's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Here's a conspiracy theory for ya' :O)(13 posts)

Here's a conspiracy theory for ya' :O)Live Steam
Jun 11, 2003 10:11 AM
The airwaves and papers are full of how well Hillary's book sales are doing - how it set record sales for a non-fiction on the first day and all. I am willing to bet, though I am sure it can't be proven, that her Hollywood clingons like Streisand and Harvey Weinstein, and the DNC have bought most of the 200,000 copies to prop up Miss Hillary's ego and further here Presidential aspirations. Who would want to read that piece of trash? I also call into question the classification of "non-fiction" for this book :O)
another question.....ClydeTri
Jun 11, 2003 10:33 AM
Remember Newt Gringich catching holy hell for signing a book deal for several million, but much less than Hillary. He ended up reworking the deal and taking much less money..why no outcry about this in relation to Hillary?
another question.....Me Dot Org
Jun 11, 2003 11:31 AM
Gingrich's book deal was with Rupert Murdock for 4.5 million. A week after he signed the deal, Gingrich met with Murdock, and Murdock's legislative lobbyist. Murdock's Fox network was being hassled by NBC at the time, claiming that Fox was foreign-owned, which is against the law.

So it wasn't just the size of the advance, it was the appearance of quid pro quo.
Making stuff up... it never ends nmPdxMark
Jun 11, 2003 4:49 PM
Well that's the Clintons for you. They never could ....Live Steam
Jun 11, 2003 8:22 PM
tell the truth.
I was talking about you...PdxMark
Jun 11, 2003 9:18 PM
with candor seemingly such a cherished principle for you, I marvel that you seldom let facts or reality cloud your opinions. Instead of Hollywood stars buying up books, maybe it was the space aliens who took the Iraqi WMDs? You see, both options have the same basis in fact. None.
Really? :O)Live Steam
Jun 12, 2003 6:11 AM
Maybe no one took the WMD and they are still there, or maybe they have been sold on the black market like so much of the Iraqi military machine has been doing. The icing on the cake for conservatives who believe that this was a justified action will be when they are found and the Dumocrats/liberals will have to eat crow :O) It will probably be sometime further into the next election cycle after everyone has publicly stated a position on them :O)

Where were you when Clint and Daschle were screaming about WMD in Iraq? They certainly were convinced they existed. Do your own DD for that one. What happened to these WMD? Saddam should have proven they were destroyed or are you willing to take the word of a homicidal maniac?

This is just a lot of hot air being expelled by over-bloated Dumocrats who know their goose is cooked. They have no platform to run on. They have no policy on national defense and homeland security and they have no plan on domestic policy. Well maybe I should correct myself - they have no plans for these issues that the American people want to hear or believe is worthy of their votes. Don't be surprised when both the House and Senate become more Republican during this next election cycle. All the Dumocrats can do is cry wolf about WMD to distract those willing to listen, from realizing they have no agenda.
Really? :O)MJ
Jun 12, 2003 6:52 AM
GWB said WMD were in Iraq - no WMD's have been found in Iraq - the US Army has run out of places to even look for them

someone is lying and it isn't Clinton about a blowjob - it's GWB about grounds for a war - if this doesn't concern you I honestly don't know what will...
Where did the weapons go?Live Steam
Jun 12, 2003 7:16 AM
Al of you said before the war that Reagan/Bush had supplied him with them. Clinton, Daschle and even the French acknowledged that he had them at one time - even as recently as '99 - '00 as Clinton was trying to get the go ahead to increase our air strikes on military targets within Iraq. Where did the weapons go? Who has them and where are they hidden. Saddam did not provide any evidence at all of how he disposed of them. Isn't it reasonable to believe that a homicidal maniac is hiding the truth and has secreted them somewhere? I thought all the anti-war protestors said that "it is a large country and they had plenty of time to hide them". Did the country suddenly get smaller? My guess is that a few things happened to them. Some where hidden. Some were transferred out of the country like the Mig jets in GW1. Some were sold by Saddam and some were stolen by insiders and are being sold on the black market. Does any of this sound more reasonable than there aren't any? They did exist. Where did they go? anyone who wants to attack the administration over this is just showing their colors. A reasonable person would have to admit that the scenarios I outlined are the plausible reason they have not yet been located.
Where did the weapons go?MJ
Jun 12, 2003 7:33 AM
I disagree with your "plausible" scenarios - I think the real reason we haven't found any is that they aren't there -it's more "plausible" that SH was just being stubborn...

anyways - how long are you willing to give GWB the benefit of the doubt on this? - at what point will you feel you were lied to re WMD's? another week, month year, decade, never?

the war was fought with the support of marginal/swing people like me who said - "SH may have WMD's - GWB and Blair seem pretty certain - they must have reliable info. - satellites, spies etc that they just can't reveal for justifiable security reasons - I'm willing to allow this to happen with my consent if there is a legitimate threat"

what's gonna happen next time they start banging the drum about a real and immediate threat due to WMD's?

have you read "the boy who cried wolf"?

do you seriously think that everyone who expects an answer on this is a commie pinko seeking to defame Bush's good intentions and leadership? don't you think there's a real issue to be answered here?

sure I admit that your conspiracy theory about the 'Hollywood elite' buying Hillary's book is a more legitimate question than executive lies concerning the grounds for war
Really? :O)filtersweep
Jun 12, 2003 8:14 AM
It isn't the Dems but rather the foreign press that started pushing the charges. UK media sources greased the wheel for the domestic US press to sound off about the issue (once the genie was out of the bottle).

You can believe the ends justify the means all you want, but the PRINCIPLE is one that does affect US credibility abroad. It is a legitimate issue, regardless of the political implications.

Not everything is liberal vs. conservative or Dem vs. Rep.
I hear you. I would just like to know ...Live Steam
Jun 13, 2003 6:39 AM
why the same press was demanding more time for inspections, citing a small cache in a large country, yet that same principal doesn't apply here. I am guessing it is more sensationalism than conviction. They need to sell the news.

As for US credibility, only history will determine that. Since the unification of the European currencies, and with the dollar lagging behind, our overseas cousins have been feeling mighty emboldened - enough so to dishonor longstanding alliances such as NATO. Let's see who they trust in a time of need.
I hear you. I would just like to know ...wilki5
Jun 17, 2003 2:16 PM
Nobody "dishonoured NATO" as you claim. The US decided to go to war on their own without direct threat and the French ultimately backed the protection of Turkey who is a NATO member.

If Bush would actually attempt to stimulate the US economy instead of using a war as a smoke screen the US dollar would be doing just fine compared to the Euro. But war has alway been a great distraction from home problems such as a low dollar, sluggish economy and numerous layoffs.