That's the spin from a political hack, which is
what you're turning out to be.

Now, I'm not particularly thrilled with
his response, either, but I tend to blame partisan
Republicans for sucking the country into a stupid-ass
impeachment (GEE, THINK THERE JUST *MIGHT* HAVE BEEN A
BETTER USE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S TIME AND MONEY?) and Clinton
for not having the backbone to tell you cretins to go to
hell.


You can't lie under oath and get away w/ it. If he didn't lie under
oath, he wouldn't have been impeached. What Clinton DID do was tell
the American people who elected him to "go to hell". Nice try, though.



It's the website you used. Now when I use it, it's "wrong"? You're a
hypocrite.


It's not wrong, and I didn't say it's wrong. I said that
you're a moron and that you haven't got the foggiest idea
how to read data or write about them. That is to say, the
data are right and what you wrote about those data was
wrong. You'll never get off the loading dock if you can't
do better with understanding what you read, so go back and
take a look at what you actually wrote, not what you think
you wrote.


Melinda, I simply made reference to a poll off the site that you
referenced. Nothing more, nothing less. You're reading waaay too much
into it and spinning all the while.


Nice try with the Clinton
distractions (and Clinton, bad as he was, still did a far
better job as president than Bush).
--


I've already made a compelling case to anyone who is intellectually
honest that Clinton was NOT a better president. That's mostly
subjective anyhow.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
absolutely amazing Diana Dog behavior 0 September 2nd 04 12:25 PM
absolutely amazing Diana Dog behavior 0 September 2nd 04 12:25 PM
absolutely amazing Diana Dog behavior 0 September 2nd 04 12:25 PM
The Garbage Dumper Caught In The Act!!! Leah Dog behavior 0 August 11th 03 04:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright ©2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.