Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Vern Green wrote:
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.
No. See above. I am calling it "a history of questionable conduct by the
Bush administration." If they were to add lines like "Saddam gasses X
thousands of rebels" or "Saddam offers to compensate families of suicide
bombers," would that make their conduct less questionable? I don't think
so. You would have to read it to see what I mean.
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.
Right -- it's a Bush administration timeline.
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
OK, it's a Saddam story. What of it? The thing you don't seem to
understand is that Saddam's conduct is not the issue. We hated him for
years. We wanted him out of power. Everyone agrees on that. But look at
what Papa Bush did and look at what Clinton did and think about why.
They hesitated for good reasons and GW did not. Now, thanks to GW, we
have the nightmare that Papa Bush and Clinton were successfully avoiding.
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.
Read it and let us know. The point is that the "conservatives" refuse to
read things that they think they will disagree with. It's a big mistake.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact