I don't think its point of view or that of its detractors is entirely accurate. There's too many ill-advised attempts at vanquishing here.
Yeah, I'm sure he's about as much a democrat as you are an independent.....and the fact that you guys posted this shows about how effective the mainstream media was at giving people a factual background The funniest thing is that this Hamilton McWhorter guy always appears as the author of thesse joke e-mails, like the infamous "Gold star mothers" bogus email the e-mail: http://members.aol.com/wsa1933/news/goldstar.htm the debunking: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/goldstar.asp Edit, and he also shows up as the author of the "Bill Clinton is a convicted Felon" urban legend e-mail: the e-mail: http://dalesdesigns.net/klinton.html the debunking: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp Absurd. The sad thing is that people get taken by this.
He's a she; I've never voted with her. I never claimed to be anything but a registered Republican. This is a small thing. It's an email-- one of the hundreds I get daily. it's not the be-all, end-all of anything. It is a perspective and that is all. Is anyone else not overwhelmed by the rebuttal to it? I imagine that the truth is somewhere inbetween.
Giddyup, if its a small thing, than just admit that you got taken and learn from it. The truth isn't in between, the crap that was in the email was demonstrably false. I suggest you just let this thing sink to the bottom rather than keep bumping it to try to save face; We're talking about Snopes.com here; this email has about as much validity as a story about a bird living ina woman's beehive hairdo or a Kentucky Fried Rat. Just concede for once.
What in the email exactly is false? Or do you just think it is just a short-sighted cheap shot? Bush has carried on and extended the prosecution of virtually every one of those matters (only natural given that he succeeded Clinton) and is in office post-9/11. Is it really incorrect to say that he "covered it?"
Did you actually read the snopes article? It knocks them out in chronological order. Plus the fact that it has the big red FALSE at the top usually helps.
Yeah, the big red "FALSE" at the top of the page, coupled with the point by point refutation, cited to various sources, is a pretty dead giveaway. If you can't see what's dishonest about it (and "Hamilton McWhorter's" previous e-mails, which I identified for you) then you are trying not to. In other news, I heard this crazy story the other day, I wonder what's false about it? anything?
I read it. Of the six events (WTC, Riyadh, Khobar, Kenya, Tanzania, and Yemen) the US only arrested and prosecuted 9 of 26 suspects. Fourteen are still being sought. 3 are being held by the British. These are only from the WTC basement bombing of 1993 and the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. This is "knocking the (allegations) out?" Excuse me if I am underwhelmed. Seems like Bush is "covering it." If Gore had been elected President, he would be "covering it." I'm still awaiting clarification as to exactly what is false about the original email. You may not like its intent but that doesn't make it FALSE, does it?
I agree; Also giddyup, stay away from licking envelopes, unless y ou want cockroach eggs to get implanted in your tongue. And don't stick your arm in a New York City storm drain-- Alligators, you know. Also, if you're ever in Australia, and you see a kangaroo wearing a jacket, try to get the jacket because the jacket has like 75,000 dollars in cash in it!
If you think you can avoid answering my question by ridiculing me, you're right.... but it won't answer my question. Same goes for you, Sam.
You don't want your questions answered, you want to turn this into a pissing match to try to distract and then somehow absolve yourself from looking like a rube for posting this. Keep up the good work.
So you can't or won't answer the question, "What exactly is false in the original email?" Which is it?
Well, at least he's been well-trained. He used to roll around in it. "What the hell? I've told you a thousand times not to do that! Bad dog! And Dick just bathed you too!"
So you can't or won't answer the question, "What exactly is false in the original email?" Which is it? What would be false is all of it. It says "BUSH COVERED IT", and yet, the person responsible for all of those things (Osama) has not been caught or punished. Therefore, Bush *hasn't* covered it, and the entire thing is a pile of crap. He might be trying and doing the best job possible, but no means have we tracked down and held responsible the people who did all those things.
False. The people responsible were arrested, tried, and punished. Clinton covered it. I believe it was the Saudis who covered this. I could be mistaking it with the Khobar Towers bombing. Or maybe the Saudis covered both of them. Really, the last I heard Osama Bin Laden was still free and still heading the terrorist organization responsible. This post is factually lacking. Or perhaps if Bush would have listened to the recommendations by the committee that Clinton set up, it wouldn't have happened. First of all I'm not sure the figures are correct that Bill Clinton did spend more on Bill Gates, but that's mostly irrelevant. If you have someone who's broken the law and you are investigating and trying them, then naturally you would spend the money to see that the proper evidence is found, and that the trial is conducted properly. IT doesn't matter that the person also gave money to charity. Or should only some people be held responsible when breaking the law, and others not have to worry about it? THINK ABOUT IT! It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath! Sincerely, Cmdr Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret) P. S. Please forward. [/B][/QUOTE] Actually Bill and Hilary haven't reall said that they can't recall too much. I think he's confusing Iran/Contra with Whitewater. He would be better off saying that Clinton lied about what happened rather than saying Clinton claimed he couldn't recall.
What's covered is "the promise." As I said, that is largely due to the natural course of events, especially the passage of time. The import of the letter is not that Bush is taking "credit" for fulfilling these promises, but that he is being criticized roundly by the Democrats particularly for doing so.
