Huckabee vows a fight; McCain eyes knockout

When the facts make the guys you defend look bad, its not de facto "inflamatory" nor "partisan". Its just the facts making your guys look bad. Whats surprising is that were not aware of this 7 years on. You did know that Bush and Cheney fought the 911 commission? They refused to allow Condi to testify to the commission until public pressure forced their hand. Bush & Cheney both refused to testify under oath. They even refused to "discuss" individually. They would only "discuss" w/ the commission if they were both "discussing" together. Like a ventriloquist and its sidekick.

So orion admits he does not know what he is talking about. OK!

Since you don't mind being corrected...I have no comment either way on your views, or disagreements on issues with other comment contributors. I just don't like misquotes. I sometimes like to reuse other's quotes, and prefer to use them verbatim. Just thought I would point that out. If I am placed on the "troll list",then that is a punishment I am prepared to accept. 'Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it' George Santayana

Interesting response, thank you for the information, minus the inflammatory, partisan slant. I don't mind being educated or corrected (I actually enjoy it). I will review you recommended reading...

"To answer your question, I don't know what he did. Internationally we were on alert, but from what I read, no one expected the attack on 9-11 as it was not a scenerio the FBI or CIA had ever thought of. So my direct answer to your question is, "I don't know.""

A) We know you don't know, that is why we asked.
B) Several agencies predicted that jets may be used as weapons.
C) Yes, we know you don't know.
D) Is Mr. Fabulous going to pass up this chance?
E) "Internationally we were on alert, but..."

What does that mean? Circular thinking is being abused here.

no one expected the attack on 9-11 as it was not a scenerio the FBI or CIA had ever thought of

CONDO RICE: I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center...

REALITY: Had she looked, Dr. Rice might have found in the files of the intelligence community what the 9/11 Commission would uncover. The attack she deemed unimaginable had, in fact, been imagined. Repeatedly. Twelve times in the seven years before 9/11, the CIA reported that hijackers might use airplanes as weapons.

And google FBI agent John O’Neill

Yep, I mentioned Bush from a direct question posed to me by a troll (won't make that mistake again). To answer your question, I don't know what he did. Internationally we were on alert, but from what I read, no one expected the attack on 9-11 as it was not a scenerio the FBI or CIA had ever thought of. So my direct answer to your question is, "I don't know."

I'm sure there is a plethora of sites (both left and right) with lots of "information" [like Alex Jones...lol], but most aren't worht looking at for a local board post.

I read the stories on line in the order of the ones with the most comments. Yes, I depend on the insight of other readers to determine which are worthy of reading first. Often the posts are better than the article itself. You get to view the story from many viewpoints. They are often humorous, informative, reasonable, & unreasonable, the very reason that I like them. I sometimes disagree with a lot of the comments, but regard them as merely comments, or opinions. I'm not out to change any one's opinion, or even my own. However, I will admit that sometimes, my opinion will change when I look at the issue through another's eyes. A quote that really has nothing to do with this, but is from one of my favorite orators. "This report, by it's very length, defends itself against being read."Winston Churchill

Since it is obvious you cannot comprehend what I am saying, I'll make it easy:

I don't feed the trolls.

You're the one who brought him up, orion. ---- "I have no love for Bush, but he did a HELL of a lot more than Gore or Kerry would’ve done."

Just what did Bush do about the threat of terrorism prior to 9-11, besides ignoring it?

I like to read the posts more than anything else and your posts are usually nonsense. In fact, they are rarely on the subject at hand. As for Mr. Fabulous...I love that guy! Regardless of whether I agree he is funny and articulate. So straighten your "tin hat" and check the filters for your "bunker." Relax your trigger finger before you get white knuckle syndrome. You arguments are illogical and you try to connect unconnected facts into what you call obvious conclusions. Basically, I find you boring. A new generation is rising and hopefully it replaces the sheep that came before it.

What you should be asking is, “What did Clinton do about the threat of terrorism prior to 9-11, besides ignoring it?” The 9-11 tragedy was planned during his reign. Also during his reign, he had Bin Laden and refused to give the order to shoot (his national security advisor, Berger, refused even though the CIA and Afghanis had the shot). What about the Cole, Mogadishu and every other cluster he and his administration created or refused to acknowledge (until after his administration). If you read any number of articles, you will see Clinton took the easy way out on MANY things, ultimately resulting in Al Qaeda’s rise to popularity to radical Muslims.

But I digress; Bush has nothing to do with this election so bringing him up is nonsense. Clinton, however, is VERY much part of it and I don’t want to see this repeated:

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I generally give an individual two tries to converse logically but when your writing starts to dégringolade into a decipherable mass of circular arguments, I put you in the troll column (see my comment to Mr. Fabulous).

I try to be realistic. If Huckabee is not the nominee for president, or someone just like him that comes out of the woodwork by then, I for the first time since 1969 will not be voting. I'm not trying to make any kind of statement other than I want to be able to say that I had nothing to do with the mess this nation will be in. This attitude I base on one promise made by both Clinton and Obama. One will pull troops out of Iraq immediately, the other in 3 months. That will be the beginning of the end of the life of relative safety we have lived in the USA. McCain will keep us safer, but with the media push and the women, blacks and youths that see only "pie in the sky free bees" from either of the Dems,+ McCain don't have a prayer either. It's a very sad state of affairs this nation is in when these are our choices for the President of the US. An election that has come down to race or sex, and depending how you vote you are either a racist or sexist. Everyone that votes will be one or the other.

Proved my point. Instead of accepting the facts, attack the opposition. Standard democrat party agenda.

Just what did Bush do about the threat of terrorism prior to 9-11, besides ignoring it?

I just found Orions pain-"massive military cuts." I have found people who absolutely hated the Clintons usually fall into one of two major camps: military personel/military related industy folks who became outraged with the cuts to funding, or people who are tied to the insurance industry and hated the health care plan suggested. Now, this is a local observation and I am sure it differs and does not include all of the people out there. It is a recurring theme though.

If we really want change, let's do what is best for ALL of the people, not our own personal needs. I know, it's simply too much too ask. However, I am going ot give it my best shot.

Sorry to the Huckabee people out there. Regardless of how any of you feel he will not be the nominee. It's a non-issue.

Nailed a nerve? Your so far off base. Distaste for Hillary? Where are you getting this crap? If the Dem pick is Hillary that is who I will vote for. If it is Obama it will be McCain. BTW, it is the first time you have asked.

Regardless, your statements are empty and boring. You attempt to prove your argument innuendo and baseless accusations. Sure Bill Clinton lied. Like I told you, I don't care. Adultery is puny offense to me. I would have lied too. I learned that from Eddie Murphy. I need more from a president that fidelity in his marriage. I know there are those who will not agree but that is the way of the world.

How do you know what Gore and Kerry would do? Do you have a crystal ball? Aside from your amazing powers, I would feel much better today if either ofthem had chosen not to attack Iraq in the manner that we did. I haveaccess to the report you referenced. Can you direct me to the "proof" that Iraq was supplying our enemies? I know he paid cash to suicide bombers families in Israel but nothing that could be tied to direct terrorism. Besides, we attacked on the pretense of him voilating his surrender with the possesion of chemical weapons and there were noone. Plea

Charming as always but a bit long-winded.

I don't feed the trolls...

Thanks for the civics lesson, professor.

...nailed that nerve. Don't know what part of the definition of "Impeach" you didn't get, but I'll have to let it rest as you don't seem to get it. You do not need to be punished to be impeached, just indicted. Clinton didn't get impeached because he cheated on his wife; he got nailed for lying to a grand jury. Do you get it now?

Now you accusations about wiretaps (done on calls to and from the Middle East), torture (define it, and PLEASE don't start with Geneva) or unjustified war (I suggest you READ the 911 Commission Report as IT DID show proof Sadahm was supplying aid to our new enemy). I have no love for Bush, but he did a HELL of a lot more than Gore or Kerry would’ve done.

So, again, I ask you Ira, who will you vote for. YOU are the one who seems to be looking for a spotless record and considering your [seemingly] eternal love for the Clintons, you seem to have distaste for Hillary.

That contradicts the definition you supplied.

"HE WAS IMPEACHED, period. Removal from office does not imply a complete impeachment"

You are implying he was punished. He did lie. I am not stupid. I just don't care. I never found it suprising that a man of his stature didn't get a little on the side. I simply do not try to live in the delusion that all of our leaders should be a moral compass. It's unrealistic. The world has never worked like that. At one time the media reported it less, that's all. I am more concerned with a presidents economic and diplomatic skills than I am about who he/she may be sleeping with. It's a non issue for me. I believe most people who tout this argument to be hypocrites.

So you admit you would rather have a president thast openly breaks the law(Bush-wiretaps, torture, unjustified war, ect.) than a man who cheated on his wife? The problem with your useage of 'impeached' is that you imply that something was accomplished when it wasn't. It served no purpose other than to show he cheated on his wife. In the end, you team had nothing of substance to stick on the guy so you went digging. With Bush, one just needs to sit back and watch the dirt slide in the front door. Again, thisis a debate that offers nothing productive. Keep on pedaling backwards. My message is that we need a dependable person to move forward. Think before you vote. Don't vote according to color, sex, party, and so on. Think results. We need them worse than ever. What we don't need is the last guy w/ his Bush 04' sticker trying to defend his poor judgement.

Perhaps a bit of education:

Main Entry: 1im•peach
Pronunciation: \im-ˈpēch\
Function: transitive verb

1 a: to bring an accusation against b: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office.

HE WAS IMPEACHED, period. Removal from office does not imply a complete impeachment.

"Mr. Bush has actually broken laws and the democrats have not pursued him out of respect for our country and the damage it would cause."

No, they don't have a leg to stand on.

The rest of your rant is rushed hyperbole. I leave this post with the best Clinton quote of his term...

"Define 'is'."

The process of impeachment began but was not successful. Regardless, it was an idiotic attempt by republicans to attack the opposition. Mr. Bush has actually broken laws and the democrats have not pursued him out of respect for our country and the damage it would cause. One of the proponents of Clintons impeachment likes to meet men in bathroom stalls. That argument is tired and weak. We need results. This isn't playtime. There are no do overs. We are in real trouble here. Wake up people.

"Do you need all of the people you vote for to be spotless?"

Where did this come from?

"Calling Clinton a Marxist is unoriginal and false."

May be unoriginal, but it is certainly not false. Income redistribution, one of her running points, is rule one of Marxism.

"If it were to be true and it worked like the Bush 'monarchy' we would be better off."

Why is it people still allude to Bush; he isn't a factor here nor is any of his "kin" up for election.

"Let's see, good economy, peace, math skills, and the possibility of infidelity to ones spouse."

You are delusional. Burger flipping jobs, massive military cuts, math skills (?), possibility of infidelity..ROTFL!

So Ira, you sure have been on a soapbox lately, who exactly do you support? If you support the person "in the lead," you are more foolish that I first thought. In this case, I have to vote for the lesser of four evils (and he has some good points).

Oh, I'm not saying that I would vote for Huckelberry, but I do find it amazing that the democrat party is so willing to point out how crooked, and vulgar other candidates are, but seemly forget that their hero was a crook, liar, and a cheat....and he was impeached! Just like a sports game, doesn't matter how we got there, what was the final score. Impeached. Find a respectable hero....in either party.....then stand a cheer.

"So what did the other Governor of Arkansas do? Rape? Sexual assault? Fraud? Gee...what is it about Arkansas? We elected that felon as President, why not a Taco Bell Grande!!"

basically, aalto has said that it would be better to elect a republican crook than a democratic philanderer(sp?) That is really pulling the party line. I am not accusing either of the men of anything. I just think it is funny that he is willing to look the other way aznd the only difference is that one is republican.

It doesn't matter. McCain has this locked. Right now Huckabee is fighting to be VP and that was probably promised to Romney.

Do you need all of the people you vote for to be spotless? Calling Clinton a marxist is unoriginal and false. To allude the family as monarchy is silly. If it were to be true and it worked like the Bush 'monarchy' we would be better off. Let's see, good economy, peace, math skills, and the possibility of infidelity to ones spouse. It really doesn't sound so bad when compared to either Bush. While it is stupid to say Hillary is the same as Bill, for conversations sake I would rather inherit similiar traits from Bill than George. No offense(honestly), but you better start picking your horses after you read their numbers. It seems Huckabee really cannot win.