Michael Baier wrote:
> what is not Bill Clinton's fault?
I assume that this in disingenuous, that you are not in fact asking what is
not Bill Clinton's fault, because you are at a loss to think of anything
that is not, and hope that someone else will think of something, anything,
that has happened in the past ten years that is not his fault. Rather, you
think that conservatives point back to each of our current problems as
having started in Bill Clinton's presidency, which I would grant is close to
the truth. In fact, I am surprised not to have read anyone making a
dishonesty connection between fraudulent corporate accounting practices and
the perjury of the previous administration. If the chief executive can lie
about what "is" and "is not", what harm is there in more trivial C-level
executives having the auditors squeeze a few numbers out of one quarter and
into another?

Take a look at <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/>, "Osama bin Laden:
missed opportunities". I would like to think that the facts as given speak
for themselves. But I suspect that the two sides of the aisle no longer
agree on what the facts are, to the point that conversation is almost
meaningless. Nevertheless, the article seems telling. Note, today's shorter
article at <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549030/> asks "What could the Bush
administration have done to get bin Laden?", and is also worth reading.

Greg Stigers, MCSA
this space for rent

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *