Saddam's advisors lied?

[Edward Glamkowski]

It has been suggested in recent threads here that Saddam's
advisors lied to him about WMDs for fear of their lives.
That is, they told him what he wanted to hear.
Let's assume that's true. It certainly seems plausible.

By all recent accounts, it sounds like the US had a mole in
Saddam's inner circle. This mole would have heard from these
advisors about the WMDs, but almost certainly could not have
known these reports were all/mostly lies. He dutifully
reports this information back to the US government and
eventually Bush gets ahold of it. He takes it at face value
and uses it to make the case, but obviously can't reveal the
source for fear of compromising such a highly placed spy.

Would it be wrong for Bush to accept such information at
face value?

If it does end up that there are no WMDs because these
advisors lied to Saddam, was the war still wrong given
that the mole had no way of knowing these reports were
lies?

Is it improper to act upon what you believe to be highly
reliable data, even if, after the fact, it is finally
discovered that data was, in fact, wrong?
Is it better to err on the side of caution and act
decisively, or continue to wait even though waiting
could potentially be deadly (since you don't know in
advance that the information was incorrect)?

----

To put it another way:

You have what you deem reliable information that says
a lot of people may die soon if you do nothing.

You have the power to stop the threat, assuming it is real.

What do you do?

[Roger R.]

Post by Edward Glamkowski
It has been suggested in recent threads here that Saddam's
advisors lied to him about WMDs for fear of their lives.
That is, they told him what he wanted to hear.
Let's assume that's true. It certainly seems plausible.
By all recent accounts, it sounds like the US had a mole in
Saddam's inner circle.

Anyone who believes there was a mole in Saddam's inner circle probably is
still searching for Santa Claus on Christmas.

The ~closest~ possible thing to a mole would be the members of Chalabi's
exile group, and it is clear that they were feeding US Intelligence anything
they wanted to hear. Rumsfield and the Neocons bought that garbage. The CIA
and real intelligence community did not.

You are spinning fantasies because you can't stand the reality you are
facing, which is that Bush and his advisors wanted so much to beleive in the
WMDs that they grabbed any hint that they existed and ran with it. The Iraqi
exiles quickly picked up on this and fed them better hints, which the real
Intelligence community was reasonably certain were not true. That is why the
Chalabi people were to be installed by the Pentagon as Iraqs new government
after the war - and the bad intelligence before the war ran afoul of reality
and was why Chalabi did not get to become the Iraqi Prince right after the
war.

Unreal fantasies below have been removed.

[El Whappo]

Anyone who believes that the democrats are bashing bush for the Good of
America and not looking to find ways to bash him so they can put their liar
in office are still waiting up all night to shoot the Easter Bunny.

Post by Roger R.

Post by Edward Glamkowski
It has been suggested in recent threads here that Saddam's
advisors lied to him about WMDs for fear of their lives.
That is, they told him what he wanted to hear.
Let's assume that's true. It certainly seems plausible.
By all recent accounts, it sounds like the US had a mole in
Saddam's inner circle.

Anyone who believes there was a mole in Saddam's inner circle probably is
still searching for Santa Claus on Christmas.
The ~closest~ possible thing to a mole would be the members of Chalabi's
exile group, and it is clear that they were feeding US Intelligence anything
they wanted to hear. Rumsfield and the Neocons bought that garbage. The CIA
and real intelligence community did not.
You are spinning fantasies because you can't stand the reality you are
facing, which is that Bush and his advisors wanted so much to beleive in the
WMDs that they grabbed any hint that they existed and ran with it. The Iraqi
exiles quickly picked up on this and fed them better hints, which the real
Intelligence community was reasonably certain were not true. That is why the
Chalabi people were to be installed by the Pentagon as Iraqs new government
after the war - and the bad intelligence before the war ran afoul of reality
and was why Chalabi did not get to become the Iraqi Prince right after the
war.
Unreal fantasies below have been removed.

[Baxter]

Anyone who thinks Bush is good of America is either delusional or an enemy
of America. Your idiocy is telling in that you call the Democratic
candidate a "liar" even though he (or she) has not been nominated yet.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by El Whappo
Anyone who believes that the democrats are bashing bush for the Good of
America and not looking to find ways to bash him so they can put their liar
in office are still waiting up all night to shoot the Easter Bunny.

[Bucky Kaufman]

The Democratic party is much more evil then the republican party.

There's no real difference - they'll both sell out to the biggest bidder.
But the Republicans have the organized support of organized religion.
That gives them a resource bin Laden and Hitler would have been proud of.
That makes the Republicans a greater evil.

[El Whappo]

Post by Bucky Kaufman

The Democratic party is much more evil then the republican party.

There's no real difference - they'll both sell out to the biggest bidder.
But the Republicans have the organized support of organized religion.
That gives them a resource bin Laden and Hitler would have been proud of.
That makes the Republicans a greater evil.

Democrats prey on the suffering and the poverty stricken for votes, they
promise them freedom from the bondage of economic suffering. But because
they need them to be suffering for votes, they always make sure that the
inner city poor & the wronged stay that way because they need them. Give
them false hope, still keep them suffering, then say you'll make it better
if they elect you next time.

Republicans would benefit if everyone was rich, Democrats only benefit when
everyone is poor. That is why democrats are the worst evil.

Republicans are about cold hearted business & money, they admit that.

Democrats say that they are about helping the poor, when they are about
abusing the poor for power.

Republicans are assholes, yes,

Democrats are like priests who molest children, they use their power and
authority to inflict suffering of the less powerful for selfish purposes all
th time saying they are the good guy.

[Bill Shatzer]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, El Whappo wrote:

-snips-

Post by El Whappo
Democrats are like priests who molest children,

And we have a w-i-n-n-a-h!

The Stupid Analogy of the Month award goes to whappo.

It's only the 3rd but whatthehell, no one can top THAT.

Peace and justice,

[Bob Tiernan]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Democrats are like priests who molest children....

And we have a w-i-n-n-a-h!
The Stupid Analogy of the Month award goes to whappo.

Actually, when you read the rest of that sentence
he had a point.


Bob t

[El Whappo]

Its a true analogy.

Democratic politicans require people to stay in a suffering possition so
they can proclaim that they will save them. The whole time they need to
keep them down so they can get re-elected.

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snips-

Post by El Whappo
Democrats are like priests who molest children,

And we have a w-i-n-n-a-h!
The Stupid Analogy of the Month award goes to whappo.
It's only the 3rd but whatthehell, no one can top THAT.
Peace and justice,

[Baxter]

Really? Then why did the poor and disadvantaged become so much better off
under the Democrats? (Administrations and/or control of Congress).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by El Whappo
Its a true analogy.
Democratic politicans require people to stay in a suffering possition so
they can proclaim that they will save them. The whole time they need to
keep them down so they can get re-elected.

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snips-

Post by El Whappo
Democrats are like priests who molest children,

And we have a w-i-n-n-a-h!
The Stupid Analogy of the Month award goes to whappo.
It's only the 3rd but whatthehell, no one can top THAT.
Peace and justice,

[alohacyberian]

El Whappo is an inveterate troll who has recently overstayed his welcome in
several other newsgroups, thus, can't get any responses. Don't feed the
troll. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Post by Baxter
Really? Then why did the poor and disadvantaged become so much better off
under the Democrats? (Administrations and/or control of Congress).

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what alohacyberian said,

He isn't talking about anything, he's trolling with the hope he'll get
someone to respond. Don't feed the troll, even when he returns under another
assumed nickname. KM

wait a minute. IT IS MY REAL NAME

You're the one who posts as 'Alohacyberian' WHATEVER THE FUCK THAT MEANS
!!!

[El Whappo]

Alohacyberian is a sad sad old man. Don't worry about him, he loves to play
the victim, to the point that he makes up alias's and swears at himself.
He's been doing it for almost a decade now. Do not take him seriously. He
also by the way believes that he has the only non-anecdotal proof of God in
existance, of course when asked to provide it, all he does is squirm and
sidestep and start accusing everyone of making him the victim again.

In essence, Keith Martin, aka alohacyberian is an idiot, so do not take him
seriously.

Post by Edward Glamkowski

Post by john bailo

He isn't talking about anything, he's trolling with the hope he'll get
someone to respond. Don't feed the troll, even when he returns under

another

Post by john bailo

assumed nickname. KM

wait a minute. IT IS MY REAL NAME

I wasn't responding to you or talking about you, dearie. Go back to bed.
Buh-bye now John. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what alohacyberian said,

I think it's a bit too late, but, outlawing political parties might be the
best idea of this century. I'd vote for it. KM

ok Saddam, whatever you say.

[Bob Tiernan]

more people left the ranks of the poor under the
clinton administration than in the last 40 years!

Are you saying that having a free enterprise system
helped make this possible? The alternative would be:

a) "Poverty" was redefined downward so that fewer
poor people counted among the poor (this is doubtful).

b) Welfare-type checks sent to the poor elevated their
incomes above the poverty line. This is doubtful
as well, and even if true, this is a false solution
to poverty.

Bob t

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what Bill Shatzer said,

Poverty can (and was) addressed by programs other than mere
welfare checks. See, inter alia, the Job Corps, Headstart,
worker training, day care assistance, health care supplements,
etc., etc.

all that stuff doesn't mean shit.

like most 'aid' the majority of it went to the people who ran
those agencies, with only a trickle reaching the community.

poverty is eliminated by business growth, job growth, increased
productivity and expansion, consumer confidence that inspires
full time hiring instead of temp slavery and so on...

all part of the Clinton Administration, who reduced the welfare roles
with pro-business growth more than Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and all
the Liberals in presidential history combined.

unfortunately, it went retrograde during the bu$h administration (00-04,
yea, he's leaving).

and all but almost destroyed by the bu$h senior, ray-guns administration.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Bob Tiernan

more people left the ranks of the poor under the
clinton administration than in the last 40 years!

Are you saying that having a free enterprise system
a) "Poverty" was redefined downward so that fewer
poor people counted among the poor (this is doubtful).
b) Welfare-type checks sent to the poor elevated their
incomes above the poverty line. This is doubtful
as well, and even if true, this is a false solution
to poverty.

------------
Racist poem appears on Web site for GOP

The poem, titled "Illegal Poem," uses broken English to suggest that white
Americans are "crazy" to pay for public assistance to illegal Mexican
immigrants.

The poem could not be directly accessed through any of the Winnebago County
party's main Web pages. But it could be found through a routine Internet
search.

The poem can be found on a number of Internet sites, including those of
racist hate groups, and appears to date back about three years.

One version of the poem substitutes Kosovar refugees in Britain for Mexican
immigrants in the United States.

The poem includes the following lines:

Kids need dentist? Wife needs pills
We get free! We got no bills!
American crazy! He pay all year,
To keep welfare running here.
We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for the white man race.
If they no like us, they can go,
Got lots of room in Mexico.

http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/54012.php

[Bob Tiernan]

Post by Bob Tiernan

more people left the ranks of the poor under the
clinton administration than in the last 40 years!

Are you saying that having a free enterprise system
helped make this possible?

But, but, but, Bob! As you never tire of telling us,
we don't -have- a free enterprise system.

It's not that I have to thinks som but what jbailo
thinks it is.

[snip]

Post by Bob Tiernan
b) Welfare-type checks sent to the poor elevated their
incomes above the poverty line. This is doubtful
as well, and even if true, this is a false solution
to poverty.

It's a very real solution if you happen to be one of the folks
in poverty - it beats "compassionate conservatism" all to hell
fer shur.

No, that's not a solution. That's a
temporary phase that the government likes
to stretch too often. You can hire a bunch
of people to rake leaves for a government
paycheck, but in the end you get piles of
raked leaves and still no real jobs for
these people.

[snip]

Poverty can (and was) addressed by programs other than mere
welfare checks. See, inter alia, the Job Corps, Headstart,
worker training, day care assistance, health care supplements,
etc., etc.

ZZZZzzzzzz........



Bob T

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Bob Tiernan

Post by Bob Tiernan

more people left the ranks of the poor under the
clinton administration than in the last 40 years!

Are you saying that having a free enterprise system
helped make this possible?

But, but, but, Bob! As you never tire of telling us,
we don't -have- a free enterprise system.

It's not that I have to thinks som but what jbailo
thinks it is.
[snip]

Post by Bob Tiernan
b) Welfare-type checks sent to the poor elevated their
incomes above the poverty line. This is doubtful
as well, and even if true, this is a false solution
to poverty.

It's a very real solution if you happen to be one of the folks
in poverty - it beats "compassionate conservatism" all to hell
fer shur.

No, that's not a solution. That's a
temporary phase that the government likes
to stretch too often. You can hire a bunch
of people to rake leaves for a government
paycheck, but in the end you get piles of
raked leaves and still no real jobs for
these people.
[snip]

Poverty can (and was) addressed by programs other than mere
welfare checks. See, inter alia, the Job Corps, Headstart,
worker training, day care assistance, health care supplements,
etc., etc.

ZZZZzzzzzz........

When FDR took office, unemployment was at 23%. FDR and Truman got the rate
down to 2.5% - then Ike took office and got the rate back up to 6.5%.

Pretty much the same has happened since then - Dems get the unemployment
rate down, Repugs send it up.

[nobody]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Bob Tiernan

Post by Bob Tiernan

more people left the ranks of the poor under the
clinton administration than in the last 40 years!

Are you saying that having a free enterprise system
helped make this possible?

But, but, but, Bob! As you never tire of telling us,
we don't -have- a free enterprise system.

It's not that I have to thinks som but what jbailo
thinks it is.
[snip]

Post by Bob Tiernan
b) Welfare-type checks sent to the poor elevated their
incomes above the poverty line. This is doubtful
as well, and even if true, this is a false solution
to poverty.

It's a very real solution if you happen to be one of the folks
in poverty - it beats "compassionate conservatism" all to hell
fer shur.

No, that's not a solution. That's a
temporary phase that the government likes
to stretch too often. You can hire a bunch
of people to rake leaves for a government
paycheck, but in the end you get piles of
raked leaves and still no real jobs for
these people.
[snip]

Poverty can (and was) addressed by programs other than mere
welfare checks. See, inter alia, the Job Corps, Headstart,
worker training, day care assistance, health care supplements,
etc., etc.

ZZZZzzzzzz........

When FDR took office, unemployment was at 23%. FDR and Truman got the rate
down to 2.5% - then Ike took office and got the rate back up to 6.5%.
Pretty much the same has happened since then - Dems get the unemployment
rate down, Repugs send it up.

Carter was a Republican? Reagan was a DemocRAT?

[El Whappo]

More people went from rich to poor overnight during the Clinton
Administration Tech crash.

It happend under Clinton BEFORE Bush became president, not after as they
would like you to believe.

Post by john bailo
she said he said she said El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
Its a true analogy.
Democratic politicans require people to stay in a suffering possition so
they can proclaim that they will save them. The whole time they need to
keep them down so they can get re-elected.

what?
more people left the ranks of the poor under the clinton administration
than in the last 40 years!
what are you talking about?
--
dean '04
http://deanforamerica.com

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by El Whappo
More people went from rich to poor overnight during the Clinton
Administration Tech crash.

I'd be quite happy were my IRA accounts and 457 plan were restored
to their Clintonesque values.

Post by El Whappo
It happend under Clinton BEFORE Bush became president, not after as they
would like you to believe.

Whatever. I'd still take the valuations in January, 2001 over the
valuations in August of 2003. In a minute!

Peace and justice,

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
More people went from rich to poor overnight during the Clinton
Administration Tech crash.
It happend under Clinton BEFORE Bush became president, not after as they
would like you to believe.

The crash happened under bu$h as was explained several times already.

get some q-tips and clean the wax from your ears.

[El Whappo]

Post by john bailo

Post by El Whappo
Democratic politicans require people to stay in a suffering possition so
they can proclaim that they will save them. The whole time they need to
keep them down so they can get re-elected.

what?

Read the California news. The Democrats said it themselves without
realizing they were being overheard.

Post by john bailo
more people left the ranks of the poor under the clinton administration
than in the last 40 years!

Then they lost the election, mostly because Clinton had become a laughing
stock.
The Dems still fail to recognize it was the development of the home
computer, the internet, the world wide web and the dot-com explosion that
boosted the economy under the Clinton administration. Hell...Bill Gates

and

MArc Andreeson did more for the economy than he Democrats.
Of course the political parties try to take credit for everything, and
assign blame to their opponents whenever anything doesn't go right. As if
the Democrats and Republicans were somehow solely responsible for all of

the

progress in this nation.

What?? Political parties take credit for things they didn't do??? I thought
Gore was quite humble about his inventing the internet.

Which is why it's time to destroy both of the parties once and for all.
-c

[WinGuru]

Post by Roger R.

Post by john bailo
she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
What?? Political parties take credit for things they didn't do??? I

thought

Post by john bailo

Post by El Whappo
Gore was quite humble about his inventing the internet.

he didn't invent the internet.

I know that and you know that, but unfortunatly millions of americans
didn't.

Do you also know that he NEVER claimed to have "invented the internet"?

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by WinGuru
Do you also know that he NEVER claimed to have "invented the internet"?

Yes he did. I watched it on Television when it aired and my Jaw dropped,
being that I studied computer science and his name never came up Once.
"I took the initial steps in inventing the internet."

No, the exact quote was, "While in congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet."

A bit different than your misremembered "quote" and certainly
arguably correct within the terms of its reference.

While in congress, Gore -did- take the lead in enacting the
required legislation and providing the required funding and
technical support necessary to transform the then-existing
network which serviced mostly the government, universities, and
defense contractors into an open communications network available
to commercial entities and the public at large.

That is at least arguably "taking the initiative in creating
the internet" and about the most succinct way of summarizing
what he -did- do without launching into a technical explanation
which would cause most eyes to glaze over.

he never did any ofthat.

He did all of that.

Peace and justice,

[WinGuru]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by WinGuru
Do you also know that he NEVER claimed to have "invented the internet"?

Yes he did. I watched it on Television when it aired and my Jaw dropped,
being that I studied computer science and his name never came up Once.
"I took the initial steps in inventing the internet."

No, the exact quote was, "While in congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet."
A bit different than your misremembered "quote" and certainly
arguably correct within the terms of its reference.
While in congress, Gore -did- take the lead in enacting the
required legislation and providing the required funding and
technical support necessary to transform the then-existing
network which serviced mostly the government, universities, and
defense contractors into an open communications network available
to commercial entities and the public at large.
That is at least arguably "taking the initiative in creating
the internet" and about the most succinct way of summarizing
what he -did- do without launching into a technical explanation
which would cause most eyes to glaze over.

he never did any ofthat.

He did all of that.
Peace and justice,

Given that this troll "El W..." got this supposed quote wrong, I doubt his
other information as well. I'm willing to bet that he can't name those who
actually did "create" the internet - probably doesn't even know what the
precursor was!

[El Whappo]

Post by john bailo
she said he said she said El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
Its a true analogy.
Democratic politicans require people to stay in a suffering possition so
they can proclaim that they will save them. The whole time they need to
keep them down so they can get re-elected.

what?
more people left the ranks of the poor under the clinton administration
than in the last 40 years!
what are you talking about?

He isn't talking about anything, he's trolling with the hope he'll get
someone to respond. Don't feed the troll, even when he returns under

another

assumed nickname. KM

How dare you call me a troll. You lied in the newsgroup saying that YOU HAD
NON-ANECDOTAL PROOF ABOUT THE EXISTANCE OF GOD. You adn I both know you are
a liar about that, trolling so you don't have to face the facts that there
is no God, your actions are your actions alone, and when you die it is all
over. No chosen race, no higher power. But of course if you accept the
FACTS you wind up with no way to try to connect with people so you don't
feel so lonely. Face it, you believe in a God only because otherwise you
can't connect with people on a human scale.

"One wants to be loved; failing this, to be admired; failing this, to be
feared; failing even this, to be hated and despised. One wants to arouse
some sort of feeling in people. The soul shrinks from the void and wants
contact at any price."
~ Hjalmar Soderberg
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Thanks to Clintons redefinition of term Poor.

no, thanks to job growth, productivity growth and expansion.

[john bailo]

Clinton-Gore economic record, 93-98

http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/econrecord.html

Economic Indicator
Before /
After Six Years

Welfare Rolls
14.1 million people on welfare in Jan. 1993
8.4 million people on welfare -- down 41% since 1993 -- lowest percentage since 1968

[alohacyberian]

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snips-

Post by El Whappo
Democrats are like priests who molest children,

And we have a w-i-n-n-a-h!
The Stupid Analogy of the Month award goes to whappo.

Uh, El Whappo is one of the many bogus identities of a resident troll here in
Hawaii. His trademarks are racisism, slander, hatred and sexual perversion.
All he wants is a response, any reply from anyone. Then he'll post other
trolls, probably under other fake aliases and may even argue with himself
using multiple personas. Unless, of course, he is either carted off to the
nuthouse again or is kicked off his ISP again. Don't feed the troll. KM

[El Whappo]

You are the one who made up make believe proof about God, when you and I
both know that you are an idiot who just can't come to terms with the fact
that he is totally alone because nobody likes him, not because of some grand
design by a invisible god.

Post by alohacyberian

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snips-

Post by El Whappo
Democrats are like priests who molest children,

And we have a w-i-n-n-a-h!
The Stupid Analogy of the Month award goes to whappo.

Uh, El Whappo is one of the many bogus identities of a resident troll here in
Hawaii. His trademarks are racisism, slander, hatred and sexual perversion.
All he wants is a response, any reply from anyone. Then he'll post other
trolls, probably under other fake aliases and may even argue with himself
using multiple personas. Unless, of course, he is either carted off to the
nuthouse again or is kicked off his ISP again. Don't feed the troll. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

[Neal Atkins]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:23:05 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter
Anyone who thinks Bush is good of America is either delusional or an enemy
of America. Your idiocy is telling in that you call the Democratic
candidate a "liar" even though he (or she) has not been nominated yet.

What difference would it make? They are all liars and HRH Hillary is
the worst of the lot. She even says she's not running "this time".

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Neal Atkins
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:23:05 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter
Anyone who thinks Bush is good of America is either delusional or an enemy
of America. Your idiocy is telling in that you call the Democratic
candidate a "liar" even though he (or she) has not been nominated yet.

What difference would it make?

It might have made some difference in the Unemployment Statistics. Or the
Employment Statistics. Or in the future of SS. Or whether Education gets
funded. Or whether Bin Laden gets caught. Or any of a thousand other things
that the Bush Administration has dropped the ball on.

[Roger R.]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Neal Atkins
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:23:05 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter
Anyone who thinks Bush is good of America is either delusional or an

enemy

Post by Neal Atkins

Post by Baxter
of America. Your idiocy is telling in that you call the Democratic
candidate a "liar" even though he (or she) has not been nominated yet.

What difference would it make?

It might have made some difference in the Unemployment Statistics. Or the
Employment Statistics. Or in the future of SS. Or whether Education gets
funded. Or whether Bin Laden gets caught. Or any of a thousand other things
that the Bush Administration has dropped the ball on.

Hear Hear.

The Republicans have picked up the banner of the Laissaise Faire liberals of
the ninteenth century, and are happy to see their workers earn so little
that they cannot support a family in America. Then when the workers don't
want to starve, the Republicans are proud to hire HB1 foreignors to do the
most complex technical tasks at reduced waged. Finally, when those workers
run out their visas, the Repuyblicans have them sent home and then hire them
in oursourceing agreements so that they don't have to hire highly trained
American workers at reasonable wages.

It no longer pays for an American to get an Information Systems degree,
because the employers will outsource the jobs to India at a fifth the wages
and no benefits.

The Republicans love this, because the few Americans who can make real money
in this system are like Ken Lay. They provide large sums of political money
to the Republicans as soft money so that Tom Delay can use it to change the
Texas state legislature to Republican and pack the federal House of
Representatives. Currently money controls more votes than ideas or
personalities do, so the Republicans have a major advantage. One result is a
legal system heavily weighted against labor. The money is used to justify
the idea that labor isn't important to this country. As a result, Americans
are on the average living much poorer lives than they would be otherwise.

In the meantime, the best jobs in this country are going overseas to Mexico
and India, while American wages are being more and more depressed.

RR

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And supporting teacher unions over children is GOOD for education?

Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

(Forget the fact that one of the biggest stock crashes in history happend
under Clinton)

Actually, the crash was on Bush's watch.

[Neal Atkins]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:45:18 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter

And supporting teacher unions over children is GOOD for education?

Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

Ooops, another "baxcode" lie caught. There have been NO CUTS in
education. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. A lesser INCREASE in "scheduled"
INCREASES is NOT A CUT!

Otherwise, show us where ONE PROGRAM is receiving LESS MONEY now than
it was. You can't because there have been NO CUTS.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Neal Atkins
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:45:18 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter

And supporting teacher unions over children is GOOD for education?

Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

Ooops, another "baxcode" lie caught. There have been NO CUTS in
education. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. A lesser INCREASE in "scheduled"
INCREASES is NOT A CUT!
Otherwise, show us where ONE PROGRAM is receiving LESS MONEY now than
it was. You can't because there have been NO CUTS.

'Less money per child' is a -cut-. Particularly when the Administration has
mandated an increase in service. Less money than promised IS A CUT.

Note that item 3 below specifies three programs that have been cut entirely.
-----------
Never mind the promise to leave no child behind, they say. The
Administration's budget would cut funding for school reform by $1.2 billion.
The budget before us today still cuts funding for the No Child Left Behind
Act by $700 billion. And, it provides $8.9 billion less than was promised
when the bill was signed by the President in January 2002.
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/03/03/2003319D22.html

Promise
Bush Pledged to "Spend More on Our Schools" As Part of Education Reform Law.
At the bill signing ceremony for the bipartisan "No Child Left Behind"
education law, Bush pledged to increase funding for education. "And so the
new role of the Federal Government is to set high standards, provide
resources, hold people accountable, and liberate school districts to meet
the standards. ... We're going to spend more on our schools, and we're going
to spend it more wisely," Bush said. [Remarks on Signing the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, 1/8/02]

Broken
Bush Budget Cut $90 Million From "No Child Left Behind" Education Reform
Law. According to an analysis of the Bush education budget by the House
Education and the Workforce Committee, "Just one month ago, Congress and the
President enacted the most important education reform legislation in 30
years. This bipartisan law is based on the principle that, with adequate
resources, real reform is possible. But rather than building on this
progress, the President's budget cuts initiatives in The No Child Left
Behind Act by a net total of $90 million." [House Committee on Education and
the Workforce, Democratic staff, The Bush Budget: Shortchanging School
Reform, 2/12/02]
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/brokenpromises/education.html


"As soon as he signed the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush walked
away from his job of improving our schools," charged Sen. Tom Harkin of
Iowa, echoing the sentiments of his colleagues and of liberal interest
groups like the National Education Association, the American Federation of
Teachers and the National School Boards Association.

"His budget for this fiscal year had the smallest increase for education
since 1996," said Harkin. "It eliminated funding for rural schools, school
counselors and dropout prevention ... cut funding for the No Child Left
Behind Act by $90 million; and you can bet his budget for next fiscal year
won't do any better."
http://www.conservativenews.org/Politics/archive/200301/POL20030109c.html

[Neal Atkins]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:23:10 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter

Post by Neal Atkins

Post by Baxter
Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

Ooops, another "baxcode" lie caught. There have been NO CUTS in
education. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. A lesser INCREASE in "scheduled"
INCREASES is NOT A CUT!
Otherwise, show us where ONE PROGRAM is receiving LESS MONEY now than
it was. You can't because there have been NO CUTS.

'Less money per child' is a -cut-. Particularly when the Administration has
mandated an increase in service. Less money than promised IS A CUT.

So we agree that there have been NO CUTS in "education". As witnessed
by the bit YOU PUT IN!!!

Post by Baxter
"His budget for this fiscal year had the smallest increase for education
since 1996," said Harkin. "It eliminated funding for rural schools, school
counselors and dropout prevention ... cut funding for the No Child Left
Behind Act by $90 million; and you can bet his budget for next fiscal year
won't do any better."
http://www.conservativenews.org/Politics/archive/200301/POL20030109c.html

"Smallest increase". Does that mean CUT to you baxcode?

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Neal Atkins
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:23:10 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter

Post by Neal Atkins

Post by Baxter
Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

Ooops, another "baxcode" lie caught. There have been NO CUTS in
education. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. A lesser INCREASE in "scheduled"
INCREASES is NOT A CUT!
Otherwise, show us where ONE PROGRAM is receiving LESS MONEY now than
it was. You can't because there have been NO CUTS.

'Less money per child' is a -cut-. Particularly when the Administration has
mandated an increase in service. Less money than promised IS A CUT.

So we agree that there have been NO CUTS in "education". As witnessed
by the bit YOU PUT IN!!!

Post by Baxter
"His budget for this fiscal year had the smallest increase for education
since 1996," said Harkin. "It eliminated funding for rural schools, school
counselors and dropout prevention ... cut funding for the No Child Left
Behind Act by $90 million; and you can bet his budget for next fiscal year
won't do any better."
http://www.conservativenews.org/Politics/archive/200301/POL20030109c.html

"Smallest increase". Does that mean CUT to you baxcode?

What does "It eliminated funding for rural schools, school counselors and
dropout prevention" mean to you?

The challenge was: "show us where ONE PROGRAM is receiving LESS MONEY now
than it was". I've shown three.

[alohacyberian]

Post by Neal Atkins
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:23:10 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter

Post by Neal Atkins

Post by Baxter
Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

Ooops, another "baxcode" lie caught. There have been NO CUTS in
education. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. A lesser INCREASE in "scheduled"
INCREASES is NOT A CUT!
Otherwise, show us where ONE PROGRAM is receiving LESS MONEY now than
it was. You can't because there have been NO CUTS.

'Less money per child' is a -cut-. Particularly when the Administration has
mandated an increase in service. Less money than promised IS A CUT.

So we agree that there have been NO CUTS in "education". As witnessed
by the bit YOU PUT IN!!!

Baxter is a Bush-basher who could care less about facts. KM

[El Whappo]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And supporting teacher unions over children is GOOD for education?

Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

(Forget the fact that one of the biggest stock crashes in history happend
under Clinton)

Actually, the crash was on Bush's watch.

HAHAHAHA, Sorry, the crash happend under Clinton. We discussed it in a
political science class after it happend and a student brought up "You
watch, they will try to blame this on Bush even though it happend while
Clinton is still president."

[john bailo]

she said he said she said El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
HAHAHAHA, Sorry, the crash happend under Clinton. We discussed it in a
political science class after it happend and a student brought up "You
watch, they will try to blame this on Bush even though it happend while
Clinton is still president."

the three years of recession, longest in post-wwii american history
happened entirely under bush.

the highest unemployment rate in the last 15 years happened all under
bush.

what about those apples?

[Bob Tiernan]

Post by john bailo
the three years of recession, longest in post-wwii
american history happened entirely under bush.

Three years of recession? That would take us
back to the Clinton Admin. Did you mean to
say that the recession has been shorter than
three years?


By the way, still think nobody said that
Kuwait was a phoney country so that
Saddam's annexation was just fine?

Bob T

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what Bob Tiernan said,

Post by Bob Tiernan

Post by john bailo
the three years of recession, longest in post-wwii
american history happened entirely under bush.

Three years of recession? That would take us
back to the Clinton Admin. Did you mean to
say that the recession has been shorter than
three years?

'01, '02, '03

unlike the council of economic advisors, i expect the recession
to continue through '03 when jobs and stocks will still not rebound
to their clintonesque highs.

that would take a responsible democratic regieme, such as howard dean's
that will take office in '04

by the way:
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/econrecord.html

[Bob Tiernan]

Post by john bailo

Post by Bob Tiernan
Three years of recession? That would take us
back to the Clinton Admin. Did you mean to
say that the recession has been shorter than
three years?

'01, '02, '03

'03 is only little more than half over.
Bush has been in for about 2-1/2 years.
When he's been in for three years then
you can say "three years".

Bob t

[gatt]

"Bob Tiernan"

Post by Bob Tiernan

Post by john bailo
the three years of recession, longest in post-wwii
american history happened entirely under bush.

Three years of recession? That would take us
back to the Clinton Admin. Did you mean to
say that the recession has been shorter than
three years?

HAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!! Nice catch.

Clinton didn't even leave office until January of 2001.

-c

[El Whappo]

Post by john bailo
she said he said she said El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
HAHAHAHA, Sorry, the crash happend under Clinton. We discussed it in a
political science class after it happend and a student brought up "You
watch, they will try to blame this on Bush even though it happend while
Clinton is still president."

the three years of recession, longest in post-wwii american history
happened entirely under bush.
the highest unemployment rate in the last 15 years happened all under
bush.
what about those apples?

Its the fallout from Clintons crash.

Post by john bailo
--
dean '04
http://deanforamerica.com

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Its the fallout from Bush's crash.

agreed.

let's elect dean in '04

[alohacyberian]

Post by john bailo
El Whappo said,

Its the fallout from Bush's crash.

agreed.

A troll responding to a troll? Bailo to TrollAIDS, ooops, El Whappo. Birds
of a feather. KM

[El Whappo]

Get off your cross, we need the wood.

Post by alohacyberian

Post by john bailo
El Whappo said,

Its the fallout from Bush's crash.

agreed.

A troll responding to a troll? Bailo to TrollAIDS, ooops, El Whappo.

Birds

Post by alohacyberian
of a feather. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter

(Forget the fact that one of the biggest stock crashes in history

happend

Post by Baxter

under Clinton)

Actually, the crash was on Bush's watch.

HAHAHAHA, Sorry, the crash happend under Clinton. We discussed it in a
political science class after it happend and a student brought up "You
watch, they will try to blame this on Bush even though it happend while
Clinton is still president."

Here's the 5-year DOJ: <
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI&d=c&t=5y&l=on&z=b&q=l >

It very clearly shows the crash happening on Bush's watch.

[El Whappo]

The stock Market crash was April, 2000.

Clinton was president at the time.

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And supporting teacher unions over children is GOOD for education?

Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

(Forget the fact that one of the biggest stock crashes in history happend
under Clinton)

Actually, the crash was on Bush's watch.

[john bailo]

she said he said she said El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
The stock Market crash was April, 2000.
Clinton was president at the time.

and greenspan, the real culprit, was still chairman of the Fed

the answer is: greenspan!

he failed to cut interest rates back in 1996 when they had fallen
in almost every westernized nation, and SHOULD have fallen here.

but, greenspan is an old bond trader and he did his buddies in the bond
market lots of good by artificially inflating the value of money
(high interest rates) so they could sell (unload) their bonds.

result -- cash starvation for budding internet companies and hence
crash.

stupid analysis: those internet companies were a scam

smart analysis: they were cash and credit starved -- and the ones
that survived are poised to grow enourmously and there will be
many more start ups in the years to come

ASSUMING

we can get rid of dumwits like Bush who don't have a clue as to
what the economy is about or what it needs to grow.

[Jeff Relf]

Hi John John , you wrote :
" Stupid analysis : Those internet companies were a scam . "


They were horrid scams .

In the late nineties ,
Greenspan was their cheerleader as they pilfered our futures .

That's what broke Wall Street and Seattle's economy .

[Roger R.]

Post by Jeff Relf
" Stupid analysis : Those internet companies were a scam . "
They were horrid scams .

Maybe but to be a true scam the scammer has to know he's scamming. I
think a lot of those guys just didn't understand economics or how to
run a profitable business.

Post by Jeff Relf
In the late nineties ,
Greenspan was their cheerleader as they pilfered our futures .

Greenspan was the guy warning against "irrational exuburance" in case
you don't remember. Strange form of cheerleading.

Yes, but he is also the guy who expanded the money supply sharply especially
after 1997, which was a major cause of the stock market bubble.

In his defense, however, he did it recognizing the danger. The reason he
expanded the money supply is because the financial collapse that started in
Thailand and spread to most of Asia, Russia and Latin America was
threatening the economies of the industrial world, so he made sure that the
US economy had sufficient liquidity to keep the world economy from
collapsing overall.

His "irrational exuberance" comment was his warning that he was going to
have to pull back on the money supply at some point soon, and that the
growth in the market was not related to real underlying growth in the
economy.

As for the internet companies, many of the internet service companies were
quite aware that there was going to be room for only a few and that they
would have to be national or the dominant regional company to be one of the
survivors. As a result they ~all~ borrowed heavily and sold stock to expand
rapidly. It wasn't difficult with the financial markets moving upwards so
rapidly. Everyone was trying to become the next AOL (God - what low
standards) so they needed to get big fast. It was grow or die.
Unfortunately, the markets were rising so quickly because of the expansion
of the money supply, not so much for reasons of the underlying economy. Not
that there wasn't a good story in the underlying economy, but the
"exuberance" part was mostly money supply looking for places to go. Then the
infrastructure got heavily overbuilt and as promised, Greenspan quit
overexpanding the money supply, and the economy tanked. So most of them died
anyway.

The two guys who ran our local internet service company with about 300
employees and nation-wide service had both been real estate brokers before
getting into the internet business. Neither had ever run a company of over
10 people previously, and the expansion was so fast they didn't recognize
their lack of experience and education until it was much too late. You can't
run a company that large out of your hip pocket like you can a local company
with 30 or fewer employees. Both sold out and left before the market
collapsed.

RR

[El Whappo]

Post by Roger R.

Post by Jeff Relf
" Stupid analysis : Those internet companies were a scam . "
They were horrid scams .

Maybe but to be a true scam the scammer has to know he's scamming. I
think a lot of those guys just didn't understand economics or how to
run a profitable business.

Post by Jeff Relf
In the late nineties ,
Greenspan was their cheerleader as they pilfered our futures .

Greenspan was the guy warning against "irrational exuburance" in case
you don't remember. Strange form of cheerleading.

Yes, but he is also the guy who expanded the money supply sharply especially
after 1997, which was a major cause of the stock market bubble.
In his defense, however, he did it recognizing the danger. The reason he
expanded the money supply is because the financial collapse that started in
Thailand and spread to most of Asia, Russia and Latin America was
threatening the economies of the industrial world, so he made sure that the
US economy had sufficient liquidity to keep the world economy from
collapsing overall.
His "irrational exuberance" comment was his warning that he was going to
have to pull back on the money supply at some point soon, and that the
growth in the market was not related to real underlying growth in the
economy.
As for the internet companies, many of the internet service companies were
quite aware that there was going to be room for only a few and that they
would have to be national or the dominant regional company to be one of the
survivors. As a result they ~all~ borrowed heavily and sold stock to expand
rapidly. It wasn't difficult with the financial markets moving upwards so
rapidly. Everyone was trying to become the next AOL (God - what low
standards) so they needed to get big fast. It was grow or die.
Unfortunately, the markets were rising so quickly because of the expansion
of the money supply, not so much for reasons of the underlying economy. Not
that there wasn't a good story in the underlying economy, but the
"exuberance" part was mostly money supply looking for places to go. Then the
infrastructure got heavily overbuilt and as promised, Greenspan quit
overexpanding the money supply, and the economy tanked. So most of them died
anyway.
The two guys who ran our local internet service company with about 300
employees and nation-wide service had both been real estate brokers before
getting into the internet business. Neither had ever run a company of over
10 people previously, and the expansion was so fast they didn't recognize
their lack of experience and education until it was much too late. You can't
run a company that large out of your hip pocket like you can a local company
with 30 or fewer employees. Both sold out and left before the market
collapsed.

You left out how Bush caused the crash.

Post by Roger R.
RR

[Jeff Relf]

Hi Hal Lillywhite , You say :
" Greenspan was the guy warning against
' irrational exuberance ' in case you don't remember .
Strange form of cheerleading . "


ha ha ! You are the one that doesn't remember .

Robert Shiller is the only reason Greenspan
_ Briefly Mentioned _ irrational exuberance
when he was at Jackson Hole Wyoming , December 1996 .

After that it was all :
" Raw raw new economy ... Good bye old rules . "


See : " Ecomonic Principals , The q factor "
By David Warsh, Globe Staff , May 2000
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/debt/1999/msg00448.html
<< Smithers and Wright maintain that
the Fed should have raised interest rates in 1995 ,
when the stock market first began to be
noticeably overvalued by conventional measures ,
in the wake of the Mexican peso crisis .
That might well have caused a mild recession in 1996 ,
they say , " but it would probably have saved the world
from a really deep one early in the new millennium . "

True , they say ,
an aggressive tightening in 1995 might well have
cost Greenspan his job ,
and Clinton the 1996 election .
About these perils they are philosophical .
" It takes a great deal of leadership to accept such risks
and try to persuade voters to accept
the short-term pain for their longer-term reward . "

Instead ,
Greenspan and his board conducted monetary policy
along gentler lines.
The market
( measured by the Dow Jones industrial average )
surged 33 percent in 1995 and 27 percent in 1996 .

With the Dow at 6400 in December 1996 ,
Greenspan gave his famous
" irrational exuberance " speech .
" How do we know when irrational exuberance has
unduly escalated asset values ? ...
And how do we factor that assessment
into monetary policy ? "

Once again , the market rose -
yet another 30 percent in the first half of 1997 ,
before the Asian financial crisis
put a distinct chill in the air .
The American economy remained strong ,
and the Asian economies recovered ,
thanks in large measure to
the strength of their exports to the United States .
Starting in late 1998 ,
the stock market once again resumed its upward march .

Last summer [ 1999 ] Greenspan formally renounced
his earlier skepticism - at least the highly public stance .
At a Federal Reserve conference at Jackson Hole , Wyo. ,
he genuflected to a stock market that he said reflected
the " judgments of millions of investors ,
many of whom are highly knowledgeable
about the prospects for specific companies that
make up our broad stock price indexes . "

The market -
the technology-rich Nasdaq Composite index in particular -
responded by going through the roof. >>

[alohacyberian]

Maybe but to be a true scam the scammer has to know he's scamming. I
think a lot of those guys just didn't understand economics or how to
run a profitable business.

Post by Jeff Relf
In the late nineties ,
Greenspan was their cheerleader as they pilfered our futures .

Greenspan was the guy warning against "irrational exuburance" in case
you don't remember. Strange form of cheerleading.

Many of the dot.com entrepreneurs were too young, too inexperienced, too
likely to put pals instead of experts into key positions, too enthusiastic
and too likely to assume they were as shrewd as Bill Gates and were about to
become as wealthy. Many of the heavy investors were very young and very
blind to the goings-on inside the companies they championed. It had little,
if anything, to do with American presidents or Federal Reserve Chairman
Greenspan. KM

[Baxter]

There was no crash of the DOJ in April of 2000. If you're talking NASDAQ,
it's NOT "The Stock Market".

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by El Whappo
The stock Market crash was April, 2000.
Clinton was president at the time.

Post by Baxter

And supporting teacher unions over children is GOOD for education?

Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

(Forget the fact that one of the biggest stock crashes in history

happend

Post by Baxter

under Clinton)

Actually, the crash was on Bush's watch.

[El Whappo]

The TECH CRASH.

Post by Baxter
There was no crash of the DOJ in April of 2000. If you're talking NASDAQ,
it's NOT "The Stock Market".
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by El Whappo
The stock Market crash was April, 2000.
Clinton was president at the time.

Post by Baxter

And supporting teacher unions over children is GOOD for education?

Bush has cut funds for every children's program.

(Forget the fact that one of the biggest stock crashes in history

happend

Post by Baxter

under Clinton)

Actually, the crash was on Bush's watch.

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.

[El Whappo]

Bush's monetary policies were not in existance then, it was the Clinton
admin.

Oh yeah, Bush crashed the economy not Clinton, that and Gore invented the
internet.

Post by john bailo
she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.
--
dean '04
http://deanforamerica.com

[nobody]

Post by john bailo
she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.

Brought on by unsustainable, unrealistic business models that
companies adopted long before Bush Jr. ever announced his bid
for the 2000 presidential race.

Yep, the dot com bubble of the Clinton years burst.

[El Whappo]

IMAGINARY ASSETS!!!!

Post by nobody

Post by john bailo
she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.

Brought on by unsustainable, unrealistic business models that
companies adopted long before Bush Jr. ever announced his bid
for the 2000 presidential race.

Yep, the dot com bubble of the Clinton years burst.

[WinGuru]

Post by nobody

Post by john bailo
she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.

Brought on by unsustainable, unrealistic business models that
companies adopted long before Bush Jr. ever announced his bid
for the 2000 presidential race.

Yep, the dot com bubble of the Clinton years burst.

You still pushing this canard? The bursting of the bubble, as it were, was
in large part due to the Bush campaign's dissing of the economy in the
months leading to the election (in order to drive down consumer confidence)
and Bush's buddies in the Energy sector manipulating energy availability and
prices to the tune of extracting in excess of a 100 Billion from the west
coast economies. The other major factor was the Fed Reserves precipitous
RAISING of interest rates in the last year before the election. Of course,
as soon as Bush steals the office, all regulation of the energy market is
relaxed and the Feds start DROPPING the interest rates in order to boost the
economy.

[nobody]

Post by WinGuru

Post by nobody

Post by john bailo
she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.

Brought on by unsustainable, unrealistic business models that
companies adopted long before Bush Jr. ever announced his bid
for the 2000 presidential race.

Yep, the dot com bubble of the Clinton years burst.

You still pushing this canard?

I'm still pushing the truth. You're still in denial.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by nobody

Post by WinGuru

Post by nobody

Post by john bailo
she said you don't understand what El Whappo said,

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.

Brought on by unsustainable, unrealistic business models that
companies adopted long before Bush Jr. ever announced his bid
for the 2000 presidential race.

Yep, the dot com bubble of the Clinton years burst.

You still pushing this canard?

I'm still pushing the truth. You're still in denial.

Don't look now, but the Real Estate bubble is about to burst. It's the
last, and the one that will do the most damage.

[gatt]

Post by WinGuru
You still pushing this canard? The bursting of the bubble, as it were, was
in large part due to the Bush campaign's dissing of the economy

Still pushing that canard?

The bursting of the bubble was in large part due to the ridiculous inflation
of stock prices that were not backed by substance. It was inevitable,
regardless of who won the election, because tech stocks were already
collapsing.

-c

[gatt]

Post by john bailo

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.

Wrong.

--Brought on by moronic inflation of empty stock by money-drunk investors
who thought they could make money off of companies (like Netscape) that gave
away their product for free.

...and who were subsequently crushed by competition by entities such as
Microsoft, who stole their code, and bought out by assholes like Time
Warner.

--Brought on by companies like E-Stamp, who gave away an actual inkjet
printer, charging less for the product than the cost of the printer itself,
and despite the fact that the software they were selling did not actually
even WORK with that (or most) printers. This is a true story, by the way.
The released a fix that didn't fix anything the first time around, and the
second time around they didn't print enough CDs to fix all of the copies
they'd sold. By then, the company stock had dissolved and the company
simply folded.

--Brought on by companies like ELI.NET that laid a major backbone across the
southwest, leased it to Sprint, and then turned around and sub-leased it
from Sprint. ELI built it, leased it, and then bought it at Sprint rates.
ELI spent millions looking for a facility in Seattle without realizing that
they had one there already and had been paying a lease and utilities on an
empty corporate office for over a year...and then did it AGAIN in San
Francisco.

--Brought on by companies like Wolrldcom and Enron, whose creepy finanical
practices extended well before the Bush administration and probably had
little to do with Clinton either.

--Brought on by companies like Global Crossing, who invested billions in a
backbone that generated insignificant revenue.

--Brought on by companies like TriQuent who took out something like a
$250,000,000 corporate loan and then spent most of an interest-drawing year
deciding what to spend the money on.

--Brough on by companies like Stream International who violated client
contracts and lost them, and who were bought about by nearly-bankrupt
east-coast companies with plunging stocks who closed down entire divisions
and farmed all the labor out to India and Canada. What Ross Perot
predicted as "that sucking sound."

These are merely a few examples. It's absolutely ludicrous, ignorant and
tragically nearsighted to assign credit or blame to Bush or Clinton.

-c
..former tech employee.

[gatt]

Post by john bailo

Post by El Whappo
The TECH CRASH.

bought on by bu$h monetary policies.

Brought on by unsustainable, unrealistic business models that
companies adopted long before Bush Jr. ever announced his bid
for the 2000 presidential race.

BINGO!

Clinton had the un/fortunate (depending) duty of presiding over a
money-drunk tech explosion.

Hewlett-Packard has(had?) it's own internal airline. You should see what was
inside the corporate jets down in Corvallis.

-c

[john bailo]

she said he said she said El Whappo said,

(Forget the fact that one of the biggest stock crashes in history happend
under Clinton)

since they don't teach math at your school, here's a graphic, 10 years of
nasdaq:

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=nasdaq&sid=3291&o_symb=nasdaq&freq=2&time=13

see where the little line is in 94.

see where it is in 00. it went up from 94 ooooo

see where it is in 03. it went down from 00 oooo

see, it's called, maaaattthh.

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what gatt said,

Post by john bailo
she said he said she said El Whappo said,

Democrats thrive on suffering employment statistics.

unemployment hovered in double digits until 1992 when clinton
entered office.

Fortuantely, by then Al Gore had invented the internet and the dot com
industry was able to flourish, creating millions of jobs.

funded by easy money courtesy of Bill Clinton who promoted and used
business for social good as no President had done before. Although
starting as a tradional Liberal in 93/94, he quickly changed gears
and drove the biggest business resurgence since the mid-60s.

Poverty was reduced. Wealth was increased. Productivity soared.
Markets soared. A spendid time was had by all.

And now? Under bu$h? Unemployment, war, crime, strife, dissent,
terror -- all because of the Republican hoardes.

It had nothing to do with Clinton. There were not dot coms or public
internet access before 1992, which happened to coincide with the Clinton
election.

Post by john bailo
obviously, bringing people out of poverty ( which clinton did )

"Clinton" did squat. "Bringing people out of poverty." Yeesh. The White
House simply does not have that kind of power.

you're an idiot. the federal government has everything to do with
the money supply and how it's handled, grown, etc.

Post by john bailo
To the rescue comes Old Money Bags Bu$h -- who wrecks the economy,
starts a needless war, sends unemployment soaring, creates a 3 year
Depression, exports jobs from America and basically aligns with every
Old Guard special interest ever created in America.

See above. Bush did not "export jobs from America." Corporate America did.
God damn...is it that difficult to figure out?

Bu$H=Corporate America

That's the whole point of the post! Did you get a 200 on the reading
comprehension part of the SATs?

=gatt

[gatt]

Post by john bailo

Post by john bailo
obviously, bringing people out of poverty ( which clinton did )

"Clinton" did squat. "Bringing people out of poverty." Yeesh. The White
House simply does not have that kind of power.

you're an idiot. the federal government has everything to do with
the money supply and how it's handled, grown, etc.

Ah. So, Congress, the Senate, the FTC...those aren't "the federal
government."

Bill Clinton is.

Idiot. You must have flunked political science.

-c

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what gatt said,

Post by gatt

Post by john bailo

Post by john bailo
obviously, bringing people out of poverty ( which clinton did )

"Clinton" did squat. "Bringing people out of poverty." Yeesh. The

White

Post by john bailo

House simply does not have that kind of power.

you're an idiot. the federal government has everything to do with
the money supply and how it's handled, grown, etc.

Ah. So, Congress, the Senate, the FTC...those aren't "the federal
government."
Bill Clinton is.
Idiot. You must have flunked political science.

political science???

that's a gut class, like rocks for jocks

Post by gatt
-c

[alohacyberian]

Post by gatt

Post by john bailo

Post by john bailo
obviously, bringing people out of poverty ( which clinton did )

"Clinton" did squat. "Bringing people out of poverty." Yeesh. The

White

Post by john bailo

House simply does not have that kind of power.

you're an idiot. the federal government has everything to do with
the money supply and how it's handled, grown, etc.

Idiot. You must have flunked political science.
-c

Uh, the money supply in the United States is controlled by the Federal
Reserve which isn't a part of the Federal Government, it's a corporation and
many on the board of directors aren't even Americans. *Doh!* Why does
anyone respond to bailo's trolls? He's obviously politically and
economically illiterate. KM

[v***@hotmail.com]

Fortuantely, by then Al Gore had invented the internet and the dot com

Plonk.

_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt

[gatt]

Post by v***@hotmail.com

Fortuantely, by then Al Gore had invented the internet and the dot com

Plonk.

Sounds like somebody can't handle sarcasm without poking his fingers in his
ears and yelling "I'm not listening I'm not listening."

-c

[alohacyberian]

Post by gatt

Post by v***@hotmail.com

Fortuantely, by then Al Gore had invented the internet and the dot com

Plonk.

Sounds like somebody can't handle sarcasm without poking his fingers in his
ears and yelling "I'm not listening I'm not listening."
-c

Amazing, when it's obviously a bit of humor anyway. KM

[Roger R.]

Evil in what manner? At least the Democrats are in touch with reality. The
Republicans are in touch with nothing except power and personal gain. They
clearly don't care how many American soldiers they needlessly get killed to
gain that power and gain.

RR

The Democratic party is much more evil then the republican party.

Post by Baxter
Anyone who thinks Bush is good of America is either delusional or an enemy
of America. Your idiocy is telling in that you call the Democratic
candidate a "liar" even though he (or she) has not been nominated yet.
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter

Post by El Whappo
Anyone who believes that the democrats are bashing bush for the Good of
America and not looking to find ways to bash him so they can put their

liar

Post by El Whappo
in office are still waiting up all night to shoot the Easter Bunny.

[El Whappo]

Post by Roger R.
Evil in what manner? At least the Democrats are in touch with reality. The
Republicans are in touch with nothing except power and personal gain. They
clearly don't care how many American soldiers they needlessly get killed to
gain that power and gain.

Hahhahaa

Please, don't try to say Democrats are in any way in touch with reality.
Your trusting the hype over the facts.

Post by Roger R.
RR

The Democratic party is much more evil then the republican party.

Post by Baxter
Anyone who thinks Bush is good of America is either delusional or an

enemy

Post by Baxter
of America. Your idiocy is telling in that you call the Democratic
candidate a "liar" even though he (or she) has not been nominated yet.
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter

Post by El Whappo
Anyone who believes that the democrats are bashing bush for the Good

of

Post by Baxter

Post by El Whappo
America and not looking to find ways to bash him so they can put their

liar

Post by El Whappo
in office are still waiting up all night to shoot the Easter Bunny.

[Roger R.]

Post by Roger R.
Evil in what manner? At least the Democrats are in touch with reality. The
Republicans are in touch with nothing except power and personal gain. They
clearly don't care how many American soldiers they needlessly get killed

to

Post by Roger R.
gain that power and gain.
RR

That is a stupid statement. Juan couldn't have said it better!

Your statement shows all teh thought demonstrated by the current
admininstration -
"We ~know~ what is true - now we need to find that facts to prove it."

In short, you have a real disconnect with reality.

Post by Roger R.

The Democratic party is much more evil then the republican party.

Post by Baxter
Anyone who thinks Bush is good of America is either delusional or an

enemy

Post by Baxter
of America. Your idiocy is telling in that you call the Democratic
candidate a "liar" even though he (or she) has not been nominated yet.
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Roger R.

Post by Baxter
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Roger R.

Post by Baxter

Post by El Whappo
Anyone who believes that the democrats are bashing bush for the

Good

Post by Roger R.
of

Post by Baxter

Post by El Whappo
America and not looking to find ways to bash him so they can put

their

Post by Roger R.

Post by Baxter
liar

Post by El Whappo
in office are still waiting up all night to shoot the Easter Bunny.

[WinGuru]

Post by Roger R.
Evil in what manner? At least the Democrats are in touch with reality. The
Republicans are in touch with nothing except power and personal gain. They
clearly don't care how many American soldiers they needlessly get killed

to

Post by Roger R.
gain that power and gain.
RR

That is a stupid statement. Juan couldn't have said it better!

Maybe, maybe not - it is true none-the-less.

[alohacyberian]

Post by Baxter
Anyone who thinks Bush is good of America is either delusional or an enemy
of America. Your idiocy is telling in that you call the Democratic
candidate a "liar" even though he (or she) has not been nominated yet.

El Whappo is a troll and will do anything, take any stance or post any
position to get you to respond. He doesn't believe a word he posts or a word
you post. And if you stop responding to his trolls, he'll return with yet
another bogus identity and try to suck you into his trap. Don't feed the
troll. KM

"One wants to be loved; failing this, to be admired; failing this, to be
feared; failing even this, to be hated and despised. One wants to arouse
some sort of feeling in people. The soul shrinks from the void and wants
contact at any price."
~ Hjalmar Soderberg

[Bucky Kaufman]

Post by Edward Glamkowski
If it does end up that there are no WMDs because these
advisors lied to Saddam, was the war still wrong given
that the mole had no way of knowing these reports were
lies?

Yes. When it comes to something as important as WMD, accuracy is
everything... especially when it comes to statements like "they're buying
Uranium from Africa" and "specific, credible evidence" should be verified
before plunging several countries into war.

It doesn't really matter WHY Bush was so very, very wrong about Iraq - only
that he was indeed absolutely wrong.

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Is it improper to act upon what you believe to be highly
reliable data, even if, after the fact, it is finally
discovered that data was, in fact, wrong?

Yes, it is indeed improper to rely on data that is, in fact, wrong.
Regardless of Bush's "faith" in the claims, he should have demanded
confirmation before plunging two or more countries into such a needless war
of agression.

Post by Edward Glamkowski
You have what you deem reliable information that says
a lot of people may die soon if you do nothing.
You have the power to stop the threat, assuming it is real.
What do you do?

I'd ask the CIA an other investgators to verify the threat. If they said
there was no proof, I'd set my faith aside and go with what is real.

[Roger R.]

Post by Bucky Kaufman

Post by Edward Glamkowski
If it does end up that there are no WMDs because these
advisors lied to Saddam, was the war still wrong given
that the mole had no way of knowing these reports were
lies?

Yes. When it comes to something as important as WMD, accuracy is
everything... especially when it comes to statements like "they're buying
Uranium from Africa" and "specific, credible evidence" should be verified
before plunging several countries into war.

I agree so far.

Post by Bucky Kaufman
It doesn't really matter WHY Bush was so very, very wrong about Iraq - only
that he was indeed absolutely wrong.

Here I disagree. It ~does~ matter why he was so wrong - because he is going
to be Predent for another year and a half. Frankly I think he is mentally
deficient and was used by some of his advisors who have never themselves run
for office.

I think he believes the baloney he is feeding the Press and the American
people. That is because he has trusted friends who are telling him it is
true. They also tell him that anyone who disagrees with him is a political
enemy attempting to use issues as weapons to destroy his Presidency. He
himself has neither the mental discipline nor the education to evaluate the
conflict between what his friends tell him and those who oppose his policies
say.

For a person with his limited intellect, such a conflict will drive him to
depend even more on his friends. He knows in his heart that he is not
himself capable of sorting out the correct answers in such a conflict if
concepts and ideas.

He is convinced that the WMDs will be found in Iraq, and that the tax cuts
will improve the economy. He has also selected those who surround him so
that no one will disagree with those beliefs.

In short, his views do not reflect reality, and cannot be changed so that
they do.

Post by Bucky Kaufman

Post by Edward Glamkowski
Is it improper to act upon what you believe to be highly
reliable data, even if, after the fact, it is finally
discovered that data was, in fact, wrong?

Yes, it is indeed improper to rely on data that is, in fact, wrong.
Regardless of Bush's "faith" in the claims, he should have demanded
confirmation before plunging two or more countries into such a needless war
of agression.

He hasn't the intellectual self-confidence to do that. It would mean
disagreeing with the people who he has himself selected to surround him and
tell him what is and is not true.

Post by Bucky Kaufman

Post by Edward Glamkowski
You have what you deem reliable information that says
a lot of people may die soon if you do nothing.
You have the power to stop the threat, assuming it is real.
What do you do?

I'd ask the CIA an other investgators to verify the threat. If they said
there was no proof, I'd set my faith aside and go with what is real.

Yet his advisors have attacked the CIA since the day they entered office.
They don't beleive that the CIA is realistically analysing the situation.
when they disagree with the neocon 'analysis', it MUST be for political
reasons, because it CANNOT be an accurate analysis. It is contrary to the
analysis of the neocons. Only their political enemies disagree with them.

This is a truely failed Presidency. It is more dangerous to the US and to
the world than any previous Presidency has ever been.

RR

[Bucky Kaufman]

Post by Roger R.
Frankly I think he is mentally
deficient and was used by some of his advisors who have never themselves run
for office.

It's not likely that Bush was "used" by his so-called advisors. He is,
without a doubt, in charge in D.C. Whe folks in his administration have
opposed his initiatives, he's sent them packing.

Post by Roger R.
I think he believes the baloney he is feeding the Press and the American
people. That is because he has trusted friends who are telling him it is
true.

No way. Bush most certainly believed the things he said all on his own. He
doesn't need Republican warmongers to tell him to hate Iraq. His advisors
didn't lie to him. He took what they said and spun it to mean that Iraq was
a threat to the US.

Post by Roger R.
They also tell him that anyone who disagrees with him is a political
enemy attempting to use issues as weapons to destroy his Presidency.

Bush doesn't need anyone to tell him he has enemies.

[Roger R.]

Post by Bucky Kaufman

Post by Roger R.
Frankly I think he is mentally
deficient and was used by some of his advisors who have never themselves

run

Post by Roger R.
for office.

It's not likely that Bush was "used" by his so-called advisors. He is,
without a doubt, in charge in D.C. Whe folks in his administration have
opposed his initiatives, he's sent them packing.

Post by Roger R.
I think he believes the baloney he is feeding the Press and the American
people. That is because he has trusted friends who are telling him it is
true.

No way. Bush most certainly believed the things he said all on his own.

He

Post by Bucky Kaufman
doesn't need Republican warmongers to tell him to hate Iraq. His advisors
didn't lie to him. He took what they said and spun it to mean that Iraq was
a threat to the US.

Post by Roger R.
They also tell him that anyone who disagrees with him is a political
enemy attempting to use issues as weapons to destroy his Presidency.

Bush doesn't need anyone to tell him he has enemies.

Maybe someone should tell him that some people who disagree with him are
~not~ his enemies, and perhaps should be listened to.

Nahhh. Too difficult to keep things black and white that way.

RR

[alohacyberian]

Post by Bucky Kaufman

Post by Roger R.
I think he believes the baloney he is feeding the Press and the American
people. That is because he has trusted friends who are telling him it is
true.

No way. Bush most certainly believed the things he said all on his own.

He

Post by Bucky Kaufman
doesn't need Republican warmongers to tell him to hate Iraq.

If anyone hated Iraq and wanted to really hurt the country, all they'd have
had to do would have been allow Saddam and his Baathists continue to destroy
the nation and its people. Who could have done a more effective job than
Hussein and his henchmen were doing? Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler are dead.
KM

[alohacyberian]

Post by Edward Glamkowski
It has been suggested in recent threads here that Saddam's
advisors lied to him about WMDs for fear of their lives.
That is, they told him what he wanted to hear.
Let's assume that's true. It certainly seems plausible.
By all recent accounts, it sounds like the US had a mole in
Saddam's inner circle. This mole would have heard from these
advisors about the WMDs, but almost certainly could not have
known these reports were all/mostly lies. He dutifully
reports this information back to the US government and
eventually Bush gets ahold of it. He takes it at face value
and uses it to make the case, but obviously can't reveal the
source for fear of compromising such a highly placed spy.
Would it be wrong for Bush to accept such information at
face value?
If it does end up that there are no WMDs because these
advisors lied to Saddam, was the war still wrong given
that the mole had no way of knowing these reports were
lies?
Is it improper to act upon what you believe to be highly
reliable data, even if, after the fact, it is finally
discovered that data was, in fact, wrong?
Is it better to err on the side of caution and act
decisively, or continue to wait even though waiting
could potentially be deadly (since you don't know in
advance that the information was incorrect)?
----
You have what you deem reliable information that says
a lot of people may die soon if you do nothing.
You have the power to stop the threat, assuming it is real.
What do you do?

You do exactly what Bush did, especially bearing in mind that Hussein did use
chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Iranians and the Iraqis. Even if
Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, he himself and his
henchmen were certainly weapons of mass destruction and the removal of such
people from power was a very good thing. KM

[john bailo]

Post by alohacyberian
henchmen were certainly weapons of mass destruction and the removal of such
people from power was a very good thing. KM

agreed. even though the motivation was nothing what was said. the result
is mostly beneficial.

but now it's time to eject the warmongers and get on with healing our
country.

dean '04

[SteveR]

Post by john bailo

Post by alohacyberian
henchmen were certainly weapons of mass destruction and the removal of such
people from power was a very good thing. KM

agreed. even though the motivation was nothing what was said. the result
is mostly beneficial.
but now it's time to eject the warmongers and get on with healing our
country.
dean '04

hahaha...I think you mean it's time for liberal Democrats to "heal", and
that can only be effected by purging the "warmongers" after they
successfully eliminated a despot and liberated millions.

I hate to break this to you, but the first chance you'll have at
"healing" will be in 2008, if then.

Perhaps at that time, the grave injustice of seeing a country liberated
without your consent will be righted, and you can get on with your life
- but in the interim, I suggest counseling to deal with the
post-traumatic stress syndrome caused by the horrible disenfranchisement
you have experienced.

[Bob Tiernan]

Post by SteveR
hahaha...I think you mean it's time for liberal
Democrats to "heal", and that can only be effected
by purging the "warmongers" after they successfully
eliminated a despot and liberated millions.

Then how come so many of the pro Iraq war
people were so against the campaign to
oust Milosivic? (this, of course, is the
flip side to "why were so many opponents
of ousting Saddam the same people who
supported the campaign against Milosivic?")

Bob T

[SteveR]

In article

Post by Bob Tiernan

Post by SteveR
hahaha...I think you mean it's time for liberal
Democrats to "heal", and that can only be effected
by purging the "warmongers" after they successfully
eliminated a despot and liberated millions.

Then how come so many of the pro Iraq war
people were so against the campaign to
oust Milosivic? (this, of course, is the
flip side to "why were so many opponents
of ousting Saddam the same people who
supported the campaign against Milosivic?")
Bob T

I'm not sure how you would quantify that, but I suppose there are two
issues there - national security and human rights concerns.

Iraq had both. Combined with cause belli, one would think it would have
backers from both camps.

But, here's the rub - many who are against the Iraq war are against it
precisely because the issue of national security interest *negates* the
human rights concerns.

Combine the security issues with oil, and a Republican administration,
and suddenly, human rights just aren't all that important.

[Bob Tiernan]

Post by SteveR

Post by Bob Tiernan

Post by SteveR
hahaha...I think you mean it's time for liberal
Democrats to "heal", and that can only be effected
by purging the "warmongers" after they successfully
eliminated a despot and liberated millions.

Then how come so many of the pro Iraq war
people were so against the campaign to
oust Milosivic? (this, of course, is the
flip side to "why were so many opponents
of ousting Saddam the same people who
supported the campaign against Milosivic?")

I'm not sure how you would quantify that, but I
suppose there are two issues there - national
security and human rights concerns.

Okay. So there are two issues.

Post by SteveR
Iraq had both. Combined with cause belli, one
would think it would have backers from both camps.

It could have, and I suppose there are supporters
from each camp. But what marked this effort was
the incredible hypocrisy of many in the antiwar
movement and many in the pro-attack movement.

For example, those Repubs/conservatives who opposed
the Bosnia campaign (and rightly so, it being in
a post-Cold War world where they could revert to
a less interventionaist foreign policy) would have
opposed the Iraq campaign had Gore been President
and doing the same thing after 9/11. That
would be the hypocritical part. But since they
back the campaign, they should be honest and
say that it's all about a perceived national
security issue and stop saying anything at all
about the human rights stuff and about how
we need to oust such dictators. They didn't
say this regarding Milosivic and they thus
have no business saying it about Hussein.

Those Demos/lefties, on the other hand, who
opposed this campaign while supporting the
bombing campaign of Milosivic (which was, in
fact, as much of a regime chanmge campaign as
the current one) reveal their hypocrisy as well.

Bob T

[alohacyberian]

Post by SteveR
hahaha...I think you mean it's time for liberal Democrats to "heal", and
that can only be effected by purging the "warmongers" after they
successfully eliminated a despot and liberated millions.
I hate to break this to you, but the first chance you'll have at
"healing" will be in 2008, if then.

'08? That will be the year of Hillary, provided she doesn't jump the gun and
lose in '04. But, if she does run in 2008, whoever runs against her will
win. Period. Like Bob Dole, she isn't presidential material and can't win.
Ever. KM

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what alohacyberian said,

Post by alohacyberian
'08? That will be the year of Hillary, provided she doesn't jump the gun and
lose in '04. But, if she does run in 2008, whoever runs against her will
win. Period. Like Bob Dole, she isn't presidential material and can't win.

Dean already leads in the polls.

Like father, like son.

A one term bu$h is inevitable.

[alohacyberian]

Post by john bailo

Post by alohacyberian
'08? That will be the year of Hillary, provided she doesn't jump the gun and
lose in '04. But, if she does run in 2008, whoever runs against her will
win. Period. Like Bob Dole, she isn't presidential material and can't win.

Dean already leads in the polls.
Like father, like son.

I didn't realize Dean's father lead in the polls. I hate to be the bearer of
bad tidings, but, elections in the United States are decided by votes, not
polls. Polls are designed to influence opinion, not report it. KM

[john bailo]

she said you don't understand what alohacyberian said,

Post by alohacyberian

Post by john bailo
Dean already leads in the polls.

I didn't realize Dean's father lead in the polls. I hate to be the bearer of

Dean is also leading in California polls, including scenarios that
include bu$h jr. the current american sentiment is highly critical
and anti-war. Dean is a shoo-in in 2004.

[alohacyberian]

Post by alohacyberian

Post by alohacyberian

Post by john bailo
Dean already leads in the polls.

I didn't realize Dean's father lead in the polls. I hate to be the

bearer of
Dean is a shoo-in in 2004.

You wouldn't want to bet cash money would you? I didn't think so. KM