Sorry meant Iraq. But on that topic, I think that instead of going in for vengeance, he should have gone into Afghanistan for the Taliban's Human rights violations.
I am still trying to figure out why he is gearing up for a Vietnam style confrontation with Iraq, except that Hussein went after Daddy. Any confrontation with Iraq is a complete distraction from the war on terrorism. Moreover that has been no evidence that Iraq has supported or supplied any terrorist group anything resembling biological or chemical warfare agents. for instance the recent reports of Iraq supplying groups linked to Al Quaeda with nerve gas turned out to be a propaganda attempt by the Bush White House. The Washington Post's ombudsman had a very good piece detailing how the Post got conned by administration aides http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20351-2002Dec20.html. another example is Rumsfeld's setting up a special office to find evidence (real or manufactured) of links between the Iraq dictatorship. This despite the fact that the DIA, CIA and allied intelligence agencies have not found anything so far. Even the vaunted meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi embassy official in the Czech Republic a year before Sept 11/2001 has turned out to be false. One thing I have also never understood is how the Republicans can claim that the Democratic Party is the fiscally irresponsible party, when the national debt has only increased under republican presidents and has decreased under Democratic ones, going as far back as Johnson in the early 60's. Under Johnson, Carter and Clinton, the debit was reduced, while under Ronnie Raygun, Bush Senior and now Shrub, the deficit has skyrocketed. Instead of paying down the debt, which would have resulted in far more resources being added to the national economy, he's going for making the tax cuts permanent, and letting the nation be further burdened. Yet at the same time there are a series of sweetheart deals and tax breaks to the oil, gas and coal industries that's almost obscene. Where is the logic in this? regards, larry >Wrong reasons? What on Earth a you talking about? > >I'll watch the video later...have a son banging on the keyboard right now! >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:26 PM >Subject: Re: Hello? > > >> I was talking about the switch parody at >http://bantha.cjb.net/john/index.php >> >> As for stuff he has done that I agree with, he stopped doing lines of >> coke at least. Stopped his DUI's. >> >> Actually there is one thing, he went after the Taliban, but for all >> the wrong reasons. >> >> larry >> >> >Video? What video? >> > >> >Anything that you think might make me rant is worth taking a look at. :) >In >> >the spirit of good debate of course. >> > >> >I'm curious Larry, is there anything that the Bush administration has >done >> >that you agree with, or do you just stamp everything as bad. :) >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:50 PM >> >Subject: Re: Hello? >> > >> > >> >> IF you thought that, then why did you respond. >> >> >> >> no comment about the video? I was figuring that it would have >> >> elicited a real Rush limpmember type frothing at the mouth rant from >> >> you about it. >> >> >> >> fwiw, our offices are moving this weekend, so I'll probably not get >> >> reconnected until after the holidays. So happy holidays all. >> >> >> >> larry >> >> >> >> >> >> >Of course you would think that they knew. You assume that anything >they >> >can >> >> >do that is a breach of conduct, they are already doing, so why even >> >bother >> >> >responding. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >> >From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:08 PM > > >> >Subject: Re: Hello? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Still the investments are just controlled in a blind trust, >chances >> >> >> are they have a very good idea what the trust has invested in. >Wasn't >> >> >> there a bit a controversy just after the Bush regime started >office >> >> >> about members of the administration not being as blind to their >> >> >> investments as was originally thought. >> >> >> >> >> >> Given Shrub and Cheney's past records, I wouldn't be too surprised >if >> >> >> they are very aware of their current investments, and are planning >> >> >> accordingly. >> >> >> >> >> >> larry >> >> >> >> >> >> >Jim, >> >> >> > >> >> >> >They may have fortunes that stemmed from the oil business, but as >> >> >President >> >> >> >and Vice-President, their investments are put into blind trusts, >Bush >> >and >> >> >> >Cheney have no idea what their money is currently invested in. >Just >> >like >> >> >Al >> >> >> >Greenspan. Imagine if Greenspan knew their was going to back >economic >> >> >news, >> >> >> >he could call up his broker and short the hell out of the market >and >> >make >> >> >a >> >> >> >fortune, hence the blind trust. >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kevin >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
