Subject:
|
Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:45:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
336 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > >
> > > > What I would like is for someone to explain why this action was fine for
> > > > Clinton but outrageous for President Bush, or is it that the Left is just a
> > > > bunch of partisan, self-serving hypocrites.
> > > >
> > > > JOHN
> > >
> > >
> > > Why don't you please note the actual speech, the actual circumstances and
> > > then we can compare and contrast it with Bush, instead of this partisan,
> > > self-serving attack? And why do I get the feeling that you lifted this
> > > "speech" from some right-wing, partisan, self-serving source rather than
> > > wrote it yourself? My apologies in advance if I'm wrong on that account....
> >
> > Apology accepted:
> > http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/19/98121913_tlt.html
> >
> > The circumstance was the announcement of Operation Desert Fox, beginning
> > December 19th, 1998.
>
> Whoa! That changes my answer, too. When I read it I thought it was for
> action against Milosovic, which I've also heard as a point of comparison to
> the present Bush frenzy. My assessment of the difference between the
> Milosovic ouster and the current crisis, but I have to fess up and admit
> that I was shooting at the wrong target.
And I may add that there are two entirely different scenarios here--Blix
hasn't once said that he was at an empasse. Sure there has been 'slow down'
but he hasn't given up on the inspection process. Further, Clinton didn't
invade Iraq with troops--70 hours of getting rid of strategic sites in
response to complete non-cooperating on Saddams part is totally different
than all-out invasion. The transcript does allude to the idea of
'containment' and change from within the country, not from without.
So I say again to you, John, that Bubba's policies were much more consistent
to UN policies, whereas Dubya's war-fanaticism goes against not only the UN,
but what most people think should happen at this time.
It's not hypocritical at all right now to not support Bush and his 'moronic'
hell-bent attitude. Rather, it is the responsibility of every person who
wants to live to see a better tomorrow to point out the sheer magnitude of
ulterior motives, of deception, of sheer lunacy that Dubya's course is on
right now.
The fact that the rhetoric coming from both countries right now is virtually
interchangable tells me that Bush is as close to a 'tinpot dictator' as
Saddam is. We're suppose to be the good guys here and it's painfully
obvious that we're not--'War at any cost' is not being the 'good guys'.
He's your leader--I'd love to leave it at that and say, 'it's your problem
then'--the problem is he's dragging the rest of us with him.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
| (...) No, the situation is exactly the same. But we have the benefit of hindsight to see that Saddam was just jerking the UN inspections off during the Clinton Adminstration. And Clinton acted, and rightly so. (...) Brace yourself for his report (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
| (...) Whoa! That changes my answer, too. When I read it I thought it was for action against Milosovic, which I've also heard as a point of comparison to the present Bush frenzy. My assessment of the difference between the Milosovic ouster and the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
