"DSK" wrote in message
...
And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative
towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa.


NOYB wrote:
Last week? Horsepoop.

Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their
own purposes.


So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their
cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.


And unfortunately, that's the truth.

... You obviously don't read much.

Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock
in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political
tub-thumping

Hehehe. So my citing the 2003 "Syria Accountability Act" is editing and
spinning, eh? You're becoming a lost cause.

If you read the bill, it's quite clear that the idea of holding Syria's feet
to the fire is nothing new.

BTW--Why did you snip the following?

" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that
same year.

It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq.
Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by
Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed
by a Democratic president.

Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their
own purposes.



NOYB wrote:
So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their
cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.


So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic and amoral?


This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that
same year.

It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq.
Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by
Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed
by a Democratic president.


And yet, Bush didn't do a darn thing about it for a couple of years...
let's see now, Iraq had *nothing* to do with Sept 11th, and *no*
connection with Al Queda or anti-American terrorism, and yet with a bill
ready & waiting to justify disrupting Syria's ties to those terrorist
organizations, Bush & Cheney chose to waste American lives and
bazillions of dollars invading Iraq.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their
own purposes.



NOYB wrote:
So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their
cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.


So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic

Yes.

and amoral?

No.



This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of
that same year.

It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with
Iraq. Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored
by Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was
signed by a Democratic president.

You forgot this part again:

" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)

So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic


NOYB wrote:
Yes.


and amoral?


No.

What moral code encourages backstabbing & & cheating, not to mention
buddying up to people who are trying to kill your fellow citizens? Maybe
it's OK as long as you later backstab them?


You forgot this part again:

" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria
has needed attention for such a long time?

By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting
terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring
nations.

But hey, if you like socialism as long *you* benefit, & you like big
deficits, and you like backstabbing allies, then maybe it makes sense
from your point of view.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic


NOYB wrote:
Yes.


and amoral?


No.

What moral code encourages backstabbing & & cheating, not to mention
buddying up to people who are trying to kill your fellow citizens? Maybe
it's OK as long as you later backstab them?


The ends *do* justify the means sometimes.




You forgot this part again:

" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?


I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same thing
about Iran: we needed a staging area.


By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting
terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring
nations.

He's not "buddying up". He's using them for whatever little help we can get
from them until the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on
terror. It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.

" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?



NOYB wrote:
I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same thing
about Iran: we needed a staging area.


For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq? Why didn't
President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that Saddam
reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a staging
area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he said?

In other words, your answer is 1- untrue 2- illogical 3- contrary to
what the Bush Administration has stated. I guess you must really hate
those rotten lying incompetent *******s!



By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting
terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring
nations.


He's not "buddying up".


Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia?

... He's using them for whatever little help we can get
from them until the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on
terror.

Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan?

... It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.


You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and
announce it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on
Clinton's watch. So his policy by definition was effective. Meanwhile
how many billions has Bush spent on ineffective policy?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?



NOYB wrote:
I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same
thing about Iran: we needed a staging area.


For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq?

We already had *TWO*: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, we were
supposed to have Turkey also...but they backed out at the last
minute...which cost us the ability to cut off the Baghdad to Syria escape
route used by fleeing Baath officials (and Russian Spetsnatz hauling WMD).



Why didn't President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that
Saddam reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a
staging area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he
said?

You never play poker, do you?



He's not "buddying up".


Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia?

No. We've made pretty strong demands on the Saudis and Pakistanis. We on
cordial terms with the rulers of both of those countries because we share a
common enemy: Islamic extremists.



... He's using them for whatever little help we can get from them until
the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on terror.

Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan?


... It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.

You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.

Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave
them. They didn't develop them overnight.


So his policy by definition was effective.

Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing
their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective
policy.