castrating clinton

2.8.03 | Mia T

[JZoback]

bump

[CyberAnt]

I cannot be still when there is an insinuation that the Bush admin is not prosecuting x42 because there is some kind of hold over Bush - which makes Bush afraid to release anything.

I so totally disagree with this belief. The word FEAR is not a part of Bush's lifestyle. Even when the dems outed the DUI charges - Bush didn't duck it - he came right out and acknowledged the ONE-TIME event.

With the media continuing their fawning of x42 - why on earth would Bush want to keep x42's face in the media. That would not be a very good plan.

Also ... Bush has things he wants to do to help the country get back to normal after 8 years of a criminal administration. Why would he want to spend what LITTLE time he has prosecuting when it takes away from his ability to get his ideas into the press, and through the congress?

Newt has already slipped the info that Bush has enough info to arrest THEM. Timing - all life is timing. I have a great deal of faith that this will be done with perfect timing.

[Mia T]

I am not questioning Dubya's courage, His courage is self-evident. Indeed, his courage was precisely the inspiration for

The clintons' leverage is not (nonexistent) Bush cowardice; it is a son's love for his father. From this it follows that Bush won't release the information while the clintons are still alive.

 

Q ERTY9

BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

 

President's Remarks view

  This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. (Applause.) We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage...

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

State of the Union Address by President George W. Bush

[CyberAnt]

Excuse me ... I never said you were questioning his courage.

What you said that made me mad was this: That Bush was afraid to prosecute x42 because X42 HAD SOME KIND OF HOLD OVER BUSH. That is an absolute pile of crock ... and you know it.

The whole x42 group of goons could not find anything except a ancient DUI - if there was something x42 could hold over Bush's head, they would have found it.

[Mia T]

I guess I wasn't clear. I never specified Bush 43 as the clintons' target.

With access to virtually everything, it is not inconceivable that the lovely couple was able to dig up something that would embarrass Bush 41.

While Bush 43 wouldn't cower if personally threatened, he would, I believe, act to protect his father.

[CyberAnt]

"We cannot depend on Bush releasing any damaging information. It can be concluded to an absolute certainty that the mephitic pair left office with a Bush trump card in hand"

The above statement was in your original entry. Can you now tell me that the meaning of this statement is anything other than what I said: you are insinuating that x42 has a hold over Bush 43 in some way which prevents Bush 43 from releasing any information regarding the sins of x42.

If you meant something else - why didn't you say something else, because the quoted statement says you think x42 is in effect blackmailing our President - and you appear to claim our President is in complicity with this criminal activity.

And ... again, I never said I was accusing you of specifying Bush 43 was a clinton target. Where did you get that idea?

As far as embarassing Bush 41 - he's been embarassed before and I'm confident our liberal media will relish doing so again.

But ... I do not believe that Bush 43 would ever hide information about x42 just to keep the clintons from embarassing his father.

[Mia T]

Let's look at the facts:

• The clintons have committed numerous crimes
• The clintons have, thus far, not paid for those crimes
• Bush has access to every investigation of the clintons' crimes
• You state that Newt Gingrich implied that Bush has enough on the clintons to send them to jail
• The clintons are not in jail

From this we can conclude that Bush, at this time and for some unknown reason, has chosen not to indict the clintons.

I agree with you that we cannot know the motivation for this decision.

But, as a student of clinton ruthlessness, do you have any doubt that the clintons left office with a trump card? It is my guess that the leverage concerns Bush 41 or a Bush family member. Note: This is not to imply that the dirt is illegal.

Bill O'Reilly said recently that Bush has enough on hillary clinton to send her up the river forthwith, but that "it won't happen. The powerful protect each other." If you adopt O'Reilly's view, the motivation for Bush's failure to indict is more convention or insurance than blackmail.

I agree with you about timing...Frankly, at this time it would do Bush no good with the middle third of the electorate to send the creeps to the slammer.

But time will tell. If the clintons are indicted by the Bush Justice Department, then I will concede that you are correct.

If, on the other hand, the clintons are not indicted, will you agree that some sort of "arrangement" did, in fact, take place?

[Mia T]

P.S. Whereas in times past I think Bush would not have indicted the clintons, I suspect that in this post-9/11 world, Bush WILL indict the clintons if he determines that they pose a danger to this country.

He may cut a deal with them not unlike the one he is offering Saddam--relinquish all power and you can survive..

[CyberAnt]

Okay - I give up - you are apparently on another wavelength.

But ... my President does not act in complicity with a blackmailer - period!! The only trump card the x42 bunch has is the enabling media.

If you don't like what the Justice Dept. is doing regarding x42, so be it - but to imply our President is complicit in criminal activity is just downright wrong!!

[CyberAnt]

Bush doesn't CUT DEALS!

Sorry, your whole theory just doesn't hold any water. You are assuming Bush plays by x42 rules - nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Mia T]

You are misinterpreting my comments. I guess we ARE on different wavelengths.

[CyberAnt]

"You are misinterpreting my comments"

I don't think so!

[Mia T]

Precisely my point.

[CyberAnt]

99.9% of the time I never read your posts, because they are way toooooo graphic for me. But ... your comment that our President was willingly going along with not prosecuting x42 because x42 holds something over Bush's head - well ... that's way over the top, and such an outrageous lie!

[Mia T]

That you call a hypothesis a lie underscores the problem.
I tried to reason with you. I failed.

I have a suggestion that might sound counterintuitive, given your critique, above.
Should you wander onto one of my threads in the future, try skipping the text and sticking to the graphics.

Have a nice evening.

[CyberAnt]

Now you're being rude and insulting!

If you can't take the heat - keep your ridiculous statements to yourself.

[Mia T]

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. At least I didn't call you a liar.

Let's look at your displeasure from a different perspective...

Had you taken the time to read any of my posts, you would know that I have a high opinion of Bush, his character, his courage, his priorities, his abilities; you would know that your accusations to the contrary are patently ridiculous.

On the other hand, I am not a blind adherent, as you seem to be. Your refusal to objectively analyze the evidence is reminiscent of the clintonoids. Instead of spewing ad hominems, you would be wise to look inward...

[CyberAnt]

Like I said, "you're rude and insulting.

I read what you said. Contrary to your assumption, I am not stupid. I don't care what you SAY your affection for our President is, I know WHAT YOU SAID about his character! And ... you're stuck with it. You said it and now you're trying to say it was just a hypothesis - which means: taken to be true for the purpose of argument

Well ... I guess you got your argument - it's just that you don't like my assumptions to your hypothesis.

[Mia T]

My position on Bush's character is clear and it is consistent and it is documented; it is contained in my posts for the last two or so years. But, as I have said, I am not a blind adherent, as you appear to be. I will question, I will disagree.

That said, it's unfortunate that you chose to obsess on a remark that was intended only as an aside; the last thing Bush needs foisted on him right now is another clinton issue.

As for my hypothesis, i.e., MY THEORY, as to why the clintons have not been indicted, I am not backing away from it. I stand by it.

Good night.

[CyberAnt]

First you say, "I'm sorry to hurt your feelings", and then you accuse me of being "a blind adherent", while also accusing me of "refusing to objectively analyze the evidence", which you claim "is reminiscent of the clintonoids". So much for apologies.

I still say your hypothesis of Bush's character assumes he is corrupted or corruptible - that's not negotiable with me. If that's blind adherence, well ... so be it.

And ... there is no "evidence" to analyze - you have not presented any evidence - only your assumption and hypothesis that Bush has not prosecuted x42 because x42 has some hypothetical hold over Bush.

Good Nite!!