OT - Hilarious analysis of Cheney shooting

This is not mine. I cut and pasted from another group:

"I don't really give a rat's patoot either way, but I do enjoy playing
the devil's advocate here, so this is what I've read in the newspapers
and on the net:

First "official" notice that Cheney has been involved in something
newsworthy is 21 hours later, when Armstrong provides account to local
paper. White House says the time was needed to "get the facts
together."

Armstrong gives detailed account:
Cheney's party saw two coveys on the ground, one directly in front of
them, with dogs on point, and the other 100 or so yards to the left.
"The idea was to shoot the first, then for the group to move ahead and
shoot the second covey," After Whittington shot the two birds, he moved
away to look for them. He had trouble locating one, so he told the
group to move ahead. They moved to the second covey, but Whittington
had walked back near the group and was about 30 yards to the right of
the vice president when Cheney fired at birds emerging from the covey.
The sun was behind Whittington, possibly making him difficult to see.
"He got peppered pretty good. He's going to be sore and bruised. But he
was talking and communicating the whole time."

Armstrong then tells Associated Press that she had stayed in the car
until she suddenly saw the Secret Service men running in. "The first
thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem." Whoops. So much
for the detailed eyewitness account.

Initial news report quotes Armstrong as saying people were drinking
beer at lunch, "but remember not everyone in the party was shooting."
Then that paragraph is quietly deleted from the news website (but still
recoverable via Google cache). Armstrong later bolsters her competence
as a non-eyewitness by stating that she herself had not had a beer.
It's like a fifth grade problem for the "fuzzy math" crowd:
You have four people.
Beers were consumed.
Three people were shooting.
The one who wasn't shooting did not drink beer.
Is it possible that none of the shooters had a beer?
If you were the person who was not shooting and did not have a beer and
were an honest person, would you be able to caution the press that,
although there were beers consumed, "remember not everyone in the party
was shooting" without deliberately being misleading?
Would you decide later on it was smarter to delete the whole thing?

After a couple of days of mentioning Cheney and Whittington and a third
hunter, the Third Hunter is revealed to be a woman.

Also after a couple of days of sunny reports from the doctor,
Whittington's "peppered pretty good" is revealed to include a pellet
lodged against his heart which caused a heart attack. Later, he is
revealed to have two more pellets in his larynx and one in his liver,
despite supposedly being shot from 30 feet away, and one assumes
wearing appropriate outdoor clothing (high temperature in Austin Feb.
11 2006: 52 degrees).

Luckily, the Sheriff's Department has already closed the case as a
simple unavoidable accident.

So, really, all the Cheney-haters have to go on is two men out shooting
and having a few beers with a couple of women not their wives, one guy
who ends up shot, the shooter refusing to talk to the Sheriff until the
next morning or to the press until 4 days later, a detailed account of
an unavoidable accident given to the local press 21 hours later by
somebody who did not see it, an evasive but false insinuation that none
of the shooters were drinking which was later deleted, and the doctor
downplaying for days the fact that the injuries were severe enough to
be life-threatening and inconsistent with some of the details of the
official account. That's all. Nothing remotely suspicious, not like,
say, Kerry's war record, or Hillary's involvement in Vince Foster's
death.

That's what's so great about the Bush administration, and Cheney in
particular; even if nothing whatsoever remotely bad happened, they
cover everything up until it looks like the plot of a bad film noir;
because of course they know what they would do with any information
they got about any incident, however innocent, involving their
political opponents, and how their loyal public swallows the Koolaid
without question and asks for more."

In article <jR2Jf.16384$rH5.11484@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:

GIANT SNIP[color=blue]
>
> So, really, all the Cheney-haters have to go on is two men out shooting
> and having a few beers with a couple of women not their wives, one guy
> who ends up shot, the shooter refusing to talk to the Sheriff until the
> next morning or to the press until 4 days later, a detailed account of
> an unavoidable accident given to the local press 21 hours later by
> somebody who did not see it, an evasive but false insinuation that none
> of the shooters were drinking which was later deleted, and the doctor
> downplaying for days the fact that the injuries were severe enough to
> be life-threatening and inconsistent with some of the details of the
> official account. That's all. Nothing remotely suspicious, not like,
> say, Kerry's war record, or Hillary's involvement in Vince Foster's
> death.
>
> That's what's so great about the Bush administration, and Cheney in
> particular; even if nothing whatsoever remotely bad happened, they
> cover everything up until it looks like the plot of a bad film noir;
> because of course they know what they would do with any information
> they got about any incident, however innocent, involving their
> political opponents, and how their loyal public swallows the Koolaid
> without question and asks for more."[/color]

Isn't this all about Cheney's "personal life"?

I thought what we learned from Monicagate is that "his personal life
doesn't matter." Both involved shots to the facial area. The only
difference is that Cheney's was accidental.



Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize the
difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
Cheney does in a Texas field?

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:13:33 -0500, Sean Elkins
<sean_elkins@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <jR2Jf.16384$rH5.11484@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>GIANT SNIP[color=green]
>>
>> So, really, all the Cheney-haters have to go on is two men out shooting
>> and having a few beers with a couple of women not their wives, one guy
>> who ends up shot, the shooter refusing to talk to the Sheriff until the
>> next morning or to the press until 4 days later, a detailed account of
>> an unavoidable accident given to the local press 21 hours later by
>> somebody who did not see it, an evasive but false insinuation that none
>> of the shooters were drinking which was later deleted, and the doctor
>> downplaying for days the fact that the injuries were severe enough to
>> be life-threatening and inconsistent with some of the details of the
>> official account. That's all. Nothing remotely suspicious, not like,
>> say, Kerry's war record, or Hillary's involvement in Vince Foster's
>> death.
>>
>> That's what's so great about the Bush administration, and Cheney in
>> particular; even if nothing whatsoever remotely bad happened, they
>> cover everything up until it looks like the plot of a bad film noir;
>> because of course they know what they would do with any information
>> they got about any incident, however innocent, involving their
>> political opponents, and how their loyal public swallows the Koolaid
>> without question and asks for more."[/color]
>
>Isn't this all about Cheney's "personal life"?
>
>I thought what we learned from Monicagate is that "his personal life
>doesn't matter." Both involved shots to the facial area. The only
>difference is that Cheney's was accidental.
>
>
>
>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize the
>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>Cheney does in a Texas field?[/color]

Excellent....

Would it be a double standard? <g>

--

Scott in Florida

Dumb analysis. Everyone was pissed about Clinton oval office sex and lying
about it. The only division was whether it was worth impeaching him over
it. When people start talking about impeaching Cheney because he shot the
guy, than you might have something to bitch about.


"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote in message
news:vj6av1hf98shddm274fif67hn53oth9kid@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:13:33 -0500, Sean Elkins
> <sean_elkins@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>In article <jR2Jf.16384$rH5.11484@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>GIANT SNIP[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> So, really, all the Cheney-haters have to go on is two men out shooting
>>> and having a few beers with a couple of women not their wives, one guy
>>> who ends up shot, the shooter refusing to talk to the Sheriff until the
>>> next morning or to the press until 4 days later, a detailed account of
>>> an unavoidable accident given to the local press 21 hours later by
>>> somebody who did not see it, an evasive but false insinuation that none
>>> of the shooters were drinking which was later deleted, and the doctor
>>> downplaying for days the fact that the injuries were severe enough to
>>> be life-threatening and inconsistent with some of the details of the
>>> official account. That's all. Nothing remotely suspicious, not like,
>>> say, Kerry's war record, or Hillary's involvement in Vince Foster's
>>> death.
>>>
>>> That's what's so great about the Bush administration, and Cheney in
>>> particular; even if nothing whatsoever remotely bad happened, they
>>> cover everything up until it looks like the plot of a bad film noir;
>>> because of course they know what they would do with any information
>>> they got about any incident, however innocent, involving their
>>> political opponents, and how their loyal public swallows the Koolaid
>>> without question and asks for more."[/color]
>>
>>Isn't this all about Cheney's "personal life"?
>>
>>I thought what we learned from Monicagate is that "his personal life
>>doesn't matter." Both involved shots to the facial area. The only
>>difference is that Cheney's was accidental.
>>
>>
>>
>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize the
>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>>Cheney does in a Texas field?[/color]
>
> Excellent....
>
> Would it be a double standard? <g>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:5jaJf.12691$Nv2.9336@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Dumb analysis. Everyone was pissed about Clinton oval office sex and
> lying about it. The only division was whether it was worth impeaching him
> over it. When people start talking about impeaching Cheney because he
> shot the guy, than you might have something to bitch about.
>[/color]

Clinton did not just lie about it, he committed perjury under oath, and was
disbarred by an Arkansas judge for the crime.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:13:21 GMT, "Art"
<begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>The only division was whether it was worth impeaching him over
>it.[/color]

Clinton was not impeached over sex.

Clinton was impeached for lying....

--

Scott in Florida

Look here
[url]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060216_cheney_sherriff_report.pdf[/url]

mike hunt


"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote in message
news:vj6av1hf98shddm274fif67hn53oth9kid@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:13:33 -0500, Sean Elkins
> <sean_elkins@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>In article <jR2Jf.16384$rH5.11484@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>GIANT SNIP[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> So, really, all the Cheney-haters have to go on is two men out shooting
>>> and having a few beers with a couple of women not their wives, one guy
>>> who ends up shot, the shooter refusing to talk to the Sheriff until the
>>> next morning or to the press until 4 days later, a detailed account of
>>> an unavoidable accident given to the local press 21 hours later by
>>> somebody who did not see it, an evasive but false insinuation that none
>>> of the shooters were drinking which was later deleted, and the doctor
>>> downplaying for days the fact that the injuries were severe enough to
>>> be life-threatening and inconsistent with some of the details of the
>>> official account. That's all. Nothing remotely suspicious, not like,
>>> say, Kerry's war record, or Hillary's involvement in Vince Foster's
>>> death.
>>>
>>> That's what's so great about the Bush administration, and Cheney in
>>> particular; even if nothing whatsoever remotely bad happened, they
>>> cover everything up until it looks like the plot of a bad film noir;
>>> because of course they know what they would do with any information
>>> they got about any incident, however innocent, involving their
>>> political opponents, and how their loyal public swallows the Koolaid
>>> without question and asks for more."[/color]
>>
>>Isn't this all about Cheney's "personal life"?
>>
>>I thought what we learned from Monicagate is that "his personal life
>>doesn't matter." Both involved shots to the facial area. The only
>>difference is that Cheney's was accidental.
>>
>>
>>
>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize the
>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>>Cheney does in a Texas field?[/color]
>
> Excellent....
>
> Would it be a double standard? <g>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

Some folk are always trying to rewrite history. The impeachment of
President Clinton, himself a lawyer, was not for having sex on the job, that
charge was not part of the indictment. It was for the criminal offence of
lying under oath to federal investigators. Perjury is a 'high crime' and
certainly more than a 'misdemeanor' for which an elected official can be
charged. The only 'politics' involves was those Senators that voted not to
remove him from office, in spite of the evidence presented before them that
he did in fact commit perjury and had belatedly admitted to the world on TV
that he did in fact commit perjury.


mike hunt


"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:5jaJf.12691$Nv2.9336@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Dumb analysis. Everyone was pissed about Clinton oval office sex and
> lying about it. The only division was whether it was worth impeaching him
> over it. When people start talking about impeaching Cheney because he
> shot the guy, than you might have something to bitch about.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize the
>>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>>>Cheney does in a Texas field?[/color]
>>
>> Excellent....
>>
>> Would it be a double standard? <g>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida[/color]
>
>[/color]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:11:20 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Look here
>[url]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060216_cheney_sherriff_report.pdf[/url]
>
>mike hunt[/color]

Very interesting!

I entered the GPS coordinates in a program to see exactly where
Cheney bagged a lawyer...

[color=blue]
>
>
>"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote in message
>news:vj6av1hf98shddm274fif67hn53oth9kid@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:13:33 -0500, Sean Elkins
>> <sean_elkins@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>In article <jR2Jf.16384$rH5.11484@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>GIANT SNIP
>>>>
>>>> So, really, all the Cheney-haters have to go on is two men out shooting
>>>> and having a few beers with a couple of women not their wives, one guy
>>>> who ends up shot, the shooter refusing to talk to the Sheriff until the
>>>> next morning or to the press until 4 days later, a detailed account of
>>>> an unavoidable accident given to the local press 21 hours later by
>>>> somebody who did not see it, an evasive but false insinuation that none
>>>> of the shooters were drinking which was later deleted, and the doctor
>>>> downplaying for days the fact that the injuries were severe enough to
>>>> be life-threatening and inconsistent with some of the details of the
>>>> official account. That's all. Nothing remotely suspicious, not like,
>>>> say, Kerry's war record, or Hillary's involvement in Vince Foster's
>>>> death.
>>>>
>>>> That's what's so great about the Bush administration, and Cheney in
>>>> particular; even if nothing whatsoever remotely bad happened, they
>>>> cover everything up until it looks like the plot of a bad film noir;
>>>> because of course they know what they would do with any information
>>>> they got about any incident, however innocent, involving their
>>>> political opponents, and how their loyal public swallows the Koolaid
>>>> without question and asks for more."
>>>
>>>Isn't this all about Cheney's "personal life"?
>>>
>>>I thought what we learned from Monicagate is that "his personal life
>>>doesn't matter." Both involved shots to the facial area. The only
>>>difference is that Cheney's was accidental.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize the
>>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>>>Cheney does in a Texas field?[/color]
>>
>> Excellent....
>>
>> Would it be a double standard? <g>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida[/color]
>[/color]
--

Scott in Florida

Yes Scott, that is what I said:

"oval office sex and lying
about it"


"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote in message
news:bfhav1prbgssfsbkeu2qc8kmpa18tn8lkl@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:13:21 GMT, "Art"
> <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>The only division was whether it was worth impeaching him over
>>it.[/color]
>
> Clinton was not impeached over sex.
>
> Clinton was impeached for lying....
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

No re-write. As I quoted again for Scott, I wrote:

"oval office sex and lying
about it"

Maybe the problem with you right wingers is that you cannot read.


"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:xO2cnSxNIdFXZ2jeUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Some folk are always trying to rewrite history. The impeachment of
> President Clinton, himself a lawyer, was not for having sex on the job,
> that charge was not part of the indictment. It was for the criminal
> offence of lying under oath to federal investigators. Perjury is a 'high
> crime' and certainly more than a 'misdemeanor' for which an elected
> official can be charged. The only 'politics' involves was those Senators
> that voted not to remove him from office, in spite of the evidence
> presented before them that he did in fact commit perjury and had belatedly
> admitted to the world on TV that he did in fact commit perjury.
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:5jaJf.12691$Nv2.9336@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=green]
>> Dumb analysis. Everyone was pissed about Clinton oval office sex and
>> lying about it. The only division was whether it was worth impeaching
>> him over it. When people start talking about impeaching Cheney because
>> he shot the guy, than you might have something to bitch about.[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>>>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>>>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>>>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize the
>>>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>>>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>>>>Cheney does in a Texas field?
>>>
>>> Excellent....
>>>
>>> Would it be a double standard? <g>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Scott in Florida[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Yes re-write. That is what the Clinton supporters wanted you to believe,
that is was only about sex in the ORAL office. It was the perjury in the
Pauly Jones case. The impeachment had nothing to do with Lewinsky.



mike hunt


"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:L6pJf.227$5M6.141@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> No re-write. As I quoted again for Scott, I wrote:
>
> "oval office sex and lying
> about it"
>
> Maybe the problem with you right wingers is that you cannot read.
>
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:xO2cnSxNIdFXZ2jeUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
>> Some folk are always trying to rewrite history. The impeachment of
>> President Clinton, himself a lawyer, was not for having sex on the job,
>> that charge was not part of the indictment. It was for the criminal
>> offence of lying under oath to federal investigators. Perjury is a 'high
>> crime' and certainly more than a 'misdemeanor' for which an elected
>> official can be charged. The only 'politics' involves was those Senators
>> that voted not to remove him from office, in spite of the evidence
>> presented before them that he did in fact commit perjury and had
>> belatedly admitted to the world on TV that he did in fact commit perjury.
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:5jaJf.12691$Nv2.9336@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=darkred]
>>> Dumb analysis. Everyone was pissed about Clinton oval office sex and
>>> lying about it. The only division was whether it was worth impeaching
>>> him over it. When people start talking about impeaching Cheney because
>>> he shot the guy, than you might have something to bitch about.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>>>>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>>>>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>>>>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize
>>>>>the
>>>>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>>>>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>>>>>Cheney does in a Texas field?
>>>>
>>>> Excellent....
>>>>
>>>> Would it be a double standard? <g>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Lying under oath about sex is lying under oath about sex. Sorry if my
location was incorrect.


"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:T5idnWtjC-GGrWveUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Yes re-write. That is what the Clinton supporters wanted you to believe,
> that is was only about sex in the ORAL office. It was the perjury in the
> Pauly Jones case. The impeachment had nothing to do with Lewinsky.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:L6pJf.227$5M6.141@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=green]
>> No re-write. As I quoted again for Scott, I wrote:
>>
>> "oval office sex and lying
>> about it"
>>
>> Maybe the problem with you right wingers is that you cannot read.
>>
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:xO2cnSxNIdFXZ2jeUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=darkred]
>>> Some folk are always trying to rewrite history. The impeachment of
>>> President Clinton, himself a lawyer, was not for having sex on the job,
>>> that charge was not part of the indictment. It was for the criminal
>>> offence of lying under oath to federal investigators. Perjury is a
>>> 'high crime' and certainly more than a 'misdemeanor' for which an
>>> elected official can be charged. The only 'politics' involves was those
>>> Senators that voted not to remove him from office, in spite of the
>>> evidence presented before them that he did in fact commit perjury and
>>> had belatedly admitted to the world on TV that he did in fact commit
>>> perjury.
>>>
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5jaJf.12691$Nv2.9336@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>> Dumb analysis. Everyone was pissed about Clinton oval office sex and
>>>> lying about it. The only division was whether it was worth impeaching
>>>> him over it. When people start talking about impeaching Cheney because
>>>> he shot the guy, than you might have something to bitch about.
>>>
>>>>>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
>>>>>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
>>>>>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
>>>>>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
>>>>>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
>>>>>>Cheney does in a Texas field?
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent....
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be a double standard? <g>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

In article <3drJf.13042$Nv2.11584@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Lying under oath about sex is lying under oath about sex. Sorry if my
> location was incorrect.[/color]

Clintoon perjured himself. It is a felony. He's lucky he did not have
to serve time like others who committed the same crime.

"perjury
noun
she was found guilty of perjury lying under oath, giving false
evidence/testimony, making false statements, willful falsehood."

Art, it does not matter what the subject of the perjury was, sex,
illegal stock transactions or insider trading then lying about it under
oath, ect. Perjury is a crime.

Hope this helps.




[color=blue]
>
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:T5idnWtjC-GGrWveUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
> > Yes re-write. That is what the Clinton supporters wanted you to believe,
> > that is was only about sex in the ORAL office. It was the perjury in the
> > Pauly Jones case. The impeachment had nothing to do with Lewinsky.
> >
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> >
> > "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:L6pJf.227$5M6.141@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=darkred]
> >> No re-write. As I quoted again for Scott, I wrote:
> >>
> >> "oval office sex and lying
> >> about it"
> >>
> >> Maybe the problem with you right wingers is that you cannot read.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >> news:xO2cnSxNIdFXZ2jeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> >>> Some folk are always trying to rewrite history. The impeachment of
> >>> President Clinton, himself a lawyer, was not for having sex on the job,
> >>> that charge was not part of the indictment. It was for the criminal
> >>> offence of lying under oath to federal investigators. Perjury is a
> >>> 'high crime' and certainly more than a 'misdemeanor' for which an
> >>> elected official can be charged. The only 'politics' involves was those
> >>> Senators that voted not to remove him from office, in spite of the
> >>> evidence presented before them that he did in fact commit perjury and
> >>> had belatedly admitted to the world on TV that he did in fact commit
> >>> perjury.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> mike hunt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:5jaJf.12691$Nv2.9336@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>>> Dumb analysis. Everyone was pissed about Clinton oval office sex and
> >>>> lying about it. The only division was whether it was worth impeaching
> >>>> him over it. When people start talking about impeaching Cheney because
> >>>> he shot the guy, than you might have something to bitch about.
> >>>
> >>>>>>Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
> >>>>>>country? Isn't that the line we heard so many times after Monicagate?
> >>>>>>BTW, this is a rhetorical question because someone was actually
> >>>>>>physically injured, versus just being humiliated for life. I realize
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>difference, but I do seriously ask why we aren't supposed to care what
> >>>>>>HillBilly does in the Oral Office while we are supposed to care what
> >>>>>>Cheney does in a Texas field?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Excellent....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would it be a double standard? <g>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Scott in Florida
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >
> >[/color][/color]
--
"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."

Al Gore

"Sean Elkins" <sean_elkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sean_elkins-FC627B.19133316022006@news.iglou.com...[color=blue]
> In article <jR2Jf.16384$rH5.11484@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>[/color]
[color=blue]
>
>
> Why should this be news----it doesn't impact his ability to run the
> country??[/color]

The accident itself is not the issue. The way he handled it is the issue
because raises serious questions about his honesty and integrity. Those are
two things that do have an effect on his ability to run the country. Those
questions should be addressed closely, just as Clinton's lying about his
affair with Monica should have been addressed. In reality, shooting a man
and then trying to hide it will slide off Cheney's back just as having an
affair and lying to the American people about it slid off Clinton's.

And in both cases, the public will be entertained and distracted from issues
that really matter.