Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: "MLUG Off-Topic Discussion" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] War timeline
- From: "Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:26:31 -0700
- Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:26:41 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ZrwDViWc0KhcM9HZ9LBUsuDlZdY/2CzZXFnbrjbMVZyZkxGzyb3WuAoDKCBaDKkT4krO1J3GTHEkIHWFaYz+XqUPAgLdzg3BnvXV/n8ctmrDmXIKYGU+osNRtQHVd6SU7Qk1cA60NUA2R3bn3SHWEGGGdRwSChSg7Ehpc/+84Kw=
- Envelope-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Reply-to: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
I don't see why a history of questionable conduct by the Bush
administration should include anything about what Clinton did with Saddam.
That just wouldn't fit at all. Also, Clinton was very successful in his
dealings with Iraq -- brief strikes that kept Saddam under control and
cost very few lives -- so I don't see how leaving off Clinton would be
unfair to Bush.
Ok lets put aside Clinton for a moment, would it at least not be
prudent to tell what was happening in Iraq through this timeline? I
see no mention of Saddam gassing 5,000 rebels, I see no mention of
continued bombing runs required because of no fly zone infringements.
I see no mention of $10,000 payments to the families of suicide
bombers.
These are very relevant facts that should be part of the timeline. The
sole purpose of this article, as I suggested before, was to point out
only things from the Bush administration. OK, I accept that, this is
obviously why you posted the original message in the first place.
NOw, I have found a really good timeline, one that even you cannot
complain with. It is accurate and it discusses the reasons behind some
of the incedents on the Motherjones site.
You could at least take a few minutes and go through this one as I
have done with yours.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/cron.html
But instead of treating him as a notable expert whose research and
conclusions should be taken seriously, why not use the new conservative
approach and suggest that he must be a "liberal" whose ideas should be
rejected out of hand? That will make you feel better. That's the
Bush-Cheney approach. Of course you don't need any evidence that he is "a
liberal" -- he just said something that suggests the Bush-Cheney war isn't
working out! That's all the evidence you need!
Mike, you are saying this previous paragraph like I was degrading your
researcher. I never said anything about the man, I have not even read
or heard about the story.
--
Thanks
F Vernon Green
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion