Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.

Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
Iranians.

In the 1980's he attacked Iran in an unprovoked war of aggression
and the Reagan administration provided him with satellite recon data.
In the 1980's he used Chemical Weapons made from precursor chmicals
imported from the US against Iran and Reagan sent the US Navy into
the Persian Gulf to protect his shipping. In the 1980s He used
chemical weapons against the Kurds and the reagan administration loaned
him nearly 2 billion dollars.

Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.


As noted above, in the 1980's.

As you evidently have forgotten we fought a war against our former
ally and Poppa Bush's, Ronald Reagan's and Rumsfeld's good buddy
Saddam Hussein and destroyed his remaining stockpiles of chemical
weapons and his production facilites.

You're as bad at history, as Baby Bush is with geography.


Despite what the Republican kool-aid drinkers allege, many senior officials
have indicated that no matter what Saddam was doing in the 1980's, by 2003 he
was contained. These include two former CentCom commanders, Generals Zinni and
Hoar. James Webb, Reagan's SecNav, has said the invasion of Iraq was the worst
strategic blunder in living memory.

Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the worst president
-ever- and he is got to go.

What I can never figure out is how some of the combat verterans who post here
just blithely ignore the fact that we have 7,000 casualties -- and all for
-nothing-.


Walt

So the sarin filled artillery shells found by the Poles don't exist?

Those shells had a status that basically said, "best used before 1986."

You have to buck the opinion of General Zinni and many others, and all you
offer is -your- opinion.

Sorry, gotta go with Gen, Zinni.

Walt

"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...

Actually he did, regime change in Iraq was a policy Clinton agreed and
guess
what he even ordered attacks on that country.

What did you do during the mid to late 1990's? Did you spend most of it
asleep?

I do recall Clinton attacking AL Queada assets in the Sudan and in
Afghanistan. I also recall the attacks beign widely condemned
by Repubicans.

Most of the condemnation for attacking Sudan came from the left leaning
members of his own party. As for it being an "attack" a round of cruise
missile strikes on an "aspirin factory" in the Sudan and "mud huts" in
Afghanistan with a prime time spot telling the nation was just the start
appears to have been the all the effort expended by the Clinton
administration. So was the condemnation from the Republicans for the effort
or lack of effort Clinton committed to eliminating the terrorists who
destroyed two US Embassies.

"WalterM140" wrote:

Bush is a miserable failure and he has to go.

You didn't spell Walter correctly. The previous should have been:

"Walter is a miserable failure and he has to go".

I doubt if anyone would raise any objections to never seeing another post
from you again.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
I do recall Clinton attacking AL Queada assets in the Sudan and in
Afghanistan. I also recall the attacks beign widely condemned
by Repubicans. Good thing he kept it a secret that he had
rescinded Carter's ban on assasination and marked Bin Laden for
death. The Republicans might have added that to the articles of
impeachment...


I dont recall the attacks being condemned. There were those who had ideas it
was to distract from his current problems, but I dont think anyone found fault
with the attacks themselves.

There's a lot of stuff that turned up on Google when I punched in "Sudan
Tomahawk Attacks Criticism". Here's just one of many postings you might use to
refresh your apparently failing memory:

http://www.alamo-girl.com/0113.htm

Let me know if that's not enough to make the point.....I'm sure I could provide
a few more for you if you need more.

George Z.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
Date: 7/11/2004 2:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


It was the Bush admininstration that removed bin Laden from a list
of threats to the US.

It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.


Sources??

The following was published on December 13, 1996:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under plans to overhaul the airline security system, making
a plane reservation would trigger an instant profile of a passenger's
background, including past travels and possible criminal history information.

The passenger profile system was one of a score of recommendations made Thursday
by a Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel."

You can read the entire article at the link below:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/13/airline/

George Z.

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
So the sarin filled artillery shells found by the Poles don't exist?

Those shells had a status that basically said, "best used before 1986."

You have to buck the opinion of General Zinni and many others, and all you
offer is -your- opinion.

Sorry, gotta go with Gen, Zinni.

You don't mean that! Go with one of those left wing pinko commie libruls? I
can't believe you could be so unpatriotic! (^-^)))

George Z.

PS - Like all good Marines, Zinni has the balls to call a spade a spade, even
when it involves the CIC during wartime. He's a real patriot and leader IMHO,
and Theodore Roosevelt would have been proud of him.

Walt

I do recall Clinton attacking AL Queada assets in the Sudan and in
Afghanistan. I also recall the attacks beign widely condemned
by Repubicans. Good thing he kept it a secret that he had
rescinded Carter's ban on assasination and marked Bin Laden for
death. The Republicans might have added that to the articles of
impeachment...


I dont recall the attacks being condemned. There were those who had ideas
it
was to distract from his current problems, but I dont think anyone found
fault
with the attacks themselves.

There's a lot of stuff that turned up on Google when I punched in "Sudan
Tomahawk Attacks Criticism". Here's just one of many postings you might use
to
refresh your apparently failing memory:

http://www.alamo-girl.com/0113.htm

Let me know if that's not enough to make the point.....I'm sure I could
provide
a few more for you if you need more.

George Z.

And it didnt show anything to demonstrate "widely condemned". Lots of
newspaper editorializing, and some individuals against it. But I did not find
anything that pointed to the alleged widespread criticism from the Repubilcan
side. Certainly no Republican leadership statements against it. Looks like
some on the left were against it, does that mean widespread Democratic
criticism?

some excerpts
* Reuters 9/21/98 "U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark said Tuesday the U.S.
government had wanted an excuse to strike at Sudan last month and the decision
to bomb a pharmaceutical plant there was strictly political.

Clark is a far left kook

*9/24/98 AP "Rep. Barney Frank, one of President Clinton's most outspoken
supporters on Capitol Hill, said Thursday he believes Clinton made a mistake
last month in ordering the bombing of a Sudanese factory suspected of
manufacturing chemical weapons agents. Frank, D-Mass., said in a letter to
Clinton he initially supported the bombing of sites in both Sudan and
Afghanistan but now believes the administration went too far in the Sudan
attack.."

Another lefty.

* "Ross Perot suggested Sunday that President Clinton might consider taking
the United States into "a little war'' strictly for a boost in poll ratings.
The billionaire businessman who ran for president in 1992 and 1996 said Clinton
would consider almost anything to satisfy a lust for power. "This man will let
this country rot, he will let the economy go into an international decline, he
will devastate millions of people, and, if necessary, he'll start a little war
just to get a bump in the polls, and that is a lust for power,''

Not a Republican

Independent (UK) 2/5/99 Andrew Marshall ". The United States may be forced to
acknowledge that it mistakenly attacked a factory in Sudan with cruise missiles
last year, after the threat of legal proceedings by the plant's Sudanese owner.


British

New York Times 8/28/98 Editorial "Americans of both parties rallied around
President Clinton's decision to launch military strikes against alleged
terrorist installations in Afghanistan and the Sudan. But the Administration's
refusal to share more information about its choice of targets and timing is
disturbing. By its excessive secrecy, Washington only increases skepticism
about its claim that the Shifa chemical factory in the Sudan was really
producing nerve gas ingredients and thus had to be destroyed to prevent new
terrorist attacks."

They seem to think BOTH parties supported.





Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.


Sources??

The following was published on December 13, 1996:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under plans to overhaul the airline security system,
making
a plane reservation would trigger an instant profile of a passenger's
background, including past travels and possible criminal history information.

The passenger profile system was one of a score of recommendations made
Thursday
by a Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel."

You can read the entire article at the link below:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/13/airline/

George Z.

I read it and it mentioned nothing about Bush adminstration withdrawing
Clintons recommendations.

It was an article from over 4 years before Bush became president.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ron" wrote in message
...
From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
Date: 7/11/2004 2:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


It was the Bush admininstration that removed bin Laden from a list
of threats to the US.

It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.


Sources??

The following was published on December 13, 1996:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under plans to overhaul the airline security system,
making
a plane reservation would trigger an instant profile of a passenger's
background, including past travels and possible criminal history
information.

The passenger profile system was one of a score of recommendations made
Thursday
by a Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel."

You can read the entire article at the link below:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/13/airline/


December 1996. Looks like this recommendation was shelved long before Bush
became president.