U.S. must take preemptive action, Bush says

[Velociryx]

Guys, it wasn't the internet part that bothered me...you're right...the 'net is about as wide open as you can get.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory
He tried to assanite Bush Sn.

A story the US gov latter admitted it fabricated.

[faded glory]

Wher did you hear that? They never admitted it was fabricated.

[Roland]

Ned:

"You really don't have a clue do you?"

The 2 out of the 4 charges against Clinton that made it to the senate were bogus. More importantly, the rep rhetoric at the time tried to turn impeachment into a no-confidence vote. Just turning tables.

Dino:

"In your opinion, what level would the potential threat have to reach before action would be justified?"

Also depends on the risk that goes with the strike. I have no idea how you could generalize this apart from "seek a net benefit".

Included is the inequality precedence it sets. Bush is hellbent on seeking a special priviledged position in the international framework for the US-american 5 % of mankind. The other 95 % will always see that as a hostile act.

Dan:

"Hitler's Phony War took place between October '39 and April '40."

We call that "drôle de guerre" or so. Damn frenchies.

"by which measure do you judge the musings of a raving lunatic?"

You really need to get out of Washington, you're swamping in government propaganda. IYO, what has Bush done to protect your ass since the fall of the Taliban ? And what has he done to shove favours to his cronies ?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
Ned:

"You really don't have a clue do you?"

The 2 out of the 4 charges against Clinton that made it to the senate were bogus. More importantly, the rep rhetoric at the time tried to turn impeachment into a no-confidence vote. Just turning tables.

I don't remember the details of the charge. But the man was impeached because he lied under oath. Just before he left office, he settled with the SP and got off with a 5 year suspended law license.

He was guilty as charged.

[Roland]

I don't remember the details either, but oddly enough, IIRC the lying under oath (the only thing with legal substance) didn't go into the articles sent to the Senate. Anyway, if you say he was guilty, why was he acquitted then ? Because it's political. So why not make up some bogus charges against Bush if it's politically convenient ?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by faded glory
Zobo: A cassius bell already exists. He tried to assanite Bush Sn. and he is a meglomaniac dictator who is obessed with WoMD. Are you people blind to see that if Terrorists got ahold of these, millions would die. I dont wanna take that chance, Im glad bush and the majority of Americans holds the same view.

Oh, yes ... USA will save the Free World, and EU is too moronic or corrupted to foresee the Danger.

Of course there's a danger that little country leaded by hostil dictator with Massive Destruction weapons. But we don't like your tactics : Destroying all potential hostil country to USA or maybe Western.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior


Oh, yes ... USA will save the Free World, and EU is too moronic or corrupted to foresee the Danger.

Of course there's a danger that little country leaded by hostil dictator with Massive Destruction weapons. But we don't like your tactics : Destroying all potential hostil country to USA or maybe Western.

It must be difficult to do business with them while we got that whole embargo thing on them uh?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

US embargo on Iracq ? A joke ... Western ( & USA too!) sells medic for Oil at an interesting prize ...

US embargo on Cuba ? What threat represent Cuba ? Nuclear Missile ? Be serious.

[Roland]

"It must be difficult to do business with them while we got that whole embargo thing on them uh?"

As for Iraq: Yes, because we have our own embargo in line with UN measures. A US-only embargo would be a joke. Within the food for oil programme though the US is quite active as well.

As for Cuba: Not at all, because attempts to extend the US embargo were successfully defeated by clawback rules. Actually, it's easier for us beacuse US companies need all kinds of ways around the embargo to compete there.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
I don't remember the details either, but oddly enough, IIRC the lying under oath (the only thing with legal substance) didn't go into the articles sent to the Senate. Anyway, if you say he was guilty, why was he acquitted then ? Because it's political. So why not make up some bogus charges against Bush if it's politically convenient ?

He was put on trial because we do not want a king or emperor - no man, not even the president, is above the law.

However, he was not convicted because the Dem's voted as a block to aquit. They were lead by one Al Gore, who stood by his man in the Rose garden. Al Gore, a very decent fellow, at the end of a long period of economic growth, during a time of peace, was not elected president over a bumbler. Al Gore has only one person to blame for his loss - himself, for defending that scumball loser.

[chequita guevara]

While it's true the Gore has only himself to blame, it's not over defending Clinton, who despite the conservatives insane hatred (as opposed to the left's fully justified hatred of the man) of the man, was a rather popular president. Gore committed numerous errors in his campaign which cost him voters who either decided to sit out the election or vote Green. He also ignored the massive vote fraud going on in Florida, and didn't ask for overvotes to be counted. He and his staff were organizational idiots. Which doesn't speak well for him being a good President.

[Roland]

"He was put on trial because we do not want a king or emperor - no man, not even the president, is above the law."

He was put on trial because the right-wing republicans hated him, and after Whitewater etc yielded nothing they took the next best thing. He was acquitted because Senators found it politically convenient. Only the second point went partly as the constitution had in mind.....

The public had no big interest in the Senate removing Clinton, so I fail to see why they would have suddenly voted against Gore because of that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
"He was put on trial because we do not want a king or emperor - no man, not even the president, is above the law."

He was put on trial because the right-wing republicans hated him, and after Whitewater etc yielded nothing they took the next best thing. He was acquitted because Senators found it politically convenient. Only the second point went partly as the constitution had in mind.....

The public had no big interest in the Senate removing Clinton, so I fail to see why they would have suddenly voted against Gore because of that.

Roland, Bush was not the best candidate to ever run for president. The explanation for the Gore loss was himself. He even blames Clinton, justifiably I believe.

Clinton's job performance ratings were always good. However, the public gave him very low marks as a person. They knew he was a liar and scumbag, a man who would promise you he would be behind you 100% only to stab you in the back.

[Roland]

"They knew he was a liar and scumbag, a man who would promise you he would be behind you 100% only to stab you in the back."

Hmm... I always saw Clinton as a liar and scumbag who would promise you he would be behind you only to look for something female to bonk....