"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already covered
that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that fact
aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to comply with
the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was chased out of
Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was to
lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many believe it
was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from his personal
problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a war
footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden, having to
first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and, receiving the
same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear and biological WMDs
that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded that Saddam comply with
the UN resolutions. This demand was made despite the UN's weakness in doing
anything to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam was given plenty of
opportunity to comply, but became more resistant, buying time (to do what?).
Even the chief UN weapons inspector, Kay, believed WMDs existed at this time
and was venting his frustration at Saddam's stalling activities. (Kay later
joined the anti-Bush conspiracy gang when events cast a shadow on his own
believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch




I should add .... speculation by the conspiracy lovers *and* reverting to
"ass covering mode" by many.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already
covered that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that
fact aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to comply
with the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was chased
out of Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was to
lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many believe
it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from his
personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a war
footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden, having to
first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and, receiving
the same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear and biological
WMDs that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded that Saddam
comply with the UN resolutions. This demand was made despite the UN's
weakness in doing anything to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam was
given plenty of opportunity to comply, but became more resistant, buying
time (to do what?). Even the chief UN weapons inspector, Kay, believed
WMDs existed at this time and was venting his frustration at Saddam's
stalling activities. (Kay later joined the anti-Bush conspiracy gang when
events cast a shadow on his own believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11 thugs
originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already
covered that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that
fact aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to comply
with the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was chased
out of Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was to
lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many believe
it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from his
personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a
war footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden,
having to first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and,
receiving the same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear and
biological WMDs that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded that
Saddam comply with the UN resolutions. This demand was made despite the
UN's weakness in doing anything to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam
was given plenty of opportunity to comply, but became more resistant,
buying time (to do what?). Even the chief UN weapons inspector, Kay,
believed WMDs existed at this time and was venting his frustration at
Saddam's stalling activities. (Kay later joined the anti-Bush conspiracy
gang when events cast a shadow on his own believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???


Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would dry up
our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have national
security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam
were still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's
actions resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis, and for what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already
covered that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that
fact aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to
comply with the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was
chased out of Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a
war footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden,
having to first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and,
receiving the same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear
and biological WMDs that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded
that Saddam comply with the UN resolutions. This demand was made
despite the UN's weakness in doing anything to enforce their own
resolutions. Saddam was given plenty of opportunity to comply, but
became more resistant, buying time (to do what?). Even the chief UN
weapons inspector, Kay, believed WMDs existed at this time and was
venting his frustration at Saddam's stalling activities. (Kay later
joined the anti-Bush conspiracy gang when events cast a shadow on his
own believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy
lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???


Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would dry
up our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have national
security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch



You said "now". That means there is a "when", when we *can* go after that
country. I figure we have at least 50 years before our dependence on oil
will lessen. That's a long time to allow an enemy to get away with attacking
us.

What do you think?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???


Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would dry
up our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have
national security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch



You said "now". That means there is a "when", when we *can* go after that
country. I figure we have at least 50 years before our dependence on oil
will lessen. That's a long time to allow an enemy to get away with
attacking us.

What do you think?


I think we could be held hostage for oil way before then (we already are,
ergo the "suck up" by several recent administrations to the Saudis). We
need to get busy now, before our national security is at risk.
I don't care about fuel for cars or boats. We need the ability to defend
ourselves and others who rely upon us to do so. It's happening, finally.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???


Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would
dry up our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have
national security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch



You said "now". That means there is a "when", when we *can* go after that
country. I figure we have at least 50 years before our dependence on oil
will lessen. That's a long time to allow an enemy to get away with
attacking us.

What do you think?


I think we could be held hostage for oil way before then (we already are,
ergo the "suck up" by several recent administrations to the Saudis). We
need to get busy now, before our national security is at risk.
I don't care about fuel for cars or boats. We need the ability to defend
ourselves and others who rely upon us to do so. It's happening, finally.

Eisboch



We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably
easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no
concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at
all.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably
easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or
no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor
at all.


Hope you are listening to Romney right now.

Eisboch

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:06:56 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.

When *do* you invade?
--
John H