| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"TerryG" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2004 05:44:52 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Another liberal Democrat makes an utter ***** of himself |
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j0IRb.29846$1e.7899@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Thomas" <mauicop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:313e10d8nme8ao6gtvl8q4mnbpul7tn9t6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:10:49 GMT, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Thomas" <mauicop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gubd101eaisf7omh58p5522l3jmjdhstoi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:48:27 GMT, "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:
[...]
Well, you should go there, because Clinton said the same things that
Bush
said regarding the weapons of mass destruction the Iraqi's possessed
as
well
as warning the world of the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the
likelihood
of
the necessity of armed intervention. KM
Funny how the "Bush lied" screamers never want to discuss that aspect
and whenever you or I or anyone else mentions it there's crashing
silence. More of the same old....same old hypocrisy and double
standards? You betcha'.
Pah. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and Kay says it worked. The
much-quoted
Clinton remark about WMDs was during his *announcement* on December 16,
1998
that he had JUST ORDERED THE BOMBING THAT DAY.
***Sigh*** And.................???? So what? Doesn't change the
fact that Clinton's views and words, both before, and after Dec. 1998
are virtually indistinguishable from Bush's. So who "lied"?
Dunno. Clinton said what he said before the bombing. Bush said what he
said
5 years later. Kay says that Clinton's bombing order got rid of a lot of
infrastructure ("much of the remaining").
The point is that Clinton's info was 5 years old when Bush was saying the
same thing as Clinton, and the bombing hadn't been evaluated when Clinton
said it.
So years went by after Clinton bombed before he or anyone else bothered to
evaluate what Clinton had done? Remember, Clinton remained in office a full
two years after he decided to invade and bomb the Iraqi people. Was Clinton
really that inept, that he didn't bother to evaluate what his brutal attack
on the Iraqi people had done??
Also, your "point" above seems rather silly ("Clinton's info was 5 years
old") in light of the fact that Bush's info was new and up-to-date. Bush
had his own info, and didn't need to rely solely on Clinton's info.
Besides, as you point out, Clinton hadn't bothered to evaluate his own
bombing, despite the fact that he had two more years in office to do so!
Clinton seems very, very inept indeed! I guess that's to be expected when
one cares more about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office instead of caring
about the safety of the American people or protecting America.
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Another liberal Democrat makes an utter ***** of himself |
28 Jan 2004 08:18:32 AM |
|
|
"TerryG" <ApplesRWe@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UgNRb.43397$U%5.233353@attbi_s03...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j0IRb.29846$1e.7899@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Thomas" <mauicop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:313e10d8nme8ao6gtvl8q4mnbpul7tn9t6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:10:49 GMT, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Thomas" <mauicop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gubd101eaisf7omh58p5522l3jmjdhstoi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:48:27 GMT, "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:
[...]
Well, you should go there, because Clinton said the same things
that
Bush
said regarding the weapons of mass destruction the Iraqi's
possessed
as
well
as warning the world of the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the
likelihood
of
the necessity of armed intervention. KM
Funny how the "Bush lied" screamers never want to discuss that
aspect
and whenever you or I or anyone else mentions it there's crashing
silence. More of the same old....same old hypocrisy and double
standards? You betcha'.
Pah. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and Kay says it worked. The
much-quoted
Clinton remark about WMDs was during his *announcement* on December
16,
1998
that he had JUST ORDERED THE BOMBING THAT DAY.
***Sigh*** And.................???? So what? Doesn't change the
fact that Clinton's views and words, both before, and after Dec. 1998
are virtually indistinguishable from Bush's. So who "lied"?
Dunno. Clinton said what he said before the bombing. Bush said what he
said
5 years later. Kay says that Clinton's bombing order got rid of a lot of
infrastructure ("much of the remaining").
The point is that Clinton's info was 5 years old when Bush was saying
the
same thing as Clinton, and the bombing hadn't been evaluated when
Clinton
said it.
So years went by after Clinton bombed before he or anyone else bothered to
evaluate what Clinton had done? Remember, Clinton remained in office a
full
two years after he decided to invade and bomb the Iraqi people. Was
Clinton
really that inept, that he didn't bother to evaluate what his brutal
attack
on the Iraqi people had done??
I must have been asleep for years! When, exactly, did Clinton invade Iraq?
Also, your "point" above seems rather silly ("Clinton's info was 5 years
old") in light of the fact that Bush's info was new and up-to-date.
and that info, according to the experts who gave it to him, and later told
their story to programs like ?60 Minutes" said WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF WMDs
IN IRAQ!
and THERE ARE NO IRAQ URANIUM PROGRAMS OR PURCHASES!!!!
Bush
had his own info, and didn't need to rely solely on Clinton's info.
Besides, as you point out, Clinton hadn't bothered to evaluate his own
bombing, despite the fact that he had two more years in office to do so!
Clinton seems very, very inept indeed! I guess that's to be expected
when
one cares more about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office instead of caring
about the safety of the American people or protecting America.
BWAHAHAHA.... You insane piece of *****!
Invading Iraq does not, nor did it EVER, have anything to do with protecting
the U.S.!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "CaraM" |
|
| Title: Re: Another liberal Democrat makes an utter ***** of himself |
28 Jan 2004 10:48:22 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:101fh5d5d0e3706@corp.supernews.com...
"TerryG" <ApplesRWe@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UgNRb.43397$U%5.233353@attbi_s03...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j0IRb.29846$1e.7899@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Thomas" <mauicop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:313e10d8nme8ao6gtvl8q4mnbpul7tn9t6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:10:49 GMT, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Thomas" <mauicop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gubd101eaisf7omh58p5522l3jmjdhstoi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:48:27 GMT, "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:
[...]
Well, you should go there, because Clinton said the same things
that
Bush
said regarding the weapons of mass destruction the Iraqi's
possessed
as
well
as warning the world of the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the
likelihood
of
the necessity of armed intervention. KM
Funny how the "Bush lied" screamers never want to discuss that
aspect
and whenever you or I or anyone else mentions it there's crashing
silence. More of the same old....same old hypocrisy and double
standards? You betcha'.
Pah. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and Kay says it worked. The
much-quoted
Clinton remark about WMDs was during his *announcement* on December
16,
1998
that he had JUST ORDERED THE BOMBING THAT DAY.
***Sigh*** And.................???? So what? Doesn't change the
fact that Clinton's views and words, both before, and after Dec.
1998
are virtually indistinguishable from Bush's. So who "lied"?
Dunno. Clinton said what he said before the bombing. Bush said what he
said
5 years later. Kay says that Clinton's bombing order got rid of a lot
of
infrastructure ("much of the remaining").
The point is that Clinton's info was 5 years old when Bush was saying
the
same thing as Clinton, and the bombing hadn't been evaluated when
Clinton
said it.
So years went by after Clinton bombed before he or anyone else bothered
to
evaluate what Clinton had done? Remember, Clinton remained in office a
full
two years after he decided to invade and bomb the Iraqi people. Was
Clinton
really that inept, that he didn't bother to evaluate what his brutal
attack
on the Iraqi people had done??
I must have been asleep for years! When, exactly, did Clinton invade Iraq?
1998.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Another liberal Democrat makes an utter ***** of himself |
28 Jan 2004 08:08:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:44:52 GMT, "TerryG" <ApplesRWe@comcast.net>
wrote:
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j0IRb.29846$1e.7899@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Thomas" <mauicop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:313e10d8nme8ao6gtvl8q4mnbpul7tn9t6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:10:49 GMT, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Thomas" <mauicop@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gubd101eaisf7omh58p5522l3jmjdhstoi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:48:27 GMT, "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:
[...]
Well, you should go there, because Clinton said the same things that
Bush
said regarding the weapons of mass destruction the Iraqi's possessed
as
well
as warning the world of the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the
likelihood
of
the necessity of armed intervention. KM
Funny how the "Bush lied" screamers never want to discuss that aspect
and whenever you or I or anyone else mentions it there's crashing
silence. More of the same old....same old hypocrisy and double
standards? You betcha'.
Pah. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and Kay says it worked. The
much-quoted
Clinton remark about WMDs was during his *announcement* on December 16,
1998
that he had JUST ORDERED THE BOMBING THAT DAY.
***Sigh*** And.................???? So what? Doesn't change the
fact that Clinton's views and words, both before, and after Dec. 1998
are virtually indistinguishable from Bush's. So who "lied"?
Dunno. Clinton said what he said before the bombing. Bush said what he
said
5 years later. Kay says that Clinton's bombing order got rid of a lot of
infrastructure ("much of the remaining").
The point is that Clinton's info was 5 years old when Bush was saying the
same thing as Clinton, and the bombing hadn't been evaluated when Clinton
said it.
So years went by after Clinton bombed before he or anyone else bothered to
evaluate what Clinton had done? Remember, Clinton remained in office a full
two years after he decided to invade and bomb the Iraqi people. Was Clinton
really that inept, that he didn't bother to evaluate what his brutal attack
on the Iraqi people had done??
Sure we evaluated it. Here is what President Bush's Secretary of State
said about that evaluation, in 2001
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the
President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the
sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose
of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check
Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass
destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies,
constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are
directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important
now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have
worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect
to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional
power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have
strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
So the Bush administration knew full well that Iraq posed no major
threat.
And then Blix went in. He tested our intelligence, and found that
those who told us Iraq had WMD were full of *****. All their tips lead
to nothing. Dozens of tips from the US to Blix, not one panned out.
So we started out knowing Iraq was not much of a threat, and then Blix
confirmed that.
Also the IAEA went into Iraq to look at nuclear stuff. They found
nothing to worry about there at all.
So we had updated the Clinton information.
It showed things were even less dangerous than was first thought.
But we had a war to launch, so we hyped the evidence to the moon to
trick folks into supporting the war.
Also, your "point" above seems rather silly ("Clinton's info was 5 years
old") in light of the fact that Bush's info was new and up-to-date. Bush
had his own info, and didn't need to rely solely on Clinton's info.
Besides, as you point out, Clinton hadn't bothered to evaluate his own
bombing, despite the fact that he had two more years in office to do so!
Sure he did. We watched Iraq constantly. Powell told us the results of
what we looked at - Iraq no real threat.
Why would President Bush's Secretary of State lie about that?
Clinton seems very, very inept indeed!
Did he launch a hugely expensive war, which has caused a surge in
terrorist recruitment, which has damaged our alliances, which has
gotten the world to see us as revolting, just to get WMD
WHICH DONT EVEN EXIST?
No, Clinton was not THAT incompetent. Only President Bush is so
incompetent as to pull off that screw up.
I guess that's to be expected when
one cares more about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office instead of caring
about the safety of the American people or protecting America.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
