The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

tax-spend-tax-spend-spend-tax-spend Those democrats??

"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:47:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Ya think? Please identify what I have written here that is factually
incorrect and prove it to be so.

"fiscal responsibility has not been associated with Democrats for a very
long time."

I associate fiscal responsibility with Democrats. QED.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:28:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message
.. .

Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that
were lies.


There were several reasons given, which were lies?


How about , to start with, the Bush administration lie about WMD.

How about the Bush lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
national security?

"john" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:28:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message
.. .

Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that
were lies.


There were several reasons given, which were lies?


How about , to start with, the Bush administration lie about WMD.

How about the Bush lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
national security?

And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed
about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance?

Jarg

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"devil" wrote in message
news

In recent history, fiscal irresponsibility, profligatr spending and tax
cuts paid out of deficit financing have been the hallmark of Republicans.
From Reagan to Bush II.


Tax cuts are not "paid", they generate revenue.

I disagree. They are paid out of deficit financing in the sense that the money
that they have returned to the taxpayer gets spent anyway even though the
government no longer has it by means of bank borrowings. In all, that is what
is called deficit financing, and is what the Republicans used to deplore when
they didn't have control of the government. It was a terrible political sin
when the Democrats were doing it, but is now palatable since the Republicans are
the ones doing it.

When you get right down to it, "tax and spend" which Republicans used to deride,
is a lot less fiscally irresponsible than "borrow and spend", which merely
shifts the repayment burden to future generations, who weren't even around when
the spending decisions were made.

George Z.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:39:44 GMT, "DALing"
daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com wrote:

tax-spend-tax-spend-spend-tax-spend Those democrats??

No, the other ones.

Anyway, that's not what I want to debate. Steve asked what he said
that was factually wrong and proof that it was so. That I might be
wrong (I'm not) is a different issue.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:54:53 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:28:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message
.. .

Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that
were lies.


There were several reasons given, which were lies?


How about , to start with, the Bush administration lie about WMD.

How about the Bush lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
national security?

And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed
about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance?

Bush claimed that Iraq had nuclear,biological,and chemical weapons
hidden away. NO SUCH WEAPONS WERE FOUND! Don't you read the freaken
newspapers?

Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our
national security.


Jarg

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"john" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:28:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message
.. .

Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that
were lies.


There were several reasons given, which were lies?


How about , to start with, the Bush administration lie about WMD.

How about the Bush lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
national security?

And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed
about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance?

LOL! Which would explain his poor temperament today, given Dean's abysmal
performance in the Iowa caucus last night...

Brooks


Jarg

Kevin Brooks wrote:

FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome.

How do you know that there was no weapons payload?

Even if there was no payload, what are the Yemenese using them for?
Garden planters? A year later are they still just delivery vehicles,
or do you think they are fully armed WMD's?

Is the region better off with Yemen having them? Is Israel better
off?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:28:34 +0000, DALing wrote:

most here seem to forget that had it not been for Sodomy's incursion into
Kuwait, he would still be in power and fully capable of gassing his own
people and oppressing them AT WILL (no particular reason would have made it
_possible_ to render him and his cronies "ineffective" - INTERNAL activities
are a matter of national sovereignty).


But then, why stop there? How did he get in there? Who was behind the
coup that put him in power? (Who was his predecessor, Kassem or something
like that?)

Might as well go back to the partition of the Ottoman empire. good old
British philosophy of divide and conquer. Which left a mess behind most
everywhere, India/Pakistan, South Africa, Ireland.

Bottom line remains that the place is just too much of a mess to get
involved.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net...
"john" wrote in message
...

Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that
were lies.


There were several reasons given, which were lies?

See book, 'Weapons of Mass Deception'!