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



I have failures but don't need to go and kill INNOCENT CHILDREN and then cover it up. I am
comfortable with the fact that eventually the 2 biggest War Criminals today Bush and Blair will get
what is coming to them but not before they bother to lay the Blame elsewhere.

Lucky you that your side owns the nukes hey. And while your out there beating your chest, did you
front the enemy yourself or where you teh Armchair critic beating your something else.

"Jarg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Glenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Of course there are those that will benefit from Corruption. Good for
you.
> >
>
> You must also be in denial about your failures. Blaming President Bush or "corruption" or other
> outside sources is truly pathetic. Why don't you
try
> accepting your own role in your failures and give credit when it is due to those who succeed.
>
> Jarg
 
Glenn wrote:

> I have failures but don't need to go and kill INNOCENT CHILDREN and then cover it up. I am
> comfortable with the fact that eventually the 2 biggest War Criminals today Bush and Blair will
> get what is coming to them but not before they bother to lay the Blame elsewhere.

So you were fine with Clinton bombing children in Belgrade. And you would have been fine with Saddam
in power today so he could continue to be filling his rape rooms and graves with fresh bodies.
 
No I wasn't happy with Clinton either but then I don;t understand why America is so hell bent on
saving teh worlds problems when it exists in its own backyard as well.

Saddam was a problem but then it was all a lie to get in there, really, you can't see that :) Come
on, there are other bad boys out there but America isn't concerned about them. No Oil. Or daddy
wasn't humiliated by not finisheing the job properly the first time. Don't give me this **** about
Saddams Regime. America funded it when it suited them. I am not yet sure that Saddam being out of
power today has saved any lives yet. I guess it has turned a country in on itself and will sort
itself out in the long run but after all the false truths we have heard about the reason to invade
Iraq, I really wonder how much of what Saddam did is actually true. If your concerned about him
killing his own people, isn't Bush responsible for allowing more people to go the Chair or whatever
when he was Guv'nor. Face it, the guy revels in death and if he stays, when he tires with Iraq and
Afghanistan, he'll move on to another country.

You don't have to like what I say. The truth hurts but as long as you hold the power and the cards
it's all right.

The same thing happened in WW2. But then it was called ******. "Jen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > I have failures but don't need to go and kill INNOCENT CHILDREN and
then
> > cover it up. I am comfortable with the fact that eventually the 2
biggest
> > War Criminals today Bush and Blair will get what is coming to them but
not
> > before they bother to lay the Blame elsewhere.
>
> So you were fine with Clinton bombing children in Belgrade. And you would
have
> been fine with Saddam in power today so he could continue to be filling
his rape
> rooms and graves with fresh bodies.
 
"Glenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> You don't have to like what I say. The truth hurts

As soon as I read some in one of your posts, I'll let you know.
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:02:15 GMT, Mike Dargan <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>>
>>>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.

i think it's time for a career change for bush.

your pal, blake
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:02:15 GMT, Mike Dargan <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>>
>>>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.

Could that possibly be due to Clinton's recession? Pan Ohco
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:57:37 -0600, Pan Ohco <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:02:15 GMT, Mike Dargan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "james_anatidae" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>Could that possibly be due to Clinton's recession? Pan Ohco

Oh yeah, blame Clinton.

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.
 
charliekilo wrote:
> > Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?
> And, the recession started during his administration so where's the problem?

It is hard to pin point when a recession starts.

The seeds of the recession may have begun during the last months of the Clinton tenure. However,
what is important is how the Bush regime acted on it. During election period, they said "RECESSION",
but once they got elected, they did nothing about it, prefering instead to meddle in international
affairs by abrogating many treaties (arms treaty with Russia, Kyoto, ANWR etc).

The republicans seem to only know one tool to control the economy, and that is tax cuts and spending
cuts. Although it seems that they have now learned that devaluating the USA currency works well,
even though it is a kick in the gonads for a country with so much ego. Of course, the bush regime
will deny devaluating the currency and will claim that it is its tax cut that had an effect. But in
reality, the US dollar was allowed to drop by the USA government as a desperate measure to bring the
USA economy back to life.

The USA government could have taken much different measures right after 9-11 to bring the USA public
and economy in good spirits.

Instead of sending billion dollar cheques to the US airlines (which would have gone to the
banks/lessors almost directly), they should have sent $100 vouchers to every americans that woudl be
redeemable on any USA airline flight.

As long as americans are scared of flying because of constant messages from their government about
impending doom, the USA economy will never recover. Boeing, all its contractors, the airlines and
all their contractors are a large economic engine that cannot be ignored. The capital amounts
involved with aircraft leases alone drive many financial institutions.
 
"nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> charliekilo wrote:
> > > Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?
> > And, the recession started during his administration so where's the
problem?
>
> It is hard to pin point when a recession starts.
>
> The seeds of the recession may have begun during the last months of the Clinton tenure. However,
> what is important is how the Bush regime acted on
it.
> During election period, they said "RECESSION", but once they got elected,
they
> did nothing about it, prefering instead to meddle in international affairs
by
> abrogating many treaties (arms treaty with Russia, Kyoto, ANWR etc).
>
> The republicans seem to only know one tool to control the economy, and
that is
> tax cuts and spending cuts. Although it seems that they have now learned
that
> devaluating the USA currency works well, even though it is a kick in the gonads for a country with
> so much ego. Of course, the bush regime will
deny
> devaluating the currency and will claim that it is its tax cut that had an effect. But in reality,
> the US dollar was allowed to drop by the USA government as a desperate measure to bring the USA
> economy back to life.

Back to Econ 101 for you...well, probably Econ 102. 101 delt with the very basic of basics, there
are a few more advanced topics mentioned here that you need to brush-up on.

>
> The USA government could have taken much different measures right after
9-11
> to bring the USA public and economy in good spirits.
>
> Instead of sending billion dollar cheques to the US airlines (which would
have
> gone to the banks/lessors almost directly), they should have sent $100 vouchers to every americans
> that woudl be redeemable on any USA airline
flight.
>
> As long as americans are scared of flying because of constant messages
from
> their government about impending doom, the USA economy will never recover. Boeing, all its
> contractors, the airlines and all their contractors are a large economic engine that cannot be
> ignored. The capital amounts involved with aircraft leases alone drive many financial
> institutions.
 
"nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> did nothing about it, prefering instead to meddle in international affairs
by
> abrogating many treaties (arms treaty with Russia, Kyoto, ANWR etc).

The arms treaty was a thirty year old document with a country that no longer exists. It needed to be
trashed. Kyoto (The Third World Wealth Transfer Accords) had [properly] not been ratified by the
Congress. One cannot abrogate what does not yet exist. ANWR...... well, last time I checked the
Federal Government was not in the habit of entering into treaties with individual member States of
the United States.

>
> The republicans seem to only know one tool to control the economy, and
that > is tax cuts and spending cuts.

Please let me know the last time a society taxed itself INTO prosperity.

>Although it seems that they have now learned that devaluating the USA currency

de-valuing

>
> Instead of sending billion dollar cheques to the US airlines (which would
have
> gone to the banks/lessors almost directly), they should have sent $100 vouchers to every americans
> that woudl be redeemable on any USA airline flight.

Not a half bad idea, but I'm not convinced it would have the desired effect. There likely would have
developed a huge market speculating in these coupons at discount. In the end, perhaps 50% dollar
value might have found a path to the airline industry
 
In article <[email protected]>, nobody <[email protected]>
wrote:

> charliekilo wrote:
> > > Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?
> > And, the recession started during his administration so where's the problem?
>
> It is hard to pin point when a recession starts.
>
> The seeds of the recession may have begun during the last months of the Clinton tenure.

Anyone paying a modicum of attention to the high tech industries could see before the beginning of
2000 that we were in the early stages of recession.
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:56:41 +0000, john wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:57:37 -0600, Pan Ohco <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>>Could that possibly be due to Clinton's recession? Pan Ohco
>
> Oh yeah, blame Clinton.
>
> Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.

They can blame Clinton allright.

As long as they give credit to Carter for the so-called Reagan miracle.
 
devil wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:56:41 +0000, john wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:57:37 -0600, Pan Ohco <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>
> >>Could that possibly be due to Clinton's recession? Pan Ohco
> >
> > Oh yeah, blame Clinton.
> >
> > Let's also blame Clinton for the missing WMD in Iraq.
>
> They can blame Clinton allright.

"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

> As long as they give credit to Carter for the so-called Reagan miracle.

Now THAT would be a helluva lie.
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:38:45 -0800, Steve Hix
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> charliekilo wrote:
>> > > Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?
>> > And, the recession started during his administration so where's the problem?
>>
>> It is hard to pin point when a recession starts.
>>
>> The seeds of the recession may have begun during the last months of the Clinton tenure.
>
>Anyone paying a modicum of attention to the high tech industries could see before the beginning of
>2000 that we were in the early stages of recession.

I guess Bush didn't see it.

If he did why didn't he do something about the recession when he took office in January 2001?
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:19:48 -0500, Carolyn Whitten
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>john wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:38:45 -0800, Steve Hix <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> charliekilo wrote:
>> >> > > Well, Clinton did declare Iraq had WMD. Was he lying?
>> >> > And, the recession started during his administration so where's the problem?
>> >>
>> >> It is hard to pin point when a recession starts.
>> >>
>> >> The seeds of the recession may have begun during the last months of the Clinton tenure.
>> >
>> >Anyone paying a modicum of attention to the high tech industries could see before the beginning
>> >of 2000 that we were in the early stages of recession.
>>
>> I guess Bush didn't see it.
>>
>> If he did why didn't he do something about the recession when he took office in January 2001?
>
>See it? Everytime he mentioned that it needed to be dealt with, he was accused of "talking down the
>economy" even before the election! I'd say he's dealt with it well. The recession has reversed, and
>the economy is now growing 8%, 4%.

The high-tech industry in California isn't out of any recession.

the number of people out of work in the country is outrageous.

Where are all the jobs that Bush was going to create?
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:28:59 -0800, Steve Hix
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, john
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The high-tech industry in California isn't out of any recession.
>
>Odd...we think it's coming out. Some parts faster than others, but recovery is definitely ongoing.
>(We being myself and people working in the general area who've been around Silicon Valley for the
>past 25 years or so.)

So have I lived in the Bay area for a long time.

Can you can tell us the names of firms that are hiring in Silicon Valley?

>
>Patience, grasshopper.
>
>> the number of people out of work in the country is outrageous.
>
>The unemployment rate has been at or below 6% for over a year. Not much of a recession by that
>measure, historically. (Don't confuse number with rate; the population is much higher than it was
>30 or 50 or 90 years ago.

Don't go quoting the OFFICIAL unemployment rate. Their are thousands of people unemployed in
the country who are NOT COVERED in the official stats as they have exhausted their
unemployment benefits.
>
>> Where are all the jobs that Bush was going to create?
>
>They're showing up. As usual, starting at the bottom, which seems to bother some people too much.

So, to quote you: "it seems to bother some people too much"!

There are highly qualified people with impressive credentials and multiple degrees in the Bay Area
that have been unemployed for over a year.

Oh, that's a shame. Maybe they can get a job in McDonalds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back