The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Juvat" wrote in message
...

Perhaps the quote meant to have George Bush [Sr] as a reference to the
elder, albeit not Senior per se.


Why would he make that distinction? George Bush the younger was not a
national player at that time.

Sara wrote:
Mike1 wrote:

In article ,
Stark Raven wrote:



In article , Paul
Middlestat wrote:



Ted is a primary example of the need for congressional term limits.
Someone
who has been in elected office too long, and is detached from those in the
trenches. And you are aware that he has never received a pay check which
was
not from the government - right? At no time has he worked in the public
sector. Has he ever looked at this check book at the end of the month and
wondered how he could find the money to send his 8th grader on the spring
trip? I'm guessing probably not.


A Kennedy needing to work? I don't think so. I'm sure he's dedicated
his life to public service and probably gives his congressional salary
to charity.




What a *sweet* pickled-nosed old man! -- He gives away the stolen loot
that comprises his salary to charity. (Or at least you imagine so.)




Also it wouldn't surprise me if some of GWB's many successful business
endeavors hadn't cornered some of your hard-earned money. That is
where publically-earned money comes from, you know.



...in contrast to the horrid Bush, who *earned* his like a scummy
merchant, selling oil to people who *wanted it*.



Which Bush are you talking about? GW failed miserably in the oil
business. He did do well, though, with the help of Poppy's friends and
their money and some nice Saudi gentlemen, flipping a baseball team.

You betcha! They got rid of Sammy Sosa on his watch! The man sure had a nose
for baseball talent, didn't he!

George Z.

On 22 Jan 2004 02:04:20 -0800, (Kokolums) wrote:

How do you know that taxes were too high (which I am guessing you mean
they were on the right side [downward sloping part] of the Laffer
curve) in the 1970's?

I think the answer is so obvious its staring you in the face. The
government was running surpluses in the late 1990s with tax rates
lower than those of the late 1970s. There is your proof.

Clinton racked up 1.4 trillion dollars in federal debt during his 8
years in office. If you get a $600 advance on your credit card to pay
$400 worth of bills, did you have a $200 surplus?

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

On 22 Jan 2004 08:04:42 -0000, Eagle Eye
] wrote:



snipped

However, I doubt there is any "evidence" that would convince you.

Is there any anti-US "evidence" you'd question?

The US government's involvement with Saddam Hussein and other
despots was shameful in many respects. But if you want to make
that case, don't overstate it with bull**** propaganda. And,
don't ignore the far worse actions of those outside the US
out of political expediency because they opposed the latest war.


No amount of "evidence will convince you that Bush's pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq was "just".

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.

Let me pose this question:

Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? North Korea publically announced
that it had operational nuclear weapons. Why wasn't this viewed by
Bush as a direct threat to the national security of the US?

Well, first of all, North Korea has no oil.

North Korea has a HUGE standing army and could wipe out South Korea
and Japan in a flash.

For Bush, that would be too tough a war to fight.

It is easier to go against a nation like Iraq whch had a mickey-mouse
army, no air force, and no navy.

"john" wrote in message
...

No amount of "evidence will convince you that Bush's pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq was "just".

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.


Why would Bush want to get control of Iraq's oil?

john wrote:
On 22 Jan 2004 08:04:42 -0000, Eagle Eye
] wrote:



snipped

However, I doubt there is any "evidence" that would convince you.

Is there any anti-US "evidence" you'd question?

The US government's involvement with Saddam Hussein and other
despots was shameful in many respects. But if you want to make
that case, don't overstate it with bull**** propaganda. And,
don't ignore the far worse actions of those outside the US
out of political expediency because they opposed the latest war.


No amount of "evidence will convince you that Bush's pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq was "just".

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.

Not control, but definately securing access to the oil was a factor.
Do you not realize the importance of that accessibility?

Let me pose this question:

Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? North Korea publically announced
that it had operational nuclear weapons. Why wasn't this viewed by
Bush as a direct threat to the national security of the US?

If you had been reading the news reports for the last few years,
you would know. North Korea...

A) has done this on a regular basis in order to get concessions.
They have no intention of invading beyond their borders.

B) their nuclear weapon program is not an immediate threat to us
as their only delivery system does not have the capability of reaching
the US. Iraq, on the other hand, has possessed weapons that are
easily transported and were available to any terrorist group with
a cause. This was undisputed by virtually everyone in the world
until Bush did something about it.

Well, first of all, North Korea has no oil.

North Korea has a HUGE standing army and could wipe out South Korea
and Japan in a flash.

Their army is under-trained and under-equiped. South Korea has been
abiding by our wishes and has not engaged in the military strength
contest. And since WWII, Japan's army hasn't been much more than
a brigade of ****ed-off Boy Scouts.

For Bush, that would be too tough a war to fight.

Ok, so you have a sense of humor.

It is easier to go against a nation like Iraq whch had a mickey-mouse
army, no air force, and no navy.

Military analysts rated Iraq's army as 5th in the world before the first
war. This time, they felt that since we were going all the way, we
would see the elite forces of Saddam that we missed last time.
Despite the beating of the first war, Iraq still had one of the major
military forces in that region of the world. Take the nuclear capability
from North Korea, and Iraq would kick their ass.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

"Kal Alexander" wrote:

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.

Not control, but definately securing access to the oil was a factor.
Do you not realize the importance of that accessibility?


If oil were really that high on the agenda, the sludge would be drowning
the caribou up in Alaska right now....unless you're going to insist that
Iraq is an easier thing to swallow than environmentalist websites
drawing mustaches on W jpegs.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

john wrote:

Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? North Korea publically announced
that it had operational nuclear weapons.


Almost certainly because North Korea announced that it had operation
nuclear weapons.

That's kinda puts the kibbosh on any conventional means of discipline.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Dave Smith wrote:
Mike1 wrote:

Certainly his own scientists were telling him that his CW and nuke
programs were progessing swimmingly. Why should CIA analysts (or the
President they advise) intercepting communications presume they are
lying (as it turned out they were)?

Going to war is not a decision that rational and intelligent people take
lightly. Actions with severe consequences warrant a careful weighing of the
evidence. Those in the administration who claim that their "sources" lied
have their own credibility problems. There were lots of people who doubted
the proof ? of the alleged WMD programs, and that is why so many of the US's
allies opted to sit this one out. We were not convinced, and we are left
wondering how the American people got fooled.

Because they have been embarrassed into thinking that to question authority is
unpatriotic. Actually, the exact opposite is true, uncomfortable as that may be
to the administration.....to fail to question it and to demand proof of its
allegations is not only unpatriotic, but in fact treasonous.

George Z.

Eagle Eye wrote:
In article john
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:13:40 -0600, Mike1
wrote:
(Werner J. Severin) wrote:
[snip]
Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United
States provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit
agreement that allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of
Kurds and Iranians?
I would be more than happy to see you provide cites to any
*credible* literature than any US company provided chemical
weapons to Hussein. And please: Don't bore the nice audience with
crank theories regarding foreknowledge that fertilizers sold
legitimately through sequences of front-groups would end up as
precursor agents in chemical weapons.

And don't think I haven't noticed your attempt to dodge away from
the *fact* that Hussein DID possess and EMPLOY chemical weapons.


(Audience note: This exchange is an example of the earnest
leftist never accepting that an anti-American tyrant is guilty of
wholesale murder *unless* he can secure the stipulation that the
US was somehow responsible for it all along. E.g., Pol Pot's
"Killing Fields" were the "result" of anti-communist struggles in
southeast Asia, etc.)
I think wseverin in many of his previous posts gave detailed,
well-written explanations and footnotes of his charges.

You might look them up if you can read.

If you read Severin's other post ( http://tinyurl.com/3ydng ),
you'd notice he didn't write the "explanations and footnotes."
He cut and pasted an article written by John King.

However, I doubt there is any "evidence" that would convince you.

Is there any anti-US "evidence" you'd question?

The US government's involvement with Saddam Hussein and other
despots was shameful in many respects. But if you want to make
that case, don't overstate it with bull**** propaganda. And,
don't ignore the far worse actions of those outside the US
out of political expediency because they opposed the latest war.


You make a good point here. There are many things about any
US President that can be criticized and debated. But when
people display such intellectual dishonesty as the Bush
hating crowd has done, one really doesn't want to hear anything
they may say. They destroy their own credibility.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------