Senator Ted Kennedy, Losing It

[James E. Morrow]

Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said the other day in regard
to our war in Iraq;

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced
in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take
place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a
fraud."

Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post examines this demagogic
statement in light of the true facts in the context of how they were
known at the time.


Let us examine the points in contention.

(1) Imminent threat?

The President NEVER SAID that there was an imminent threat to
the United States posed by Saddam at the time. While this canard is
often repeated it rings hollow. President Bush just did not utter
any such statement.

(2) Texas?

Howdy! You all liberal dunderheads! This reference to the "Lone
Star State" might get "Chappaquiddick" Ted a few votes in the "Bay
State" but it means less than an ice cube in a hot tin roof in
Midland.

(3) Good politically?

If this was a political thing to do why are the Demorats
whining now? Well the truth is that leadership is doing the tough
things like war and national security. These are the things Demorats
have trouble understanding, might alone having the guts to do. Even
the Congressional Demorats who voted for war lack the fortitude to
stand up and support it. Political? Think again. When a policy is
right it is right, regardless of where the chips land.

Link to Washington Post dot com
http://tinyurl.com/ospu

[Dolemite]

Post by James E. Morrow
Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said the other day in regard
to our war in Iraq;
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced
in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take
place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a
fraud."
Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post examines this demagogic
statement in light of the true facts in the context of how they were
known at the time.
Let us examine the points in contention.
(1) Imminent threat?
The President NEVER SAID that there was an imminent threat to
the United States posed by Saddam at the time. While this canard is
often repeated it rings hollow. President Bush just did not utter
any such statement.

What planet were you living on? That's about like saying Bush
never uttered the words "weapons of mass destruction".

July3, 2003
"Bush claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S.,
but his evidence was not very persuasive"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/correspondents_westell030703.html

[Play Jurist]

Post by Dolemite
What planet were you living on? That's about like saying Bush
never uttered the words "weapons of mass destruction".
July3, 2003
"Bush claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S.,
but his evidence was not very persuasive"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/correspondents_westell030703.html

From the article:

Digging up the remains of HUNDREDS of his victims, Bush says, "There's
the evidence we were right, and the world's a better place without
him."

We've dug up thousands and there are tens of thousands left unearthed,
Mr. retired canadian "journalist".

Try citing the president, Mr. Dolemite. That is what is at issue. Not
what Mr. retired journalist says he said.

[Jim Vadek]

Post by James E. Morrow
Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said the other day in regard
to our war in Iraq;
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced
in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take
place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a
fraud."
Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post examines this demagogic
statement in light of the true facts in the context of how they were
known at the time.

Krauthammer is a Bush ass kisser. Always has been.

Why don't you provide proof that Kennedy's statement is incorrect? Oh, I
forgot - the GOP is all about the politics of personal destruction, not
about the truth.

[Jules]

Post by James E. Morrow
Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said the other day in regard
to our war in Iraq;
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced
in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take
place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a
fraud."
Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post examines this demagogic
statement in light of the true facts in the context of how they were
known at the time.

Krauthammer is a Bush ass kisser. Always has been.

Why don't you provide proof that Kennedy's statement is incorrect? Oh, I
forgot - the GOP is all about the politics of personal destruction, not
about the truth.
..............................

Now, THAT is a hoot! From the Clintons' private detectives, to stolen FBI
files, to using the IRS as harassment, and onward to the "Bimbo Eruption"
teams that went into high speed to destroy any and all women who spoke up.
Yeah...the comment you made is a real hoot! When it comes to personal
attacks the Democrats have no equals. None.

[scott]

Well they try to keep him away from the microphone when he's drunk, but it
looks like he slip past the other Democrats.

Post by James E. Morrow
Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said the other day in regard

[Jules]

"scott" <***@intertex.net> wrote in message news:P_OcncO5S5d-***@intertex.net...
Well they try to keep him away from the microphone when he's drunk, but it
looks like he slip past the other Democrats.

.....................

How can you ever catch him when he's sober?

[Chris the Liberal]

Post by scott
Well they try to keep him away from the microphone when he's drunk, but it
looks like he slip past the other Democrats.
.....................
How can you ever catch him when he's sober?

Who?? Are you talking about George "Drunken Driving and LIED
about it" Bush????

[scott]

The King of drunks silly. Teddy )

"Chris the Liberal" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

[Robin]

Post by scott
The King of drunks silly. Teddy )

Are you sure? At least Teddy doesn't suffer from "dry drunk" syndrome like
Bush does. You do know that Bush uses every euphamism for alcoholism
available when talking about his past drinking problems. The fact that he
refuses to come right out and say alcoholism makes one wonder if he is truly
in recovery or not.

Robin

*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************
I seek to restore the best
traditions of American leadership.
Leadership in which our power is
multiplied by the appeal of
democratic ideals and by the
knowledge that our country is a
force for law around the world not
a law unto itself.
*************************************



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

[Play Jurist]

Post by Robin

Post by scott
The King of drunks silly. Teddy )

Are you sure? At least Teddy doesn't suffer from "dry drunk" syndrome like
Bush does. You do know that Bush uses every euphamism for alcoholism
available when talking about his past drinking problems. The fact that he
refuses to come right out and say alcoholism makes one wonder if he is truly
in recovery or not.
Robin

Hmmm. I thought the left was all about "tolerance". Must have
misheard.

I don't think it was ever established that he was an "alcoholic". He
simply realized he was drinking too much and just stopped. He didn't
need twelve steps or years of rehab. He just stopped.

At least that's what I remember hearing. I could be wrong, I just
don't remember hearing about AA or night sweats or relapses or anything
like that.

I think it might be more appropriate for Clinton to come out and say
"sexaholic" or "drugaholic." I do remember stories about clandestine
meetings with women aided by state troopers, 12 year affairs, having a
"nose like a vacuum"--Roger Clinton...... "could always tell when he
was doing coke.....his ears would turn red"---Gennifer Flowers (see 12
year affair above)

Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on
sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on
sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned

So I wonder.....seeing as how Clinton never comes out and talks about
his sex addiction, is he really in recovery?

[Robin]

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin

Post by scott
The King of drunks silly. Teddy )

Are you sure? At least Teddy doesn't suffer from "dry drunk" syndrome like
Bush does. You do know that Bush uses every euphamism for alcoholism
available when talking about his past drinking problems. The fact that he
refuses to come right out and say alcoholism makes one wonder if he is truly
in recovery or not.
Robin

Hmmm. I thought the left was all about "tolerance". Must have
misheard.
I don't think it was ever established that he was an "alcoholic". He
simply realized he was drinking too much and just stopped. He didn't
need twelve steps or years of rehab. He just stopped.
At least that's what I remember hearing. I could be wrong, I just
don't remember hearing about AA or night sweats or relapses or anything
like that.

I have no problem with an alcoholic in recovery. Bush states clearly that
he drank "very heavily" from college until the age of 46. That is over 25
years of hard drinking, that whether he idenitfies himself as an alcoholic
or not, has a permanent effect on the mind and the body. It is possible for
an alcoholic to quit on his/her own without intervention, but it is usually
not a true recovery. The first step to overcoming alcoholism is admitting
the problem, not glossing it over.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/10_drunk.html

Robin

*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************
Right now there are no serious
consequences if an employer
ignores a newly formed union.
There should be meaningful
financial penalties available to
federal regulators when an
employer fails to negotiate in
good faith with a union.
*************************************


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/19/2003

[Play Jurist]

Post by Robin
I have no problem with an alcoholic in recovery. Bush states clearly that
he drank "very heavily" from college until the age of 46. That is over 25
years of hard drinking, that whether he idenitfies himself as an alcoholic
or not, has a permanent effect on the mind and the body. It is possible for
an alcoholic to quit on his/her own without intervention, but it is usually
not a true recovery. The first step to overcoming alcoholism is admitting
the problem, not glossing it over.

I'm touched by your concern for our president and it is obvious that
you are only wanting him to enter AA, say "My name is Dubya and I'm an
alcoholic" and finally get his mind right. You and the DNC would love
that, wouldn't you?

By my recall of recent history, this mind damaged alcoholic has
single-handedly (and I say that quite accurately) removed two barbaric
regimes from the middle east and brought freedom to some fifty million
people. He and he alone has begun the long overdue transformation of
the middle east which people not obsessed with partisanship understand
is the only long term solution to terrorism. The only ones opposed are
the dictators, greedy european elites, bin Laden worshippers, and
liberals. The vast majority of the populations of Iraq, Iran,
Afganistan, I would guess Syria are all for it.

Contrasting, Mr. Clinton's addiction is still unacknowleded and as far
as we know ongoing. Like his idol JFK, he put the nation at great risk
of blackmail because of a selfish obsession. Did you express similar
concern for HIS mental health and the dangers it posed for the country
at the time?

If so, I will clear you of all charges of hypocracy and inconsistency.

[Robin]

Post by Play Jurist
By my recall of recent history, this mind damaged alcoholic has
single-handedly (and I say that quite accurately) removed two barbaric
regimes from the middle east and brought freedom to some fifty million
people.

That shows MUCH respect for our young men and women who are actually risking
life and limb in iraq to do George's dirty work! Single handedly indeed!
Disgraceful!

Robin

*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************
To restore economic growth, we
need to strengthen the right to
unionize here at home and enforce
international labor standards
abroad.
*************************************



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/19/2003

[Al_Lien]

Post by Robin

Post by Play Jurist
By my recall of recent history, this mind damaged alcoholic has
single-handedly (and I say that quite accurately) removed two
barbaric regimes from the middle east and brought freedom to some
fifty million people.

That shows MUCH respect for our young men and women who are actually
risking life and limb in iraq to do George's dirty work! Single
handedly indeed! Disgraceful!

Hey, don't you know that soldiers are disposible to chickenhawks?

Post by Robin
Robin
*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com

I donated today, thanks. =)

Post by Robin
*************************************
To restore economic growth, we
need to strengthen the right to
unionize here at home and enforce
international labor standards
abroad.
*************************************

Most of these hardline right-wingers don't even know that if they're making
a decent wage, it's due to the union members who fought for workers' rights
many years ago.

[Play Jurist]

Post by Robin

Post by Play Jurist
By my recall of recent history, this mind damaged alcoholic has
single-handedly (and I say that quite accurately) removed two barbaric
regimes from the middle east and brought freedom to some fifty million
people.

That shows MUCH respect for our young men and women who are actually risking
life and limb in iraq to do George's dirty work! Single handedly indeed!
Disgraceful!
Robin

You know when I wrote that I thought to myself....you don't suppose
someone would take that literally and think I meant that GWB also went
undercover as a stealth bomber and apache helicopter pilot and then
jumped in a tank and rolled into Baghdad leading the charge. Naaaa.

What I meant and I think (hope) you knew is that If it wasn't for ONE
man, GWB, Saddam Hussein would still be in charge in Iraq today. The
Taliban would still be stringing folks up after the soccer games.

Nobody has greater respect and admiration for the American soldier than
I do. Lets not forget the British, Polish and Australian soldiers.

I don't quite understand what you folks think our military is for. Is
it to be used only when we can safely bomb from 15000 feet? Is it to
be used only if we can get a signed guarantee from the enemy that they
will not kill any of our soldiers? Do we have to prove an airtight
case to every last person in the world and get a unanimous vote in
favor before we commit troops anywhere?

Carter refused to commit any troops anywhere during his term. (except
those unfortunate few that died in an il-conceived rescue attempt
promptly ordered after a 444 day grace period.) He allowed communism
to go unchecked in its quest for global dominance.

Reagan ALONG WITH MANY BRAVE SERVICEMEN and many others brought an end
to communist expansion. No big deal.

Bush 41 WITH THE HELP OF MANY BRAVE SERVICEMEN prevented Saddam from
gaining control of the world's oil supply. No big deal.

Clinton misused the militay at every turn, deploying them here and
there for dubious reasons and certainly not any involving our national
security. (that could be added to the condition list above)

GWB has used the military properly and effectively. He trusts the
Generals in charge to do their job. He doesn't micro-manage and insist
on personally signing off on every target coordinate.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern here.

[Dave Simpson]

Post by Play Jurist
What I meant and I think (hope) you knew is that If it wasn't for ONE
man, GWB, Saddam Hussein would still be in charge in Iraq today. The
Taliban would still be stringing folks up after the soccer games.

Despite the reversal (which I think is a blunder) by the
administration in going back to the UN and the Europeans for help
afterward, our policy regarding Iraq was grown-up and refreshing
compared to, for example, uttering all kinds of idiocies about "peace"
and giving in to North Korean nuclear blackmail as Dubya's predecessor
did, or in hand-wringing or appeasement or corruption as was true with
the Europeans and their wanting to keep the Hussein regime intact and
preserve their lucrative contracts with that regime along with profits
from smuggling and other sanctions violations.


Dave Simpson

[Robin]

Post by Play Jurist
I don't quite understand what you folks think our military is for. Is
it to be used only when we can safely bomb from 15000 feet? Is it to
be used only if we can get a signed guarantee from the enemy that they
will not kill any of our soldiers? Do we have to prove an airtight
case to every last person in the world and get a unanimous vote in
favor before we commit troops anywhere?

I'd be perfectly happy to see our troops concentrated on the terrorists that
actually attacked this country.

I can't understand you folks who so blindly accept everything this president
says.

It's about the WMD, no WMD, OK it's about liberating the Iraqi people from a
ruthless dictator who killed 5,000 of his own. While I'm at it, I'll throw
the words Iraq & 9/11 together so often that people eventually begin to
think there is a connection without me having to outright lie like I did
about the WMD.

If it's about liberation, Saddam should have been much farther down the list
of dictators to overthrow. The leader of Zimbabwe should have come first.
He's killed 25,000 of his own, but wait, there's no oil in Zimbabwe.

It's is not only the right of an American citizen to question their
government, it is their responsibility when the things the government says
make no sense, or are outright lies.

Robin

*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************
I've dedicated much energy in my
professional and political life to
help women improve their lives and
those of their families. As
President, I will continue to work
on these and other issues in the
hope that all Americans will enjoy
a better tomorrow.
*************************************


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/19/2003

[Play Jurist]

Post by Robin
It's about the WMD, no WMD, OK it's about liberating the Iraqi people from a
ruthless dictator who killed 5,000 of his own. While I'm at it, I'll throw
the words Iraq & 9/11 together so often that people eventually begin to
think there is a connection without me having to outright lie like I did
about the WMD.

5000? That was just one afternoon in March. Try 2-3 hundred thousand
and that doesn't include the millions killed in wars started by good ol
uncle Sadd.

Post by Robin
If it's about liberation, Saddam should have been much farther down the list
of dictators to overthrow. The leader of Zimbabwe should have come first.
He's killed 25,000 of his own, but wait, there's no oil in Zimbabwe.

Getting Iraqi oil onto the world oil market can only be good for
America and the world. Every drop that doesn't come from Saudi Arabia
lessens the leverage they have over us. Just one of the many reasons
for going to war. One needs to realize that the Saudis could throw our
economy into a tailspin if they wanted to, slowly and painfully. I
don't doubt that they've threatened just that, in private chats. And
of course we mustn't touch the "pristine" ANWR, even though it would
supply the equivalent of 25 years of Saudi oil, enough time to perfect
wind technology.

The democratic party is held hostage by the environmentalist kooks to
the point of endangering national security. Hate to see a tundra
tit-mouse trampled.

Post by Robin
It's is not only the right of an American citizen to question their
government, it is their responsibility when the things the government says
make no sense, or are outright lies.

Questions are great, just not inane insults and wild kooky accusations
that embolden the enemy and our so-called allies. With friends like
those........

Post by Robin
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************
I've dedicated much energy in my
professional and political life to
help women improve their lives and
those of their families. As
President, I will continue to work
on these and other issues in the
hope that all Americans will enjoy
a better tomorrow.

Reminds me of another great guardian of America, Jimmy we won't go to
your stinkin olympics Carter.

[Dave Simpson]

Post by Robin
*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************

A major reason that Token Soldier Wesley Clark has been fielded has
been to wreck the Dean campaign (there are other suspicions Americans
have about the Clintons, McAuliffe, and the Democratic elites behind
the Clark campaign).

Now, Dean has stated to good effect that Clark has been a Republican
up until Clark began his campaign for the Democratic nomination, and
it's funny though not actually true. However, it is true that Clark
was not a Democrat before he began his campaign, and he still is not a
Democrat.

Clark, the front-runner who is trying to beat Dean, is not a Democrat.


Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat (October 1, 2003)

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm



Dave Simpson

[Robin]

Post by Dave Simpson
Now, Dean has stated to good effect that Clark has been a Republican
up until Clark began his campaign for the Democratic nomination, and
it's funny though not actually true. However, it is true that Clark
was not a Democrat before he began his campaign, and he still is not a
Democrat.

I'm not sure what your point is. Clark would not be the first American that
this administration has turned into a new democrat. I personally met two at
last months meet-up for Howard Dean. Look up discussion groups with names
like "republicans for Dean" and you will see there are quite a few new
democrats thanks to George.

Robin

*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************
The federal government must
recognize that an enormous number
of our teachers are retiring in
the coming years and provide
incentives to inspire a new
generation of great teachers.
*************************************



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/19/2003

[Dolemite]

Post by Play Jurist
By my recall of recent history, this mind damaged alcoholic has
single-handedly (and I say that quite accurately) removed two barbaric
regimes from the middle east and brought freedom to some fifty million
people. He and he alone has begun the long overdue transformation of
the middle east which people not obsessed with partisanship understand
is the only long term solution to terrorism.

Bush did what any president dem or repub would have done
in Afghanistan. Iraq is a different story entirely. Bush destroyed
international relations around the world in his Bullying ways
to start Iraq war with no provocation and very weak evidence.
Bush deceived US public and arrogantly ignored the UN
in order to have his Iraq war. Bush is a dangerous loose canon.

Post by Play Jurist
The only ones opposed are
the dictators, greedy european elites, bin Laden worshippers, and
liberals. The vast majority of the populations of Iraq, Iran,
Afganistan, I would guess Syria are all for it.

Iran and Syria? LMAO!!!

Bush has damaged this country in so many ways
in such short a time it is incredible.

[Dave Simpson]

Post by Play Jurist
By my recall of recent history, this mind damaged alcoholic has
single-handedly (and I say that quite accurately) removed two barbaric
regimes from the middle east and brought freedom to some fifty million
people. He and he alone has begun the long overdue transformation of
the middle east which people not obsessed with partisanship understand
is the only long term solution to terrorism. The only ones opposed are
the dictators, greedy european elites, bin Laden worshippers, and
liberals. The vast majority of the populations of Iraq, Iran,
Afganistan, I would guess Syria are all for it.

Among the opposition are the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-USA Usual
Suspects here at home.

Post by Play Jurist
Contrasting, Mr. Clinton's addiction is still unacknowleded and as far
as we know ongoing. Like his idol JFK, he put the nation at great risk
of blackmail because of a selfish obsession. Did you express similar
concern for HIS mental health and the dangers it posed for the country
at the time?

Among normal people, Clinton made us want to have either Carter or
Nixon back in office, for either would be a great improvement.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' foreign policy and military policy
idiocies cost them hugely in the 2002 elections, and as an antidote to
this the Token Soldier Wesley Clark has been trotted out (in a manner
similar to the failed attempt at shoving Joe Lieberman at Americans as
the moral antidote to Clinton; it didn't prevent Gore from losing the
election, though). The Democrats are in such bad shape they only can
hope for failures by the Bush people, even or especially if it harms
our military or our economy or otherwise harms our nation, and they
are so desperate and such suckers that they have made Wesley Clark the
instant front-runner, despite everyone's suspicions that Clark is a
puppet of the Clintons, McAuliffe, and the Democratic Party execs --
and WESLEY CLARK, THE NEW ENTRANT AND FRONT-RUNNER, IS NOT EVEN A
DEMOCRAT. It's a scam, played upon the most desperate and stupid of
suckers.


Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat (October 1, 2003)

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm


Dave Simpson

[Dolemite]

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin

Post by scott
The King of drunks silly. Teddy )

Are you sure? At least Teddy doesn't suffer from "dry drunk" syndrome like
Bush does. You do know that Bush uses every euphamism for alcoholism
available when talking about his past drinking problems. The fact that he
refuses to come right out and say alcoholism makes one wonder if he is truly
in recovery or not.
Robin

Hmmm. I thought the left was all about "tolerance". Must have
misheard.
I don't think it was ever established that he was an "alcoholic". He
simply realized he was drinking too much and just stopped. He didn't
need twelve steps or years of rehab. He just stopped.
At least that's what I remember hearing. I could be wrong, I just
don't remember hearing about AA or night sweats or relapses or anything
like that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Bush used booze to
such an extent that it killed part of his brain that controls speech.

Bush slurs when sober.

That is what happens to hard core alcoholics over time.

Kennedy may like his booze, but his speech is still articulate and well
thought out.

Obviously Bush's alcohol consumption level was that of a gutter drunk,
while Kennedy was clearly the lesser social/party drinker.

[Geo]

Post by Dolemite
Kennedy may like his booze, but his speech is still articulate and well
thought out.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Michael Higgins]

Oh, come on. That's just bullshit.

Lots of people react to booze in lots of different ways. Some people can
drink like a fish their entire lives and not show a trace; others are down
for the count after two drinks. My wife is out cold after two mixed drinks,
I could drink two six packs at work and then get down to serious drinking
when I got home.

I stopped drinking 26 years ago when my baby girl was born and never missed
it for a moment.

I do agree that Dubya conducts himself as if he went to the watering hole a
few dozen times too many. I just don't think you should give Teddy a pass
simply because he sounds coherent.

Remember what AA teachs about the differences between being a drunk and an
alcoholic.

Drunks don't go to meetings.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TELL NO TALES
A story of life in an Age of Terrorism
http://www.tellnotales.info

Post by Dolemite

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin

Post by scott
The King of drunks silly. Teddy )

Are you sure? At least Teddy doesn't suffer from "dry drunk" syndrome

like

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin
Bush does. You do know that Bush uses every euphamism for alcoholism
available when talking about his past drinking problems. The fact

that

Post by Dolemite
he

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin
refuses to come right out and say alcoholism makes one wonder if he is

truly

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin
in recovery or not.
Robin

Hmmm. I thought the left was all about "tolerance". Must have
misheard.
I don't think it was ever established that he was an "alcoholic". He
simply realized he was drinking too much and just stopped. He didn't
need twelve steps or years of rehab. He just stopped.
At least that's what I remember hearing. I could be wrong, I just
don't remember hearing about AA or night sweats or relapses or anything
like that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Bush used booze to
such an extent that it killed part of his brain that controls speech.
Bush slurs when sober.
That is what happens to hard core alcoholics over time.
Kennedy may like his booze, but his speech is still articulate and well
thought out.
Obviously Bush's alcohol consumption level was that of a gutter drunk,
while Kennedy was clearly the lesser social/party drinker.

[Dolemite]

So you agree. Bush shows signs of brain damage from alcohol
while Kennedy does not (AKA coherent/articulate).

Kinda of scary knowing a gutter drunk
has control of launch codes to our nuclear arsenal.

Post by Michael Higgins
Oh, come on. That's just bullshit.
Lots of people react to booze in lots of different ways. Some people can
drink like a fish their entire lives and not show a trace; others are down
for the count after two drinks. My wife is out cold after two mixed drinks,
I could drink two six packs at work and then get down to serious drinking
when I got home.
I stopped drinking 26 years ago when my baby girl was born and never missed
it for a moment.
I do agree that Dubya conducts himself as if he went to the watering hole a
few dozen times too many. I just don't think you should give Teddy a pass
simply because he sounds coherent.
Remember what AA teachs about the differences between being a drunk and an
alcoholic.
Drunks don't go to meetings.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TELL NO TALES
A story of life in an Age of Terrorism
http://www.tellnotales.info

Post by Dolemite

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin

Post by scott
The King of drunks silly. Teddy )

Are you sure? At least Teddy doesn't suffer from "dry drunk" syndrome

like

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin
Bush does. You do know that Bush uses every euphamism for alcoholism
available when talking about his past drinking problems. The fact

that

Post by Dolemite
he

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin
refuses to come right out and say alcoholism makes one wonder if he is

truly

Post by Play Jurist

Post by Robin
in recovery or not.
Robin

Hmmm. I thought the left was all about "tolerance". Must have
misheard.
I don't think it was ever established that he was an "alcoholic". He
simply realized he was drinking too much and just stopped. He didn't
need twelve steps or years of rehab. He just stopped.
At least that's what I remember hearing. I could be wrong, I just
don't remember hearing about AA or night sweats or relapses or anything
like that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Bush used booze to
such an extent that it killed part of his brain that controls speech.
Bush slurs when sober.
That is what happens to hard core alcoholics over time.
Kennedy may like his booze, but his speech is still articulate and well
thought out.
Obviously Bush's alcohol consumption level was that of a gutter drunk,
while Kennedy was clearly the lesser social/party drinker.

[Robin]

Post by James E. Morrow
Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said the other day in regard
to our war in Iraq;
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced
in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take
place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a
fraud."
Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post examines this demagogic
statement in light of the true facts in the context of how they were
known at the time.
Let us examine the points in contention.

Good work Ted. Keep it up. Make the initials PNAC as commonplace in the
news as WMD. It was the PNAC who in January of 2001 asserted that war in
Iraq would be good, and getting control of the oil in Iraq would be
invaluable to the U.S. They also noted that this would be a long drawn out
process unless there was a "catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor." Nine
months later they got their catalyzing event and took full advantage of it
to launch their plan that had been hatched long before 9/11. It's all in
their own words on the PNAC website.

Robin


*************************************
Howard Dean in 2004
http://www.deanforamerica.com
*************************************
I will appoint an Attorney General
who sees our constitution not just
as a document to be manipulated,
ignored, and violated, but
recognizes and respects it as the
fabric that binds the American
community together.
*************************************


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

[Ray Kinserlow]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:45:20 -0500, James E. Morrow

Post by James E. Morrow
Howdy! You all liberal dunderheads! This reference to the "Lone
Star State" might get "Chappaquiddick" Ted a few votes in the "Bay
State" but it means less than an ice cube in a hot tin roof in
Midland.

It happens to mean a lot to this Texan. I agree with the Senator from
Mass.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas

[Darrel, Darrel, and Darrel]

"Ray Kinserlow" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:45:20 -0500, James E. Morrow

Post by James E. Morrow
Howdy! You all liberal dunderheads! This reference to the "Lone
Star State" might get "Chappaquiddick" Ted a few votes in the "Bay
State" but it means less than an ice cube in a hot tin roof in
Midland.

It happens to mean a lot to this Texan. I agree with the Senator from
Mass.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas
.......................

So when are you going to relocate?

[Ray Kinserlow]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:01:20 -0500, "Darrel, Darrel, and Darrel"

Post by Ray Kinserlow
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:45:20 -0500, James E. Morrow

Post by James E. Morrow
Howdy! You all liberal dunderheads! This reference to the "Lone
Star State" might get "Chappaquiddick" Ted a few votes in the "Bay
State" but it means less than an ice cube in a hot tin roof in
Midland.

It happens to mean a lot to this Texan. I agree with the Senator from
Mass.
Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas
.......................
So when are you going to relocate?

I have been here 58 years, but my sister bailed out to California a
long time ago. I will probably stay here until my parents pass away
and then move out to California.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas

[Rogie Wussman]

"Ray Kinserlow" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:01:20 -0500, "Darrel, Darrel, and Darrel"

Post by Ray Kinserlow
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:45:20 -0500, James E. Morrow

Post by James E. Morrow
Howdy! You all liberal dunderheads! This reference to the "Lone
Star State" might get "Chappaquiddick" Ted a few votes in the "Bay
State" but it means less than an ice cube in a hot tin roof in
Midland.

It happens to mean a lot to this Texan. I agree with the Senator from
Mass.
Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas
.......................
So when are you going to relocate?

I have been here 58 years, but my sister bailed out to California a
long time ago. I will probably stay here until my parents pass away
and then move out to California.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas
....................
California can use another Liberal....

[John R. Rybock]

Post by James E. Morrow
Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said the other day in regard
to our war in Iraq;
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced
in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take
place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a
fraud."
Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post examines this demagogic
statement in light of the true facts in the context of how they were
known at the time.
Let us examine the points in contention.
(1) Imminent threat?
The President NEVER SAID that there was an imminent threat to
the United States posed by Saddam at the time. While this canard is
often repeated it rings hollow. President Bush just did not utter
any such statement.

Your right. Take out the imminent part. Bush said Iraq was a threat to the U.S. security. WHere is
the evidence. Please, I've asked before in other threads, I'll ask again - please name me one
terrorist act or averted act that ties to Saddam Hussein since the planned attack on the first Bush
in Kuwait. Please provide evidence of planned attacks against the U.S. That request has always been
ignored. Is there any?

Post by James E. Morrow
When a policy is
right it is right, regardless of where the chips land.

And when it is wrong, it is wrong. It's a good thing that Saddam is gone, and you won't find anyone
to argue otherwise (despite labeling of critics by ignorant right wing columnists). But support was
based on specific reasons given by this administration. And they are all falling through. No WMD,
despite oft repeated claims of large amounts and known locations (but it's OK, the administration a
few months ago floated the theory they made it out onto the black market, where they are no longer
under tight surveillance - that's comforting, no?) The lawlessness created by war has made the area
a haven for terrorists, which in fact it was not before. Afganistan has largely been abandoned, and
signs are Al Qaeda is regaining a foothold there. And we're strengthening ties to a nation that
helped put the Taliban in power, has sympathetic security forces which intelligence indicates are
aiding al Qaeda, and sold nuclear technology to an "Axis of Evil" country within the life of this
administration. That's going in the wrong direction to make us more secure and safe. Great for TV
and poll numbers, poor for overall safety.

[Dave Simpson]

Clark the Token Soldier is, among other things, a figurehead intended
to show the Democrats can be taken seriously after all regarding
national security. Clark in this way is an antidote paraded before
the voters, just as Lieberman was meant to be a moral antidote to the
Clinton taint that in large part still brought down Al Gore in 2000.

Ted Kennedy continues to be a liberal dinosaur that gets more pathetic
with age.

(With all the dwarves in the field, and with so many left-wing
Democrats whining so much about a lack of lefty or "progressive" [sic]
activism by the candidates, and Teddy's not getting any younger, why
doesn't Teddy try to run against Dubya?)

Dubya vs. Teddy -- now that would be interesting.


Dave Simpson