"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK


Plus another minor difference. Intel should almost always be taken with
a grain of salt, and one shouldn't dismiss the intel one dislikes and
pay attention only to the intel that fits one's agenda. In this case,
the Bush-ites found intel that fit their plans, ignored the intel that
indicated other possibilities, and started a war. For pure political
reasons.


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 04:52:58 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.

Oh, come on, Clinton never signed an Iraqi Regime Change Act. He did sign
an Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. It's scope and funding was quite
limited. Revising history isn't that easy when there is a public paper
trail.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 04:52:58 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how
each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.

Oh, come on, Clinton never signed an Iraqi Regime Change Act. He did sign
an Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. It's scope and funding was quite
limited. Revising history isn't that easy when there is a public paper
trail.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Let's not split hairs about my capitalizing "Iraqi Regime Change Act". The
Iraqi Liberation Act called for regime change...and thus became known to
many as the "Iraqi regime change act". From Section 3:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK


Plus another minor difference. Intel should almost always be taken with
a grain of salt, and one shouldn't dismiss the intel one dislikes and
pay attention only to the intel that fits one's agenda. In this case,
the Bush-ites found intel that fit their plans, ignored the intel that
indicated other possibilities, and started a war. For pure political
reasons.


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.




Nice rationalization. Really. But that is all it is. Firing missiles is
a lot different than an invasion.

--
Email sent to is never read.

NOYB wrote:
This is precisely the point where DSK has lost all credibility. There are
several reasons why we went to war with Iraq. DSK's conspiracy theory isn't
one of 'em.



"Conspiracy" ?? Hardly. It is common knowledge, and easy for the public
(if they care) to verify. Check the quarterly reports for Halliburton
and Carlyle.

It makes sense to attack another country *IF* that country poses a great
danger to us in the near future.... an overused phrase is "imminent
threat." According to various intelligence sources, Iraq posed a
possible threat, according to others, not so much. BushCo ignored the
more conservative threat estimates and exaggerated the one that said
there was a threat, all to try and justify going to war. He even siezed
the fabricated story about buying yellowcake uranium in Africa. Now over
500 American soldiers are dead, around 10,000 wounded... and over 10,000
Iraqis are dead.

And we are stuck in another bloody quagmire.

But hey, if you get a nice stock option package, it's worth it, right?


Did Clinton stand to make a tremendous profit when he signed the Iraqi
Regime Change Act in 1998?

No, but after spending $60 million dollars investigating Whitewater, the
same gang of chickenhawks that brought us Gulf War 2 decided that a
blowjob was more important.

If Clinton had removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq, he would *only* have
done so with a broad international consensus and coopoeration of the UN.
Instead, BushCo has been a lone wolf and has gotten most of the rest of
the world angry at us.

Yeah, we're a lot safer now. A lot...

DSK

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:00 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Let's not split hairs about my capitalizing "Iraqi Regime Change Act". The
Iraqi Liberation Act called for regime change...and thus became known to
many as the "Iraqi regime change act". From Section 3:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

OK, it may be splitting hairs, but there is a lot of that going around.
Did GWB use the phrase "imminent threat"? Maybe not, but he used many
similar terms, "grave threat", "urgent danger", etc. Did GWB link Iraq
with 9/11? Perhaps not, but he did use Iraq and 9/11 together on
countless occasions. Was it about WMDs, WMD programs, WMD program
activities?

The Liberation Act was to support dissident Iraqi groups in bringing about
democracy in Iraq. It's scope *and* funding was quite limited. Nowhere
did it refer to invading and overthrowing Saddam, SOB that he was.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:00 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Let's not split hairs about my capitalizing "Iraqi Regime Change Act".
The
Iraqi Liberation Act called for regime change...and thus became known to
many as the "Iraqi regime change act". From Section 3:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD
IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

OK, it may be splitting hairs, but there is a lot of that going around.
Did GWB use the phrase "imminent threat"? Maybe not, but he used many
similar terms, "grave threat", "urgent danger", etc. Did GWB link Iraq
with 9/11? Perhaps not, but he did use Iraq and 9/11 together on
countless occasions. Was it about WMDs, WMD programs, WMD program
activities?

The Liberation Act was to support dissident Iraqi groups in bringing about
democracy in Iraq. It's scope *and* funding was quite limited. Nowhere
did it refer to invading and overthrowing Saddam, SOB that he was.

It also didn't call for launching several hundred cruise missiles at Iraq
either. Did you have a problem with Clinton's decision to do so?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him
by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from
Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his
control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK


Plus another minor difference. Intel should almost always be taken with
a grain of salt, and one shouldn't dismiss the intel one dislikes and
pay attention only to the intel that fits one's agenda. In this case,
the Bush-ites found intel that fit their plans, ignored the intel that
indicated other possibilities, and started a war. For pure political
reasons.


There is no difference in the conclusions reached by the Clinton
administration in 1998, and the conclusions reached by the Bush
administration in March, 2003. The only difference that exists is how
each
administration decided to deal with the threat that all sides believed
existed. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act and fired several
hundred crusie missiles at Iraq...and Bush finished the job with a
coordinated air campaign and ground assault.




Nice rationalization. Really. But that is all it is. Firing missiles is
a lot different than an invasion.

Not to the people on the receiving end.

"DSK" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
This is precisely the point where DSK has lost all credibility. There
are
several reasons why we went to war with Iraq. DSK's conspiracy theory
isn't
one of 'em.



"Conspiracy" ?? Hardly. It is common knowledge, and easy for the public
(if they care) to verify. Check the quarterly reports for Halliburton
and Carlyle.

It makes sense to attack another country *IF* that country poses a great
danger to us in the near future.... an overused phrase is "imminent
threat." According to various intelligence sources, Iraq posed a
possible threat, according to others, not so much. BushCo ignored the
more conservative threat estimates and exaggerated the one that said
there was a threat, all to try and justify going to war. He even siezed
the fabricated story about buying yellowcake uranium in Africa. Now over
500 American soldiers are dead, around 10,000 wounded... and over 10,000
Iraqis are dead.

And we are stuck in another bloody quagmire.

But hey, if you get a nice stock option package, it's worth it, right?


Did Clinton stand to make a tremendous profit when he signed the Iraqi
Regime Change Act in 1998?

No, but after spending $60 million dollars investigating Whitewater, the
same gang of chickenhawks that brought us Gulf War 2 decided that a
blowjob was more important.

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true colors
are showing here.


If Clinton had removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq, he would *only* have
done so with a broad international consensus and coopoeration of the UN.

Like that would have happened. China, France and Russia stood to gain
billions of dollars from contracts that they had with Saddam once UN
sanctions were lifted. All three countries were clandestinely violating the
UN sanctions by supplying military hardware and technology to Saddam. Do
you really believe Clinton could have gotten those three members on board?


Instead, BushCo has been a lone wolf and has gotten most of the rest of
the world angry at us.


Too ****ing bad for the rest of the world. We learned who our friends were
when Bush made the decision to act. China and Russia can't be trusted...and
apparently Chirac is no better. I'd rather be right than be liked.

Many liberals have said that our actions in Iraq has turned many "moderate"
Islamics against us. Well guess what? They've *always* been against us.
The war just flushed them out of hiding a little sooner.



Yeah, we're a lot safer now. A lot...

We are...'cause at least now we know who our enemies are. Were you aware
that Pakistani scientists were selling nuclear secrets to at least 7 or 8
other Arab nations while Clinton was President? Were you aware that N.
Korea had a clandestine nuclear program that was in full motion while
Clinton was President (despite the $4 billion that Clinton gave them)? Were
you aware that terrorists were already planning the attack on the WTC while
Clinton was President?

Sometimes, your enemy doesn't reveal his hand until it's too late for you to
do something about. And sometimes you have to do something to provoke him
to know where he truly stands.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...


Like that would have happened. China, France and Russia stood to gain
billions of dollars from contracts that they had with Saddam once UN
sanctions were lifted. All three countries were clandestinely violating
the
UN sanctions by supplying military hardware and technology to Saddam. Do
you really believe Clinton could have gotten those three members on board?

You're a real piece of work, kid. You find it convenient to pretend that
anything we did more than perhaps 2 years ago is water under the bridge, and
had no connection with the events we're seeing today. Here's some help:

Reagan somehow managed help the Soviet Union go bankrupt. That ended up
being a good thing, on the whole. But, one of the results was that Russia
was unable to come up with enough payroll to keep its nuclear stockpiles
safe. Although there must've been hundreds of news programs and articles
about it, you may have missed it. Although we've provided some aid to Russia
to solve this problem, the situation still exists. Example: Some nuclear
materials were guarded by people who hadn't been paid in months. There were
(and still are) fears that terrorists with pockets full of cash would have
little or no problem buying these materials.

Cut to a year ago: Russia is finally getting back on its feet, and needs all
the business it can get. Do you seriously think they'd let years' of
progress go down the drain, in order to be a cowboy's best buddy? We
certainly wouldn't do that. Why should they?