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

"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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.