Re: Bush on WMD: None so blind as those who would not see

[nobody]

Jeff Jones wrote:
> This is hilarious coming from a supporter of a president who should have a
> placard reading "The Buck Stops Anywhere But Here" sitting on his desk.
>
> "It's the Cia's fault! It's the CIA's fault! It's the CIA's fault!
> ad.naseum

But when you setup the whole scheme with deniability, this will all work. Bush
says he just reported what he was told.

CIA blames NSA. NSA blames the defense intelligence unit. In the end, all
fingers will point at Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney axis of evil who would have
manipulated Bush jr.

By then, Bush Jr is re-elected and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz will have retired.
Cheney will have had a heart attack and been replaced. So Bush will come out
of it squeeky clean and won't be impeached since the real culprits will have
left the white house.

Remember that folks like Karl Rove had planned for this all along.

[George Z. Bush]

Kal Alexander wrote:
> james_anatidae wrote:
>> "Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> schumy wrote:
>>>> JimLane > wrote in message
>>>> >...
>>>>> Oelewapper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When it came to acting on intelligence about Iraq, there were none
>>>>>> so blind
>>>>>> as those who would not see
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the spooks are supposed to fall on their swords. In Washington
>>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh my, another mental midget without the ability to think for
>>>>> himself,
>>>>> so all he can do is cut and paste words from his betters. Not an
>>>>> original thought capable person, all he can do is vomit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jim
>>>>
>>>> Typical insightful comebacks from asswipe Right Wingers who simply
>>>> cannot defend his behavior since he's taken office.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, vote for him again... or why not just hang yourselves.
>>>
>>> Yeah, not like your insightful and well thought out response.
>>>
>> All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off
>> than you were four years ago?
>
> Me personally? Yes, I am.
>
> And this proves absolutely nothing, btw.

If the question had been "is the country better off than it was four years
ago?", I don't believe anybody in his right mind could say "yes", IMHO.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:bsgTb.207595$na.340092@attbi_s04...
> >
>> During the Bush Boom, the economy has managed to lose 3 million jobs.
>>
>
> An economy that doesn't lose jobs is a stagnant economy.

Wrong. It's the economy that doesn't replace lost jobs that's the stagnant
economy. 3 million and still waiting says that that's the current economy.

[George Z. Bush]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> "james_anatidae" > wrote:
>
>>>
>> All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you
>> were four years ago?
>
> Yes.

You're one of the lucky minority, I guess. How about the rest of the country,
like the out of work guys who not only can't find jobs, but are running out of
unemployment benefits? There are three million of them, and their
families.....are they better off?

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong. It's the economy that doesn't replace lost jobs that's the
stagnant
> economy. 3 million and still waiting says that that's the current
economy.
>

Wrong. An economy that doesn't replace lost jobs is a declining economy.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Wrong. It's the economy that doesn't replace lost jobs that's the stagnant
>> economy. 3 million and still waiting says that that's the current economy.
>>
>
> Wrong. An economy that doesn't replace lost jobs is a declining economy.

Au contraire, it is you who are wrong. My dictionary says that "stagnant" is
defined as "not flowing or moving". An economy that has failed to replace three
million lost jobs is therefore, by definition, not moving or inert, and
therefore could be called "stagnant".

It still sucks, by whatever name you want to call it in the hopes that we'll get
into a big hoo haa
over its title rather than its smell. Declining or stagnant, it's no feather in
your hero's cap.

So there.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Au contraire, it is you who are wrong. My dictionary says that "stagnant"
is
> defined as "not flowing or moving".
>

So what you're saying is the US has lost 3 million jobs without affecting
the economy.


>
> It still sucks, by whatever name you want to call it in the hopes that
we'll get
> into a big hoo haa
> over its title rather than its smell. Declining or stagnant, it's no
feather in
> your hero's cap.
>

My hero? Who would that be?

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Au contraire, it is you who are wrong. My dictionary says that "stagnant"
> is
> > defined as "not flowing or moving".
> >
>
> So what you're saying is the US has lost 3 million jobs without affecting
> the economy.

Nope. Just try reading what I said without translating it into something else.
I'm sure I used simple enough English that would tax anybody's abilities. Go
back and read it again.
>
>
> >
> > It still sucks, by whatever name you want to call it in the hopes that
> we'll get
> > into a big hoo haa
> > over its title rather than its smell. Declining or stagnant, it's no
> feather in
> > your hero's cap.
> >
>
> My hero? Who would that be?
>
> GWB.

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Oh yeah, blame Clinton.
> >
> > Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.
> >
>
> Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?

Not hardly. He was relying on the same faulty intelligence data that was given
to his successor. The only difference between the two of them is that he chose
not to launch a full scale war over what he thought was an accurate assessment
of the situation.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nope. Just try reading what I said without translating it into something
else.
> I'm sure I used simple enough English that would tax anybody's abilities.
Go
> back and read it again.
>

Okie dokie. Let's see, looks like it still says, "My dictionary says that
'stagnant' is
defined as 'not flowing or moving'." Well, "not flowing or moving" means it
isn't going up or down.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not hardly. He was relying on the same faulty intelligence data that was
given
> to his successor. The only difference between the two of them is that he
chose
> not to launch a full scale war over what he thought was an accurate
assessment
> of the situation.
>

So George Bush wasn't lying about WMD either?

[George Z. Bush]

Chris wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Chris" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>
>>> Yes and Dumbya fell for it
>>>
>>
>> So it's Clinton's fault?
>
> I hope Dumbya says that in one of the debates. Game -Set-Match

He just might. Can you remember when he last accepted responsibility for
anything?

[Dick Locke]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:55:07 GMT, "mondaymorning"
> wrote:

>As I remember, Everyone thought there were WMD's. If anyone lied it was
>Sadam

Did Saddam claim to have WMD's past, say 1998? I don't recall that,
but if the answer is yes, how about a cite?

[George Z. Bush]

"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> nobody wrote:
> > mondaymorning wrote:
> >> As I remember, Everyone thought there were WMD's. If anyone lied it
> >> was Sadam.
> >
> > Remember why the USA started to isult its allies ? Why do you think
>
> (SNIP remaining democrappy propaganda)
>
> I think she meant before the demorats got mad about Bush
> kicking Gore's lying ass and decided that attacking
> Bush was more important than stopping mass murder,
> rape, etc.

When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy? Seems to
me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be called
Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors and
raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who thought we
ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he had
precious little support from his own party in his views.

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> >
> When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy? Seems to
> me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be called
> Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors and
> raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who thought we
> ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he had
> precious little support from his own party in his views.
>

Perhaps you do not remember the highly successful American intervention
in Bosnia under Geroge H. Bush.

--

FF

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:27:53 -0500, nobody > wrote:

>mondaymorning wrote:
>> As I remember, Everyone thought there were WMD's. If anyone lied it was
>> Sadam.
>
>Remember why the USA started to isult its allies ? Why do you think "french
>fries" were outlawed in the states,

Outlawed? Feel free to support that statement.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy? Seems
to
> > me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be
called
> > Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors and
> > raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who thought
we
> > ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he had
> > precious little support from his own party in his views.
> >
>
> Perhaps you do not remember the highly successful American intervention
> in Bosnia under Geroge H. Bush.

I'm afraid that I don't. But then, neither do you. Our intervention in Bosnia
took place in early December of 1995. Do you recall who was our President back
then?

Perhaps you confused it with the Gulf War, when Sadaam invaded Kuwait and we
were afraid he was going to keep on going into the rest of Saudi Arabia. Apart
from the fairy tales we were sold about pre-natal babies being evicted from
their incubators, or whatever they call those things, that one was pretty much
all about oil, and that was the one that George H. W. Bush started but didn't
quite finish.

George Z.

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking Mike Dargan > wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "james_anatidae" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>>
>>>All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you
>>>were four years ago?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Let's see, four years ago the economy was slowing, today the economy is
>> growing. Yup, looks like we can really say we're better off today than we
>> were four years ago.
>>
>>
> During the Bush Boom, the economy has managed to lose 3 million jobs.

And add roughly around $22,000 worth of federal debt onto every person in this country. The
economy may be on a rebound, but as Bush's supporters said of Clinton when Bush ran against
Gore, the president has nothing to do with the economy.

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking john > wrote:

> Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.

> Too bad Bush didn't make a complete list of all the bad things he
> inherited from Clinton when he took office. then he could have warned
> the public.

The Repugs are just two-faced hypocrites. They love to blame Clinton for a recession that
started when Bush talked down the economy. Despite their desire to bash Clinton for Bush's
receission, they claim that Clinton had nothing to do with the eight years of record-setting
prosperity we had in this country and the best managed federal budget since WW II, but when
Bush plunders the economy, sits by and watches millions of jobs go away and be replaced with a
comparatively few low-paying jobs, that's okay because it is Clinton's fault.

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Oh yeah, blame Clinton.
>>
>> Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.
>>

> Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?

No, and at the time, Saddam might very well have had WMD.
Besides, Clinton did not use that as justification for a unilateral war.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> No, and at the time, Saddam might very well have had WMD.
> Besides, Clinton did not use that as justification for a unilateral war.
>

What does "unilateral" mean?

[Laurie Laws]

wrote:

> In rec.food.cooking john > wrote:
>
> > Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.
>
> > Too bad Bush didn't make a complete list of all the bad things he
> > inherited from Clinton when he took office. then he could have warned
> > the public.
>
> The Repugs are just two-faced hypocrites. They love to blame Clinton for a recession that
> started when Bush talked down the economy.

You can't possibly be serious. Except the sad thing is, you actually are. And this from an
institution of "higher learning" as well! Nobody "talked down" the economy. The economy was an
overheated disaster in the making, in no small part thanks to no regulation of rampant fraud in
many companies since the mid 1990s. All Bush did was say the truth. I love it, one moment Bush
(with his 90 percentile IQ) is the dumbest idiot in the world, the next he was "talking down" the
economy, long before he even became President.

> Despite their desire to bash Clinton for Bush's
> receission, they claim that Clinton had nothing to do with the eight years of record-setting
> prosperity we had in this country

Yes the prosperity bubble. Too bad the fake bubble popped, and there was a recession before Bush
took office.

> and the best managed federal budget since WW II,

Only after the 1994 elections! Thank Clinton for the 1994 election results!

> but when Bush plunders the economy, sits by and watches millions of jobs go away and be replaced
> with a comparatively few low-paying jobs, that's okay because it is Clinton's fault.

"Plunders the economy"! Wow, you must be one of Temple University's finest, Mr. Horwitz!!

What a dope.

[Laurie Laws]

wrote:

> In rec.food.cooking Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> > "john" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Oh yeah, blame Clinton.
> >>
> >> Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.
> >>
>
> > Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?
>
> No, and at the time, Saddam might very well have had WMD.
> Besides, Clinton did not use that as justification for a unilateral war.

Huh? Clinton Bombed Iraq in 1994, 1996, and 1998. His war on Baghdad in 1998 used
more missiles than the entire 1991 Gulf War! And let's not forget about the
schools and hospitals that were bombed in Belgrade, the invasion of Haiti, the
super job he did in Somalia, and the aspirin factory bombing. At Temple U, did
you learn that "unilateral" means not alone but with 60"? Just curious. Keep it
up!

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will.
He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an
arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Bill Clinton, speaking on Iraq and Saddam Hussein - 1998
Listen to the Audio Clip: http://tinyurl.com/67rz

[Laurie Laws]

wrote:

> In rec.food.cooking Mike Dargan > wrote:
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >> "james_anatidae" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >>
> >>>All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you
> >>>were four years ago?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's see, four years ago the economy was slowing, today the economy is
> >> growing. Yup, looks like we can really say we're better off today than we
> >> were four years ago.
> >>
> >>
> > During the Bush Boom, the economy has managed to lose 3 million jobs.
>
> And add roughly around $22,000 worth of federal debt onto every person in this country. The
> economy may be on a rebound, but as Bush's supporters said of Clinton when Bush ran against
> Gore, the president has nothing to do with the economy.

Gosh and just a minute later, you talked about the "recession that started when Bush talked
down the economy" [5 Feb 2004 03:21:16 GMT]

So which is it? lol. Based on your domain, it's easy to see that Temple U isn't Harvard.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >
> > > When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy? Seems
> to
> > > me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be
> called
> > > Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors and
> > > raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who thought
> we
> > > ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he had
> > > precious little support from his own party in his views.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps you do not remember the highly successful American intervention
> > in Bosnia under Geroge H. Bush.
>
> I'm afraid that I don't. But then, neither do you. Our intervention in Bosnia
> took place in early December of 1995. Do you recall who was our President back
> then?
>

You are confusing Bosnia with Kosovo.

--

FF

[Jarg]

"Laurie Laws" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
> > In rec.food.cooking john > wrote:
> >
> > > Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.
> >
> > > Too bad Bush didn't make a complete list of all the bad things he
> > > inherited from Clinton when he took office. then he could have warned
> > > the public.
> >
> > The Repugs are just two-faced hypocrites. They love to blame Clinton for
a recession that
> > started when Bush talked down the economy.
>
> You can't possibly be serious. Except the sad thing is, you actually are.
And this from an
> institution of "higher learning" as well! Nobody "talked down" the
economy. The economy was an
> overheated disaster in the making, in no small part thanks to no
regulation of rampant fraud in
> many companies since the mid 1990s. All Bush did was say the truth. I
love it, one moment Bush
> (with his 90 percentile IQ) is the dumbest idiot in the world, the next he
was "talking down" the
> economy, long before he even became President.
>
> > Despite their desire to bash Clinton for Bush's
> > receission, they claim that Clinton had nothing to do with the eight
years of record-setting
> > prosperity we had in this country
>
> Yes the prosperity bubble. Too bad the fake bubble popped, and there was a
recession before Bush
> took office.
>
> > and the best managed federal budget since WW II,
>
> Only after the 1994 elections! Thank Clinton for the 1994 election
results!
>
> > but when Bush plunders the economy, sits by and watches millions of jobs
go away and be replaced
> > with a comparatively few low-paying jobs, that's okay because it is
Clinton's fault.
>
> "Plunders the economy"! Wow, you must be one of Temple University's
finest, Mr. Horwitz!!
>
> What a dope.
>
>

Probably a Sociology major!

Jarg

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > >
> > > > When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy?
Seems
> > to
> > > > me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be
> > called
> > > > Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors
and
> > > > raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who
thought
> > we
> > > > ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he
had
> > > > precious little support from his own party in his views.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps you do not remember the highly successful American intervention
> > > in Bosnia under Geroge H. Bush.
> >
> > I'm afraid that I don't. But then, neither do you. Our intervention in
Bosnia
> > took place in early December of 1995. Do you recall who was our President
back
> > then?
> >
>
> You are confusing Bosnia with Kosovo.

AAMOF, I'm not. Neither of the Bushes had anything to do with either of
them.....they happened on Clinton's watch, Bosnia in December 1995 and Kosovo in
March 1999.

George Z.
>
> --
>
> FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >
> > > When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy? Seems
> to
> > > me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be
> called
> > > Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors and
> > > raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who thought
> we
> > > ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he had
> > > precious little support from his own party in his views.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps you do not remember the highly successful American intervention
> > in Bosnia under Geroge H. Bush.
>
> I'm afraid that I don't. But then, neither do you. Our intervention in Bosnia
> took place in early December of 1995.

NATO first declared a no-fly zone onver Bosnia in October, 1992,
under Bush. NATO began fighting in Bosnia in earnest in September,
1995. The Bush policy was continued and expanded under Clinton.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>>>>
>>>>> When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy?
>>>>> Seems
>>> to
>>>>> me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be
>>> called
>>>>> Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors and
>>>>> raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who
>>>>> thought
>>> we
>>>>> ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he had
>>>>> precious little support from his own party in his views.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you do not remember the highly successful American intervention
>>>> in Bosnia under Geroge H. Bush.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid that I don't. But then, neither do you. Our intervention in
>>> Bosnia took place in early December of 1995.
>>
>> NATO first declared a no-fly zone onver Bosnia in October, 1992,
>> under Bush. NATO began fighting in Bosnia in earnest in September,
>> 1995. The Bush policy was continued and expanded under Clinton.
>
> The following was dated December 18, 1995. I wonder why they had their dates
> so screwed up way back then.
>
> U.S. Troops Begin Bosnia Intervention
>
> BY MAURICE WILLIAMS
>
> U.S. president Bill Clinton is moving at full steam to implement Washington's
> decision to send 20,000 troops to Bosnia as part of a 60,000-strong NATO
> occupation force. "This task force is ready to roll," he told U.S. soldiers
> in Germany December 2. They will be among the first of the NATO units in
> Bosnia.
> Gearing up for war, Clinton told the GIs they would be heavily armed and
> could respond "immediately and with decisive force" to hostilities.
> The White House is deploying such a massive force in a workers state for the
> first time in decades. The State Department's official goal is to enforce the
> partition of Bosnia, agreed to by the warring regimes in the former Yugoslav
> republics in a deal brokered by Washington on a military base in Dayton,
> Ohio, November 21. The masters of the U.S. empire are trying to boost their
> military and economic domination of the region, get one up on their European
> competitors, particularly Paris and Bonn, and take a stab at re-establishing
> capitalism in the former Yugoslavia.
> The first NATO unit composed of 28 soldiers landed in Sarajevo December 4 and
> included two GIs. Some 3,000 U.S. soldiers are imminently expected to arrive
> in Kaposvar, Hungary, for a brief stopover on the way to Bosnia by train.
> Overall, 32,000 U.S. military personnel will be involved in the action,
> including the 20,000 GIs in Bosnia, 5,000 in Croatia, and 7,000 support
> troops in Hungary and Italy.
> The parliament in Germany voted December 6 to approve sending 4,000 German
> soldiers to the Balkans - Bonn's largest military mission abroad since World
> War II.

Judging from the words of our own Secretary of State in addressing the NATO
foreign and defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium on December 5, 1995, he seems
to have been under the impression that NATO was not yet involved. Take a look:

"Mr. Acting Secretary-General, distinguished colleagues: It is a
great privilege for Secretary Perry and me to speak with you today on
behalf of the United States and President Clinton. For the first time
in NATO's history, all 16 of our foreign ministers and all 16 of our
defense ministers are meeting together. As we prepare to launch this
historic mission in Bosnia, our Alliance has never been more united."

I think I'll stick with my 1995 starting date. At least I can produce some
evidence that backs it up.

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >
> > > When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy? Seems
> to
> > > me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be
> called
> > > Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors and
> > > raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who thought
> we
> > > ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he had
> > > precious little support from his own party in his views.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps you do not remember the highly successful American intervention
> > in Bosnia under Geroge H. Bush.
>
> I'm afraid that I don't. But then, neither do you. Our intervention in Bosnia
> took place in early December of 1995.

NATO declared a no-fly zone over Bosnia in October 1992. NATO attacks in
Bosnia began in earnest in September, 1995. It was a Bush admininstration
action that was continued and expanded under Clinton.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > >
> > > > When did we adopt stopping mass murder and rape as a national policy?
Seems
> > to
> > > > me that Clinton took a lot of heat for involving us in what used to be
> > called
> > > > Yugoslavia, when the Serbs decided that killing their Muslim neighbors
and
> > > > raping their womenfolk would be good sport. AIR, the only Repug who
thought
> > we
> > > > ought to be doing something about it at the time was Bob Dole, and he
had
> > > > precious little support from his own party in his views.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps you do not remember the highly successful American intervention
> > > in Bosnia under Geroge H. Bush.
> >
> > I'm afraid that I don't. But then, neither do you. Our intervention in
Bosnia
> > took place in early December of 1995.
>
> NATO declared a no-fly zone over Bosnia in October 1992. NATO attacks in
> Bosnia began in earnest in September, 1995. It was a Bush admininstration
> action that was continued and expanded under Clinton.

I've posted evidence of the 1995 date being accurate elsewhere, and you're
invited to seek it out and enlighten yourself. Before you get yourself all
entangled in mixing apples and oranges, how about checking the data you have
that refers to 1992 and see if it's in the same context as the 1995 stuff that
relates to what NATO called its first involvement in Bosnia. Maybe all of the
16 nations that make up NATO forgot that they had had an earlier involvement.
Doesn't seem likely, but perhaps it's worth taking a crack at.

[Johnny Bravo]

On 5 Feb 2004 03:21:16 GMT, wrote:

>In rec.food.cooking john > wrote:
>
>> Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.
>
>> Too bad Bush didn't make a complete list of all the bad things he
>> inherited from Clinton when he took office. then he could have warned
>> the public.
>
>The Repugs are just two-faced hypocrites. They love to blame Clinton for a recession that
>started when Bush talked down the economy. Despite their desire to bash Clinton for Bush's
>receission, they claim that Clinton had nothing to do with the eight years of record-setting
>prosperity we had in this country and the best managed federal budget since WW II, but when

Clinton racked up 1.4 trillion dollars in debt, increasing the size
of that debt by 31%, that's hardly the best managed budget since
WW II. The best since WW2 goes to Truman, who increased the size of
the public debt by 3% during his two terms of office.

The last president who actually reduced the size of the public debt
was Coolidge.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Johnny Bravo]

On 5 Feb 2004 03:17:50 GMT, wrote:

>In rec.food.cooking Mike Dargan > wrote:
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "james_anatidae" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>>
>>>>All right, simple question. Can you really say you're better off than you
>>>>were four years ago?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's see, four years ago the economy was slowing, today the economy is
>>> growing. Yup, looks like we can really say we're better off today than we
>>> were four years ago.
>>>
>>>
>> During the Bush Boom, the economy has managed to lose 3 million jobs.
>
>And add roughly around $22,000 worth of federal debt onto every person in this country.

Your math is off, the public debt has not increased by 6.4 trillion
dollars since he started signing federal budgets.

Currently there is (according to the latest figures) 23,960 in debt
for every American. Here is where 95% of that debt comes from.

4,078 - Bush Jr
4,772 - Clinton
5,312 - Bush Sr
6,252 - Reagan
1,059 - Carter
1,199 - Nixon/Ford

It seems that neither party has nothing to brag about when the topic
of fiscal responsibility comes up.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >> >...
> >>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> >>> om...
....
> >> NATO first declared a no-fly zone onver Bosnia in October, 1992,
> >> under Bush. NATO began fighting in Bosnia in earnest in September,
> >> 1995. The Bush policy was continued and expanded under Clinton.
> >
> > The following was dated December 18, 1995. I wonder why they had their dates
> > so screwed up way back then.
> >
> > U.S. Troops Begin Bosnia Intervention
> >
> > BY MAURICE WILLIAMS
> >
> > U.S. president Bill Clinton is moving at full steam to implement Washington's
> > decision to send 20,000 troops to Bosnia as part of a 60,000-strong NATO
> > occupation force. "This task force is ready to roll," he told U.S. soldiers
> > in Germany December 2. They will be among the first of the NATO units in
> > Bosnia.
> > Gearing up for war, Clinton told the GIs they would be heavily armed and
> > could respond "immediately and with decisive force" to hostilities.
> > The White House is deploying such a massive force in a workers state for the
> > first time in decades. The State Department's official goal is to enforce the
> > partition of Bosnia, agreed to by the warring regimes in the former Yugoslav
> > republics in a deal brokered by Washington on a military base in Dayton,
> > Ohio, November 21. The masters of the U.S. empire are trying to boost their
> > military and economic domination of the region, get one up on their European
> > competitors, particularly Paris and Bonn, and take a stab at re-establishing
> > capitalism in the former Yugoslavia.
> > The first NATO unit composed of 28 soldiers landed in Sarajevo December 4 and
> > included two GIs. Some 3,000 U.S. soldiers are imminently expected to arrive
> > in Kaposvar, Hungary, for a brief stopover on the way to Bosnia by train.
> > Overall, 32,000 U.S. military personnel will be involved in the action,
> > including the 20,000 GIs in Bosnia, 5,000 in Croatia, and 7,000 support
> > troops in Hungary and Italy.
> > The parliament in Germany voted December 6 to approve sending 4,000 German
> > soldiers to the Balkans - Bonn's largest military mission abroad since World
> > War II.
>
> Judging from the words of our own Secretary of State in addressing the NATO
> foreign and defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium on December 5, 1995, he seems
> to have been under the impression that NATO was not yet involved. Take a look:
>
> "Mr. Acting Secretary-General, distinguished colleagues: It is a
> great privilege for Secretary Perry and me to speak with you today on
> behalf of the United States and President Clinton. For the first time
> in NATO's history, all 16 of our foreign ministers and all 16 of our
> defense ministers are meeting together. As we prepare to launch this
> historic mission in Bosnia, our Alliance has never been more united."
>
> I think I'll stick with my 1995 starting date. At least I can produce some
> evidence that backs it up.
>

Thanks.

It was the UN which declared the no-flight zone in October 1992. NATO
first began considering enforcement of it late in 1992:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nato+fly+group:soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=1993&selm=92325.142724U15231%40uicvm.uic.edu&rnum=2

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nato+fly+group:soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=1993&selm=1992Dec24.065537.21425%40jack.sns.com&rnum=1&filter=0

NATO airstrikes in Bosnia were reported on Nightline, Sept 12,1995:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=airstrike+nato+group:alt.current-events.bosnia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=1995&selm=43lknh%24687%40ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca&rnum=1&filter=0

Clinton was president.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > >> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > >> >...
> > >>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > >>> om...
> ...
> > >> NATO first declared a no-fly zone onver Bosnia in October, 1992,
> > >> under Bush. NATO began fighting in Bosnia in earnest in September,
> > >> 1995. The Bush policy was continued and expanded under Clinton.
> > >
> > > The following was dated December 18, 1995. I wonder why they had their
dates
> > > so screwed up way back then.
> > >
> > > U.S. Troops Begin Bosnia Intervention
> > >
> > > BY MAURICE WILLIAMS
> > >
> > > U.S. president Bill Clinton is moving at full steam to implement
Washington's
> > > decision to send 20,000 troops to Bosnia as part of a 60,000-strong NATO
> > > occupation force. "This task force is ready to roll," he told U.S.
soldiers
> > > in Germany December 2. They will be among the first of the NATO units in
> > > Bosnia.
> > > Gearing up for war, Clinton told the GIs they would be heavily armed and
> > > could respond "immediately and with decisive force" to hostilities.
> > > The White House is deploying such a massive force in a workers state for
the
> > > first time in decades. The State Department's official goal is to enforce
the
> > > partition of Bosnia, agreed to by the warring regimes in the former
Yugoslav
> > > republics in a deal brokered by Washington on a military base in Dayton,
> > > Ohio, November 21. The masters of the U.S. empire are trying to boost
their
> > > military and economic domination of the region, get one up on their
European
> > > competitors, particularly Paris and Bonn, and take a stab at
re-establishing
> > > capitalism in the former Yugoslavia.
> > > The first NATO unit composed of 28 soldiers landed in Sarajevo December 4
and
> > > included two GIs. Some 3,000 U.S. soldiers are imminently expected to
arrive
> > > in Kaposvar, Hungary, for a brief stopover on the way to Bosnia by train.
> > > Overall, 32,000 U.S. military personnel will be involved in the action,
> > > including the 20,000 GIs in Bosnia, 5,000 in Croatia, and 7,000 support
> > > troops in Hungary and Italy.
> > > The parliament in Germany voted December 6 to approve sending 4,000 German
> > > soldiers to the Balkans - Bonn's largest military mission abroad since
World
> > > War II.
> >
> > Judging from the words of our own Secretary of State in addressing the NATO
> > foreign and defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium on December 5, 1995, he
seems
> > to have been under the impression that NATO was not yet involved. Take a
look:
> >
> > "Mr. Acting Secretary-General, distinguished colleagues: It is a
> > great privilege for Secretary Perry and me to speak with you today on
> > behalf of the United States and President Clinton. For the first time
> > in NATO's history, all 16 of our foreign ministers and all 16 of our
> > defense ministers are meeting together. As we prepare to launch this
> > historic mission in Bosnia, our Alliance has never been more united."
> >
> > I think I'll stick with my 1995 starting date. At least I can produce some
> > evidence that backs it up.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> It was the UN which declared the no-flight zone in October 1992. NATO
> first began considering enforcement of it late in 1992:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nato+fly+group:soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=1993&selm=92325.142724U15231%40uicvm.uic.edu&rnum=2

The above cite was a link to an editorial from the NY Times. While the UN may
have declared a no-fly zone over Bosnia, it apparently wasn't enforced by
anybody, and certainly not by NATO. Here's how the editorial put it:

"in defiance of a no-fly order declared by the U.N. When will the West bestir
itself long enough to enforce this order?"

>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nato+fly+group:soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=1993&selm=1992Dec24.065537.21425%40jack.sns.com&rnum=1&filter=0
>
> NATO airstrikes in Bosnia were reported on Nightline, Sept 12,1995:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=airstrike+nato+group:alt.current-events.bosnia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=1995&selm=43lknh%24687%40ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca&rnum=1&filter=0

And here's the cruz of what is applicable from the above link:

"The United States and its NATO allies formally agreed to give the United
Nations
military plans for enforcing a no-fly zone over Bosnia that includes shooting
down Serbian warplanes."

So, if that happened in 1992 and it took 3 years to get around to having NATO
actually do something about it, I think I'll still stick with 1995 as the
starting date.
>
> Clinton was president.

My point exactly.

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
>

> >
> > NATO airstrikes in Bosnia were reported on Nightline, Sept 12,1995:
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=airstrike+nato+group:alt.current-events.bosnia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=1995&selm=43lknh%24687%40ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca&rnum=1&filter=0
>
> And here's the cruz of what is applicable from the above link:
>
> "The United States and its NATO allies formally agreed to give the United
> Nations
> military plans for enforcing a no-fly zone over Bosnia that includes shooting
> down Serbian warplanes."
>

Wrong. Those words do not appear in that article at all.

Here's an exerpt:

September 12, 1995

DAVE MARASH, ABC News: "Neither in sorrow nor in anger,
American pilots and their vast military support network
have taken up the task of bombing Serb separatist military
positions in Bosnia. Most of them launch from the vast
Aviano NATO air base north of Venice. This is their view of
what they're doing. While ground crews scramble at the 510th
Fighter Squadron, the self-named Bosnia Buzzards, lead man
``Psycho'' is briefing his wingman, ``Doc.''


--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>
>>>
>>> NATO airstrikes in Bosnia were reported on Nightline, Sept 12,1995:
>>>
>>>
>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=airstrike+nato+group:alt.current-events.bosnia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=1995&selm=43lknh%24687%40ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca&rnum=1&filter=0
>>
>> And here's the cruz of what is applicable from the above link:
>>
>> "The United States and its NATO allies formally agreed to give the United
>> Nations
>> military plans for enforcing a no-fly zone over Bosnia that includes shooting
>> down Serbian warplanes."
>>
>
> Wrong. Those words do not appear in that article at all.
>
> Here's an exerpt:
>
> September 12, 1995
>
> DAVE MARASH, ABC News: "Neither in sorrow nor in anger,
> American pilots and their vast military support network
> have taken up the task of bombing Serb separatist military
> positions in Bosnia. Most of them launch from the vast
> Aviano NATO air base north of Venice. This is their view of
> what they're doing. While ground crews scramble at the 510th
> Fighter Squadron, the self-named Bosnia Buzzards, lead man
> ``Psycho'' is briefing his wingman, ``Doc.''

Possibly the link was wrong. But what you provided also indicated a 1995
starting date, not 1992. Here's another extract from a speech made by our Secy
of State to the NATO foreign and defense ministers on December 5, 1995, where he
makes reference to preparing to take action.

"U.S. Department of State
95/12/05 Secretary NATO Intervention
Office of the Spokesman



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman

(Brussels, Belgium)
December 5, 1995


INTERVENTION
BY
SECRETARY OF STATE WARREN CHRISTOPHER
AT THE MEETING OF NATO FOREIGN AND
DEFENSE MINISTERS ON BOSNIA


Mr. Acting Secretary-General, distinguished colleagues: It is a
great privilege for Secretary Perry and me to speak with you today on
behalf of the United States and President Clinton. For the first time
in NATO's history, all 16 of our foreign ministers and all 16 of our
defense ministers are meeting together. As we prepare to launch this
historic mission in Bosnia, our Alliance has never been more united."

In addition, the following was extracted from an article by Jane Sharp entitled
"The West's Moral Failure" published in the Journal of the Atomic Scientists,
which substantiates Daddy Bush's reluctance to get involved in Bosnia at the end
of his term in 1992:

"During the early summer of 1991, when Serbia first invaded Slovenia and
Croatia, both of which sought independence from Yugoslavia, President George
Bush passed the responsibility for resolving the Yugoslav crisis to the 12
countries of the European Community (EC). In the absence of U.S. leadership,
however, the Europeans proved inept and uncertain. A year later, when Yugoslavia
had disintegrated into five separate states and Serbian atrocities in Bosnia
were reported, President Bush referred to the Bosnian conflict as a mere hiccup.
Even in early January 1993, Bush was still unwilling to intervene in Bosnia. He
had, however, sent troops to feed the starving in Somalia, and in two speeches
(at Texas A&M University and at West Point) he attempted to redefine policy on
intervention. In contrast to Weinberger, Bush did not limit the use of force to
the protection of vital national interests. He proposed that "military force may
not be the best way of safeguarding something vital, while using force might be
the best way to protect an interest that qualifies as important but less than
vital."

I think I'll rest my case right there. I still say that the starting date of any
meaningful intervention in Bosnia by the US occurred during Clinton's first term
of office. He gets credit if it worked out right, and blame if not. Bush Sr.
quite obviously was not involved.

George Z.

[TJ]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > > >> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > >> >...
> > > >>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > > >>> om...
> ...
> > > >> NATO first declared a no-fly zone onver Bosnia in October, 1992,
> > > >> under Bush. NATO began fighting in Bosnia in earnest in September,
> > > >> 1995. The Bush policy was continued and expanded under Clinton.
> > > >
> > > > The following was dated December 18, 1995. I wonder why they had their
> dates
> > > > so screwed up way back then.
> > > >
> > > > U.S. Troops Begin Bosnia Intervention
> > > >
> > > > BY MAURICE WILLIAMS
> > > >
> > > > U.S. president Bill Clinton is moving at full steam to implement
> Washington's
> > > > decision to send 20,000 troops to Bosnia as part of a 60,000-strong NATO
> > > > occupation force. "This task force is ready to roll," he told U.S.
> soldiers
> > > > in Germany December 2. They will be among the first of the NATO units in
> > > > Bosnia.
> > > > Gearing up for war, Clinton told the GIs they would be heavily armed and
> > > > could respond "immediately and with decisive force" to hostilities.
> > > > The White House is deploying such a massive force in a workers state for
> the
> > > > first time in decades. The State Department's official goal is to enforce
> the
> > > > partition of Bosnia, agreed to by the warring regimes in the former
> Yugoslav
> > > > republics in a deal brokered by Washington on a military base in Dayton,
> > > > Ohio, November 21. The masters of the U.S. empire are trying to boost
> their
> > > > military and economic domination of the region, get one up on their
> European
> > > > competitors, particularly Paris and Bonn, and take a stab at
> re-establishing
> > > > capitalism in the former Yugoslavia.
> > > > The first NATO unit composed of 28 soldiers landed in Sarajevo December 4
> and
> > > > included two GIs. Some 3,000 U.S. soldiers are imminently expected to
> arrive
> > > > in Kaposvar, Hungary, for a brief stopover on the way to Bosnia by train.
> > > > Overall, 32,000 U.S. military personnel will be involved in the action,
> > > > including the 20,000 GIs in Bosnia, 5,000 in Croatia, and 7,000 support
> > > > troops in Hungary and Italy.
> > > > The parliament in Germany voted December 6 to approve sending 4,000 German
> > > > soldiers to the Balkans - Bonn's largest military mission abroad since
> World
> > > > War II.
> > >
> > > Judging from the words of our own Secretary of State in addressing the NATO
> > > foreign and defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium on December 5, 1995, he
> seems
> > > to have been under the impression that NATO was not yet involved. Take a
> look:
> > >
> > > "Mr. Acting Secretary-General, distinguished colleagues: It is a
> > > great privilege for Secretary Perry and me to speak with you today on
> > > behalf of the United States and President Clinton. For the first time
> > > in NATO's history, all 16 of our foreign ministers and all 16 of our
> > > defense ministers are meeting together. As we prepare to launch this
> > > historic mission in Bosnia, our Alliance has never been more united."
> > >
> > > I think I'll stick with my 1995 starting date. At least I can produce some
> > > evidence that backs it up.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > It was the UN which declared the no-flight zone in October 1992. NATO
> > first began considering enforcement of it late in 1992:
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nato+fly+group:soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=1993&selm=92325.142724U15231%40uicvm.uic.edu&rnum=2
>
> The above cite was a link to an editorial from the NY Times. While the UN may
> have declared a no-fly zone over Bosnia, it apparently wasn't enforced by
> anybody, and certainly not by NATO. Here's how the editorial put it:
>
> "in defiance of a no-fly order declared by the U.N. When will the West bestir
> itself long enough to enforce this order?"
>
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nato+fly+group:soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=1993&selm=1992Dec24.065537.21425%40jack.sns.com&rnum=1&filter=0
> >
> > NATO airstrikes in Bosnia were reported on Nightline, Sept 12,1995:
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=airstrike+nato+group:alt.current-events.bosnia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=1995&selm=43lknh%24687%40ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca&rnum=1&filter=0
>
> And here's the cruz of what is applicable from the above link:
>
> "The United States and its NATO allies formally agreed to give the United
> Nations
> military plans for enforcing a no-fly zone over Bosnia that includes shooting
> down Serbian warplanes."
>
> So, if that happened in 1992 and it took 3 years to get around to having NATO
> actually do something about it, I think I'll still stick with 1995 as the
> starting date.
> >
> > Clinton was president.
>
> My point exactly.
>
> George Z.

The combat air patrols started in Spring of 1993. The first shoot down
of aircraft took place in February 1994 when USAF F-16s shot down four
Galeb attack aircraft that were in the process of attacking a factory.
During the Summer of 1993 NATO (including US deployed aircraft) were
providing CAS patrols to UNPROFOR. During 1994 NATO aircraft
(including US assets) bombed and strafed Bosnian-Serb ground forces
several times. The first large scale bombing mission took place during
November 1994 against Udbina airbase.

TJ

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >>
>
> >>>
> >>> NATO airstrikes in Bosnia were reported on Nightline, Sept 12,1995:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=airstrike+nato+group:alt.current-events.bosnia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=1995&selm=43lknh%24687%40ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca&rnum=1&filter=0
> >>
> >> And here's the cruz of what is applicable from the above link:
> >>
> >> "The United States and its NATO allies formally agreed to give the United
> >> Nations
> >> military plans for enforcing a no-fly zone over Bosnia that includes shooting
> >> down Serbian warplanes."
> >>
> >
> > Wrong. Those words do not appear in that article at all.
> >
> > Here's an exerpt:
> >
> > September 12, 1995
> >
> > DAVE MARASH, ABC News: "Neither in sorrow nor in anger,
> > American pilots and their vast military support network
> > have taken up the task of bombing Serb separatist military
> > positions in Bosnia. Most of them launch from the vast
> > Aviano NATO air base north of Venice. This is their view of
> > what they're doing. While ground crews scramble at the 510th
> > Fighter Squadron, the self-named Bosnia Buzzards, lead man
> > ``Psycho'' is briefing his wingman, ``Doc.''
>
> Possibly the link was wrong.

I provided three links in >.

You miatributed text to the third which I thin you extracted from the
second.

> But what you provided also indicated a 1995
> starting date, not 1992.

So does the text I wrote prefacing the link.

>
> I think I'll rest my case right there. I still say that the starting date of any
> meaningful intervention in Bosnia by the US occurred during Clinton's first term
> of office.

Had you read my earlier articles you wold realize that I already came
agreed on that point. However, the December 1995 date refers to the
deployment of NATO ground forces, which occurred after the conflict
had essentially been ended by the earlier air campaign. Both the air
campaign and the subsequent ground troop deployment was, as you noted,
during the Clinton Administration. IMHO, he did well in the Balkans.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
>
> I've posted evidence of the 1995 date being accurate elsewhere, and you're
> invited to seek it out and enlighten yourself.

see >

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
m...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > >> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > >> om...
> > >>
> >
> > >>>
> > >>> NATO airstrikes in Bosnia were reported on Nightline, Sept 12,1995:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=airstrike+nato+group:alt.current-events.bosnia&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=1995&selm=43lknh%24687%40ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca&rnum=1&filter=0
> > >>
> > >> And here's the cruz of what is applicable from the above link:
> > >>
> > >> "The United States and its NATO allies formally agreed to give the United
> > >> Nations
> > >> military plans for enforcing a no-fly zone over Bosnia that includes
shooting
> > >> down Serbian warplanes."
> > >>
> > >
> > > Wrong. Those words do not appear in that article at all.
> > >
> > > Here's an exerpt:
> > >
> > > September 12, 1995
> > >
> > > DAVE MARASH, ABC News: "Neither in sorrow nor in anger,
> > > American pilots and their vast military support network
> > > have taken up the task of bombing Serb separatist military
> > > positions in Bosnia. Most of them launch from the vast
> > > Aviano NATO air base north of Venice. This is their view of
> > > what they're doing. While ground crews scramble at the 510th
> > > Fighter Squadron, the self-named Bosnia Buzzards, lead man
> > > ``Psycho'' is briefing his wingman, ``Doc.''
> >
> > Possibly the link was wrong.
>
> I provided three links in >.
>
> You miatributed text to the third which I thin you extracted from the
> second.
>
> > But what you provided also indicated a 1995
> > starting date, not 1992.
>
> So does the text I wrote prefacing the link.
>
> >
> > I think I'll rest my case right there. I still say that the starting date of
any
> > meaningful intervention in Bosnia by the US occurred during Clinton's first
term
> > of office.
>
> Had you read my earlier articles you wold realize that I already came
> agreed on that point. However, the December 1995 date refers to the
> deployment of NATO ground forces, which occurred after the conflict
> had essentially been ended by the earlier air campaign. Both the air
> campaign and the subsequent ground troop deployment was, as you noted,
> during the Clinton Administration. IMHO, he did well in the Balkans.

Fred, you're absolutely right. Whoever said it started in '92 was thinking air
war, and I was thinking ground war, so let's walk away from it while everybody's
right.

Have a good one.

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> >
> Fred, you're absolutely right. Whoever said it started in '92 was thinking air
> war, and I was thinking ground war, so let's walk away from it while everybody's
> right.
>

All's well as ends well.

--

FF