Subject:
|
Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:36:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
373 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd 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
>
>
> Okay then, we can sweep the "It's all the Left's fault" verbiage aside.
> Desert Fox was in response to Iraq expelling the UN Inspectors, and the
> response was far less than the full-scale invasion that Bush is threatening
> as a unilateral action without UN sanction.
FACT: Iraq did not expel the UN Inspectors [some of whom were spooks] – they
were withdrawn.
> The differences between then
> and now on the non-partisan front: UN inspectors have not been tossed by
> Iraq.
FACT: Iraq did not expel the UN Inspectors [some of whom were spooks] – they
were withdrawn.
> The proposed level of response for a lesser violation is much
> greater. The US has an unresolved problem with Al Queda terrorists that
> should have first priority: Bush has not established any creditable link.
I doubt there is one, the recent OBL tape [for what it's worth] backs that view.
> Clinton did not have a similiar higher priority objective. Bush is
> threatening unilateral action, which has a high liklihood of aiding the
> terrorists in the long run.
I agree. Jr & Co are the best recruiters OBL could wish for! [Does he get
commission?].
Scott A
> So:
>
> 1) He ain't taking care of business. Al Queda is unresolved and this has
> nothing to do with it.
>
> 2) His threatened action is without UN sanction and is considerably
> different from Clinton's response to a greater and more demonstrable
> violation on Iraq's part.
>
> -->Bruce<-
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
| (...) Okay then, we can sweep the "It's all the Left's fault" verbiage aside. Desert Fox was in response to Iraq expelling the UN Inspectors, and the response was far less than the full-scale invasion that Bush is threatening as a unilateral action (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
