Re: [privacy] We'll likely *never* get to the bottom of this...

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 5/24/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:

> > Well, another problem we will have is Clinton proved that lying is not
> > an impeachable offence, right?
> >
> > Or is it lying about a BJ is not an impeachable offence?
>
> I find it a constant source of amazement that Americans don't know that
> the impeachable offence was lying under oath to Congress.

Don't lump all of us into that category... the meaning of "is" had
nothing to do with sex.

> > And look how well that turned out ;-)
>
> Except that wasn't the "because".
>
> The "because" was that the Coalition's war objective was to get the Iraqis
> out of Kuwait, not to take over Iraq. If we'd gone on to invade Baghdad,
> the Saudis would have been upset, and with the Saudi boot on the American
> neck, that can't be allowed to happen.

Well said, except that I don't see Saudi with their boot on our necks.
We have less dependency on the middle east for oil than anyone
involved in the coalition - then and now. Now, we do have bases over
there which are pretty important to us but they're pretty important to
them as well.
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy