Conyers wife pleads guilty to bribery
Posted By: just me on 2009-06-26
In Reply to:
Isn't surprising...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7938249&page=1
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Mrs. Conyers, as well as Mr. Conyers..(sm)
have been under suspicion for quite a while. I really don't know what's worse here, having affairs or letting your wife take the fall.
Conyers ran backward at this guy....
in case you are interested...
Questionable "Intelligence"
There are some criticisms of the Bush administration even Howard Dean declines to endorse. A rare example of the form was uttered on June 16 by Ray McGovern, an ex-CIA analyst who since his 1990 retirement from the agency has served as a full-time foot soldier in the army of antiwar left.
The occasion was a mock hearing of the Judiciary Committee. Set up by one of the Iraq war’s most strident detractors, Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-MI, as a publicity-grabbing protest against the war, the stunt quickly backfired when McGovern, in his own distinctive fashion, laid out his objections to Operation Iraqi Freedom. In McGovern’s view, the sinister motivations for the war could be explained by the axiom O.I.L.: “O for Oil, I for Israel, and L for leveraging our land bases.”
Israel in particular concentrated his interest. Intolerant of the notion that Israel could be seen as America’s ally, McGovern contended that by toppling Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration was merely doing the dirty work of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. As evidence, McGovern was not above retailing anti-Israel conspiracy theories. Hence he claimed, inter alia, that an Israeli company had advanced warning of the 9/11 attacks—an accusation echoed in literature passed out by Democratic activists at the hearing. No immediate objections were raised, but McGovern’s conspiratorial musing did earn him the praise of at least one attendee, the notoriously anti-Semitic Rep. James P. Moran Jr., D-VA, who praised the former CIA man for his “candid” remarks. McGovern, for his part, sought to cast himself as a lone voice for sanity in an American political culture blind to the evils of the Middle East’s lone democratic country. “Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,” he complained.
A similar attitude animates the group that McGovern founded in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Its comically exaggerated claims to the status of a “movement” quite apart, VIPS is a marginal antiwar group of 35 retired and resigned intelligence has-beens. Between 2003 and 2005, VIPS fired off some eleven open letters—presumptuously addressed to President Bush and other administration higher-ups—assailing, with varying degrees of sobriety, the administration’s case for war.
There was one recurring theme: the allegedly manipulative influence of Israel on American foreign policy. Thus, in a February 2003 letter, published on the left-wing website Common Dreams, VIPS made the case that the issues surrounding the war “are far more far-reaching-and complicated-than ‘UN v. Saddam Hussein.’” The more “complicated” explanation favored by VIPS was that all the turmoil of the Middle East—from terrorism generally to the intransigence of Saddam Hussein specifically—could be pinned squarely on Israel. Affecting to speak to President Bush, the VIPS letter stated:
It is widely known that you have a uniquely close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This presents a strong disincentive to those who might otherwise warn you that Israel's continuing encroachment on Arab territories, its oppression of the Palestinian people, and its pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 1981 are among the root causes not only of terrorism, but of Saddam Hussein's felt need to develop the means to deter further Israeli attacks.
This line of argument resounded with several VIPS members, among them the husband and wife team of Kathleen and William Christison. Former CIA analysts, the Christinson’s (who’ve since parted ways with VIPS) unsuccessfully attempted to travel to Iraq prior to the war to voice their opposition to “a new colonialism in the [Middle East], dominated by…the U.S. and Israel.”
But the most enthusiastic advocate of anti-Israel conspiracies was Ray McGovern. In a letter to the Christian Science Monitor just days after the 9-11 attacks, McGovern berated Americans for failing to “understand why so many of [the Middle East’s] people are willing to commit terrorist acts against the US,” and called for a “US approach that is less biased toward our Israeli friends.” And he was just getting started. “The war on Iraq was just as much prompted by the strategic objectives of the state of Israel as it was the strategic objectives of the United States,” he explained in an interview with the left-wing Sojourners magazine, ominously expressing his amazement at the “confluence of objectives” between American and Israeli policy makers. Writing in January 2003 in the Miami Herald, McGovern claimed that Israeli officials were “egging Bush on” to levy war against Iraq—all part of their master plan to strengthen their “ability to work their will in the lands seized from the Arabs in 1967 and 1973.” On yet another occasion, McGovern wondered: “Why is it that the state of Israel has such pervasive influence over our body politic?”
That Israel pulls the strings of American foreign policy is not the only conspiracy theory propounded by McGovern. While maintaining that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence information to justify the war against Iraq, McGovern has allowed for the possibility that WMD may be found in Iraq. But he hastens to add that any weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq will likely have been “planted” by American forces. “Some of my colleagues are virtually certain that there will be some weapons of mass destruction found, even though they might have to be planted,” he told Agence French Presse in April of 2003, darkly insisting that “that would justify the charge of a threat against the U.S. or anyone else.” McGovern dusted off the same claim for a June 2003 interview with the left-wing site Truthout.org. Granting the implausibility of that his assertion “that the US wants to be able to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” he nonetheless proceeded to justify it in the following manner:
Now, most people will say, ‘Come on, McGovern. How are you going to get a SCUD in there without everyone seeing it?’ It doesn’t have to be a SCUD. It can be the kind of little vile vial that Colin Powell held up on the 5th of February. You put a couple of those in a GI’s pocket, and you swear him to secrecy, and you have him go bury them out in the desert. You discover it ten days later, and President Bush, with more credibility than he could with those trailers will say, ‘Ha! We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction.’ I think that’s a possibility, a real possibility.
Yet another tack taken by McGovern and VIPS in their campaign to discredit the Iraq war was exhorting intelligence personnel to leak classified information. This was the subject of a March 2003 VIPS memorandum, which urged CIA employees to break the law by releasing any information that might lend authority to antiwar activists’ assertions that the administration was doctoring intelligence to justify the war against Iraq. In defense of this position, McGovern insisted that it was necessary to counterbalance the administration’s “cooked” intelligence—a matter on which, as a CIA spokesman pointed out, the retired McGovern, whose 27-years in the CIA were spent studying Soviet foreign policy, was hardly an expert. (Against this, McGovern has taken to offering a less than persuasive rebuttal. With the internet at his disposal, McGovern explained to Mother Jones in March of 2004, he is as informed as any intelligence operative poring over secret transcripts: “With the incredible amount of information available on the Internet, I can by ten o'clock in the morning, be morally certain that I have 80 to 90 percent of the information that's available on a given subject.”)
McGovern was still making overtures to would-be whistleblowers in September of 2004, now as a member of the “Truth-Telling Coalition Appeal,” a new antiwar group that included Daniel Ellsberg, the Rand analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. An open letter issued by the group, and signed by McGovern, demanded that CIA analysts leak communications intelligence and nuclear data, and, perhaps more actionably, urged them to disclose the identity of US intelligence operatives. While acknowledging that it was calling on them to commit a crime, the letter explained that nothing short of outright lawbreaking was adequate to counter an “administration [that] has stretched existing criminal laws to cover other disclosures in ways never contemplated by Congress.”
Pronouncements such as these have made McGovern a darling of the antiwar media and a reliable ally of antiwar politicians. It hasn’t diminished McGovern’s appeal to the antiwar left that he enjoys a reputation as a disaffected political conservative—a reputation assiduously cultivated by McGovern himself. Now a regular on the lecture circuit, McGovern seldom neglects to flash his credentials as a former CIA briefer of the first President Bush. He has even suggested, implausibly, that he has the former president’s ear. For instance, during a September 2003 appearance on far-left radio program Democracy Now, McGovern insinuated that the former president referred to the architects of the second Iraq war as “the crazies.” Pressed by host Amy Goodman whether these were really the former president’s views, McGovern beat a hasty retreat, sputtering about a “certain delicacy” that he suddenly felt compelled to respect.
Nor have his supposedly conservative inclinations prevented McGovern from peddling his flagrantly conspiratorial views and inciting intelligence analysts to criminality for the benefit of college audiences. Far from atypical was a September 2004 appearance at the University of South Florida, whereat he speculated that the Bush administration might engineer a pre-election terrorist attack on American soil so as not to cede power: “There might be a real or staged terrorist attack in order to postpone the elections,” McGovern said. McGovern did not fail to invoke his favorite acronym: “O is for oil, I is for Israel and L is for logistics, as in when we have Iraq we have a foothold and a number of bases strategically placed in the Middle East so we can be in control over there and also to protect Israel.”
It is precisely those views that antiwar Democrats from Howard Dean to John Conyers rushed to condemn in the aftermath of last week’s faux hearing. Conyers professed to be especially outraged: “I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive,” he wrote in a fuming letter to the Washington Post. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Conyers did not address the more relevant question: Why, given McGovern’s grotesque rhetorical record, had Democrats invited him in the first place?
Conyers said that they were not impeachment hearings....
I don't see where that is coming off the fence. I am apparently not the only one in denial...you cannot make me believe with Dem majority in Congress, if they thought they had any goods on Bush they would not go forward.
There are just too many if's. And there is that pesky Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton and the dems made law while he was President. Tough to explain that one away, when the same intelligence was used to arrive at that as was used to go into Iraq under Bush. How are the impeachers going to explain "yeah we believed it when Clinton was President and he was telling the truth and we made a law stating regime should change in Iraq, but then we changed our minds and along came that nasty George Bush and fooled us into believing it again." See, all of that would come out in an impeachment hearing. How do you explain your way out of that? That is probably the question they are asking themselves. If they impeach him, the next thing would be to recall all of them because they are incompetent. If one man, especially one man who Dems en masse say is a bumbling fool himself, could pull that off...fool Congress, the nation and the world...the whole thing is so contradictory it is ludicrous. Best thing for the Republicans WOULD be for them to impeach Bush, right before the election. Oh yeah...GO for it. Sheesh. That is exactly why they won't. Which makes me distrust them all even more. Because if they really do have something impeachable on him and don't go forward just because they don't want to lose the election...that pretty much nullfies integrity and wanting to do the right thing. Which, we ALL know, is not why they are doing this anyway. It is not a big deal, that is why you are not hearing about it. The mainstream media who swoon every time Obama opens his mouth would be ALL over this if there was something there. There just isn't. Sorry; the blood lust will just have to be assuaged in some other way.
Guilty?
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded and he was one of the key architects of the 9/11 attack. You don't think he is guilty? Are you kidding me?
This man plotted and planned an attack on American soil that killed thousands of Americans and you don't think he should have been waterboarded?
You tell me this.....how many detainees were actually subjected to waterboarding....other than Khalid Mohammed that is. Did we do it to every single detainee. Do you even realize that these detainees, a lot of them, were turned in by other people in their country or caught as a direct result of interrogating other detainees.
The last time I checked, Khalid Mohammed still has his head attached to his body....which is more than I can say for Jack Hensley, Nicholas Berg and any other American who had their head cut off. It wasn't a swift cutting off either. I don't know if anyone here has seen the video of one of the beheadings but I had the misfortune of seeing one on the internet and it is an image that haunts me to this day. They basically grabbed him by his head, took a big knife and cut all the way around his neck, and then literally had to start sawing at his neck to get his head the rest of the way off. It took quite a while to accomplish the whole thing. When it was done, they threw the guy's head on his body and started cheering.
I have no compassion for terrorists and I think it is sad that some of you people do. They are ruthless people whose only desire is to rid the world of infidels....that includes you, JTBB. Yes, you. They want you dead and you want them treated fairly. 
You need to look in the mirror sam, you are guilty of ...sm
exactly what you are accusing the Dems of. Can you not see it? Everything is black and white with you and it seems that you feel you will lose ground in the conflict if you admit anything but total agreement with the republican platform is wrong. Can you not see that? Nothing in life is ever just black or white, good or bad.
The problem is everyone's guilty,
he said, she said, dem said, pub said. What difference does it make? Fix the problem. I don't believe the dems are anymore at fault for this than the pubs. If anything, I blame Bush and not because he's a pub but because he was supposed to be our leader. If he thought this was an issue, why didn't he press it? Oh, because someone told him it wasn't. Since when does he listen to anyone, and especially the dems.
The ad isn't addressing whether or not he was guilty
but rather his poor judgment.
If everyone was guilty by association . . .
how many of us would be guilty? There are and have been plenty of Senators and congresssmen who have (or still do) links to the KKK -- if we knew the actual truth, we would be shocked. The point is, I don't have enough information to be able to make a judgment about Obama's choice of church? We all have at one time or another had a friend or loved one whose lifestyle or morals maybe we did not necessarily agree with, but maybe we knew another side of them that overshadowed the bad side. I don't respect or necessarily like my mother because she is a racist, but I still love her for doing the best she knew how.
If one is guilty by association, then let
any one of you who profess your own guiltlessness please step forward. I just wish you people would find something more constructive to do than continuously harp on a moot point. You're welcome to join your compadre who posted earlier about moving to Australia -- but then, I doubt you would have the funds to do that, since they require major $$ to be deposited into their banks in order to get a green card. And then you would find that they really do not care for Americans very much, and then YOU would be the one discriminated against. I would call that poetic justice.
am I know guilty of blasphemy?
s
The U.S. is guilty of doing the same thing
Our government has played one country against another, supplying gun power to invade/overthrow governments or those in power the US government does not want there, and then when THAT power we put in there becomes too big for their britches and starts using those very weapons to invade/attack other countries or territories THEY don't like, we then go after them, the very ones we put there in the first place.
Ron Paul is correct; we need to stay OUT of everyone's business and let countries govern themselves. Sometimes all we do by interfering is make things worse for the citizens of those countries where things from bad to worse....
We've got to get out of our heads that we have to save the world......not only is that impossible but financially we are bankrupt from doing so.
And how would we know if they're guilty? (sm)
Most haven't even been charged with a crime much less prosecuted. You might want to start listening to the people who were actually there -- our military personell -- who acknowledge that they didn't know who was guilty and who wasn't. They basically just rounded up any and everybody. That's why so many prosecutors walked off the job. Get your facts straight. You're starting to sound like Cheney, and all he's doing right now is trying to save his own butt.
From looking on both boards, both sides are guilty.
,
That's *innocent* until proven guilty...sm
I don't know which way it will go, but when you tell the truth your story never changes - his did over and over and over.
Moral Treason: Who's guilty?
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Senator Robert A. Taft (also known as Mr. Republican), 1941 (after Pearl Harbor): I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government..... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy.... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
Law school 101. Not indicted does not mean not guilty.
I think everyone knows that he had prescriptions from more than a couple of docs.
No one on your side of the fence has answered my question posed above. If MJF had aired an ad against stem cell research, would you have had the same reaction? Would Rush have had the same reaction? I think not. I think you would have applauded him for his courage and his willingness to do such a thing especially in light of the seriousness of his disease. Another question, what do you think about Nancy Reagan and her son Ron being pro stem cell research openly?
Rush will forever be guilty. sm
The amount of hatred the left holds for Rush shows how very powerful he is. He tells it like it is and they can't stand it.
If Bush, etc were not guilty, why do they need a War Crimes Act protection? sm
Why would you need to seek protection if your not ALREADY sure you are guilty?
They must be scared. Could charges be just around the corner? I am going to assume it isn't just about authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, this also about 911/false-flag ops, Wanta's fund and many other charges they are soon to face.
Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty....
you certainly don't think that about George Bush and Dick Cheney, do you? I don't see you asking fellow liberals not to make judgments until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers...? LOL. Ahem. Think the hippocracy is showing there a little bit. I certainly don't think Kam is considering them innocent until proven guilty, nor are any of the rest of you by your posts. I believe she considers them guilty and impeachment a formality. So please stop with the noble innocent until proven guilty and that is the best system. You don't believe it across the board, so don't speechify. It rings hollow.
And what makes you think I have always voted a Republican ticket? I can tell you right now, I have not, especially in congressional races where I think the most difference is made.
There is nothing to say that Ron Paul would not be a great President. I threw his name out there because he is so radically different than any other Republican running and any Democrat running. Would not surprise me if he lost the Repub nomination and ran as an Independent, which would give disgusted folks such as myself and Kam a real alternative. But Kam is not disgusted with politics. She hates George Bush and she would not vote for a Republican no matter WHAT he or she said, she said as much. And that is what is wrong with politics today, as you have stated so many times and accused me of not wanting change because I said I would never vote for a Democrat. I said I would not vote for a pro abortion Democrat if I have an alternate choice, you are right. But, there are pro life Democrats and I have voted for some for congressional seats. And would continue to do so if I felt they were the most qualified person on the ticket. That is the reason I threw his name out. The only thing that goes against him being able to make any meaningful change is that Congress would hamstring him. If we really want change, we need an independent prez AND an independent congress. That won't happen this election cycle. That kind of change will take years. It could start with this one, and I think that is exactly what Pelosi is trying to avoid by not letting an impeachment go forward right now...too much might come out.
I am not victimized. If anyone is victimized it is poor Kam with that virulent hatred for George Bush. It sounds like it consumes every waking moment. Good grief. I go on about my daily life just like anyone else does, and in the grand scheme of things, WHOever is elected President has his/her work cut out for him/her, we all know that. If it is a Democrat, all I know for absolutely sure is my taxes are going to go up and social programs won't be reined in, they will just get money thrown at them, and if that doesn't fix them, we will get more programs. It has happened every time. And if there is anything in this country that needs to be fixed, that's it. That is another priority for me, and yes, my congresspeople could attest to that from the sheaves of paper they have received from me.
If it is a Republican, what happens depends upon which one it is. If it is Guiliani, I don't see much difference in he and most Democrats and I would have to weigh him against whatever Dem gets the nomination. If it is Romney, I think the man can balance the budget and get runaway spending under control, because say what you want about the man, he is a financial genius and the government is the biggest business there is, and frankly it needs to be run like one. So, if he is the nominee, most likely he will get my vote, because I think it is HIGH time that someone starts to run the government like a business and gets runaway spending under control, starting with social programs. That is so broken it screams to be fixed.
If nominee is Thompson, he will get my vote. For many reasons, the most important of which is putting power back in the states that the feds have stolen over the years. States have demonstrated time and time again they administer their affairs much better than when the Feds get into it. And states may be able to put enough pressure on their reps that Congress might actually do something about that, even if there is a Dem majority. One can only hope. Ron Paul believes that too, and I am in agreement with him on that. We certainly don't need as much centralized power in DC as we have right now. I will vote for the man (or woman) I feel most qualified and most closely follows my vision for the country, just like I would hope everyone else does.
Kam is disgusted, but it is more about her healthy hatred for the MAN George Bush, and the MAN Cheney which has nothing to do with politics and one need only read her posts about them to see that. Which is all well and good, and that is her right and I would argue for her right to say so. Her crusade is to punish George Bush and I don't really think that is going to cure what is wrong with politics in this country. If she thinks Obama is the answer, then I would think her time and energy would be better spent trying to get him the nomination and the election rather than crusading to punish someone on his way out anyway. But that is just me.
Yes, a lot of things about politics and about the way this country is going is disheartening. I do the best I can with my vote and working for whatever candidate I choose to support. Since I am not a rich person I sure can't throw much money at campaigns, but I do what I can.
As to the law is the law and innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers...fine. Does that mean if Bush is impeached and not convicted all would be forgiven on the basis of the law is the law? All of you who are calling for his head would go quietly away because he was judged innocent by his "peers?" ROFL. I don't THINK so.
I would agree with you that we the people of America need to change the way politics are played. But before THAT can happen, the minds of Americans have to change. And the way to do that is stop the bitterly partisan way of thinking (ANY party) and if these political boards, and all the political boards and blogs and sites on the internet are ANY indication, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Does not mean I am not a happy person, does not mean I am going to slink into a closet and into a depression if Clinton or Obama become President or Paul or WHOEVER becomes President. Life will go on, the chips will fall, and we shall see what happens. Same thing if Guiliani or Romney or Thompson or whoever is elected. It is what it is. Noble ideas and good intentions are wonderful things. But if our Congress cannot drop partisanship long enough to do what is best for the country (if they even know what that is anymore, or care), then it doesn't matter who is President. And I don't know how we can really expect them to if we as rank and file Americans are unwilling to...what goes around comes around, and around, and around, and around....until someone gets off the merry-go-round and pulls the plug. Someone a lot more important, sadly, than kam, than me, or you, piglet. And for the right reasons. And therein lies the rub.
Remember that song, I Need A Hero? Well...America needs one right about now. :)
TARP, both sides are guilty, but O acts like he had nothing to do with it! nm
Then if Obama is not guilty by association, I guess McCain definitely isn't either sm
Racism goes both ways and you know that!
5 top Gitmo detainees plead guilty, seek martyrdom
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Gitmo_911_suspects_to_plead_guilty/UPI-68631228752620/
Maybe he and his wife were too...
...tired from being forced to move the SECOND time (due to Bush's ignorance regarding Blair house) to listen to any more BS.
What McCain's ex-wife says about him...
"I'm crazy about John McCain and I love him to pieces," Carol McCain told the New York Times, "but I'm just not going to do interviews."
Doesn't sound bitter to me. She forgave him, point is moot.
They all lie! At least he never cheated on his wife.
He's a disgusting womanizing (thinks he's a hottie) pig! He has no respect for women, period, the end. JMHO of course.
Yes, it is Benny Hinn's wife. nm
z
Help the wife. Lock up the rest of us.
All the other democrats you named in similar situations are not running for president in 2008. This guy is not fit to be my leader.
You forgot that scary wife of his...
she is the one to be worried about also. You know she wears the pants in that family!
But it is okay that McCain cheated on his wife.
McCain commits adultery and that makes him a better candidate? I don't think so.
Isn't it a shame that this Messiah stuff is all they can come up for a well spoken American who just happens to be half white and half black. Cut me a break.
This board is awful, just awful. Pubs speak out of both sides of their mouths.
By blatently having dinner with his wife?
x
Refreshing to see he loves his wife, and isn't
And it's about time, too. Out with the old, and in with the new!
YAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!
Well, gee. I think Bush loves his wife too.
nm
I think it is wonderful that he really seems to love this wife that much.....sm
not that spending money on someone is a measure of love, but when they are together, when they interact, when they exchange looks, they look like a deeply committed, loving, happy, devoted, and inspirational couple. Perhaps he just wanted to inspire joy to his wife for his own reasons. Lucky Michelle!
Never hurts to have a senator's wife
Doesn't mean she has to actually DO anything to earn the bucks. She got a great big raise (nearly triple - and still claimed they had trouble paying off their college loans) when he was elected to the senate. I imagine her primary duty at the hospital was simply to be Mrs. Senator Obama, so naturally no one could possibly replace her.
Whenever I see a photo of MO with that huge toothy grin I am reminded of a Kate Hepburn line as Eleanor in Lion in Winter. She describes one of her husband's former mistresses as having prominent teeth, ''She smiled to excess, but chewed with real distinction.''
Bill Clinton also cheated on his wife....
while he was President. It did not seem to affect his ability to run the country.
At least McCain's wife puts her money into
I haven't seen anything on that. I see where she helps her own race. I haven't heard anything about her helping children with health problems like Mrs. McC.
If anyone has any proof that Mrs. O does help others, I'd seriously like to know about it.
McCain's wife is an HEIRESS, remember?
I agree, DH's wife is bitter/naunaw
xxx
Prior military wife myself - know how it works -
x
Regarding his relations with Blago and his crooked wife, not O
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121003232.html?hpid=topnews
Notice the part where he goes out of his way to dampen any speculation about Obama. As usual, you guys are grasping at straws that are not there....AGAIN.
American Muslim beheads wife.....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493645,00.html
Are you okay with police shooting a man who's about to kill his wife?
I'm sure you are, unless you're really as nutz as I think you are.
So...'Splain the difference to me, Lucy! The justification is precisely the same regarding a terrorist who's planning to kill thousands - except MORE SO.
You pathetic boob.
Amanda's been wife of a solder, and then mother to
It *seems* to her the veteran showed disrespect to the flag, but I doubt she can come up with a concrete alternative way for him to have removed that flag, managed it single-handed, while being able to defend himself.
I think when our embassies have been under attack, the folks who took down those flags were probably in as much of a hurry, and I doubt they did anything differently.
Good analogy, by the way, about the grandfather. First you protect the kid, then you dust him off and see whether he's hurt.
As to stomping on the Mexican flag, no, I would not have. The store owners may have flown the two flags as they did out of ignorance, not to show deliberate disrespect. They may not have bothered to familiarize themselves with the law. They may not even speak English, but have now received a valuable lesson, which I hope someone will explain to them. If they are wise, they will learn from it. If not, they will get together several hundred of their closest friends, petition Obama, march, riot, demand ''equality'' now, and be a general pain in the patootie. I would love to see the followup on this....
What kind of man would divorce his wife at a time like this? Oh, never mind...
what am I saying?
The jerk - provided she truly is going through divorce now.
Don't forgot Bernadine Dohrn....Ayers' wife
This lady is just as dangerous as Ayers'. She is one of the Wethermen terrorist and has helped with Obama's fundraisers to boot. O really has some dangerous/sick friends. She has also served on panels with him. He considers her a friend. She also thought the Manson Murders were a good thing!!!
Ayers is a jerk. He & his wife belong in jail.
x
I think Trigger Happy is Either Tech Support's Wife
he/she has adopted to try to talk to him/herself.
I think Trigger Happy is Either Tech Support's Wife
he/she has adopted to try to talk to him/herself.
Or how about leaving your wife who is sick and dying of cancer to run for President
There! Don't sling mud unless your prepared to get it back in the face.
Palin has a loving and caring family that is backing her and taking care of things - and I doubt very much she is "leaving" her baby. Sheesh! Your trying to make it sound like she's dropping her child off on a cold street corner with nobody to take care of them. If your going to go there then you might as well say and what father would leave his 2 young children to run for President.
But why is scrutinizing how he gifts his wife and chldren, with his own money, anyone's business.
I can see scrutinizing his speeches, his proposals, his statements, his appointments. foreign and domestic policies, etc., but even a President deserves a personal life with his family.
And hoping for Bush and his daughters and wife to burn in hell is just kidding right? sm
Just want to get this clear.
|
