Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

was that an INTENTIONAL target or an INCIDENTAL target?

INTENTIONAL.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

again, we are talking about Iraq, which was viewed at least since Bush Sr's tenure, as an incalcitrant, obstructive, non cooperative nation who was also dangerous and capable of utilizing nuclear weapons.

I thought you stated that:

"in Clinton's entire time in office I can only recall ONE time when he bombed anyone"

"that doesnt explain how Clinton's ONE TIME use of force constitutes 'indiscriminate bombing'"

"please understand: once does NOT equal 'indiscriminate'."

Lux never made any mention of Iraq in her first post, she simply said "he launched indiscriminate bombing raids." The facts back her up.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by dissention

Clinton bombed Serbia and Kosovo in 1999 on his own accord, Mary. The CIA even warned him against bombing Kosovo and Serbia, yet he didn't listen. He was told that any attacks would further more ethnic cleansing against the Albanians. Then Clinton attacked and acted as if he was surprised when there was a dramatic surge in ethnic cleansing.



BULL****. I think you should bone up on the things Clinton actually did while in office.

OK. you are assuming I disagree with what he did. I can tell you now, that I fully sympathize with the Serbs against the Muslims, based on the many centuries of Muslim ethnic cleansing of Serbs. Yet, historically it is Serbian land, and Muslims are relative newcomers. I work with several Serbs and they can tell you that the US troops were viewed as liberators. Contrary to the spin machines. You can think what you want but I know what the ex-patriots say........

[amber]

Originally Posted by BTFLCHLD

in summary...we all suck

ha, no. I just wanted to use that phrase. Feeling peckish, a slightly insulting, slightly funny phrase brightens my spirits a little...

But I don't get why Irishgirl is only talking about Iraq. Clinton clearly did many indefensible things, bombings specifically, so why bother to defend him about this? He still comes out to be a much less than ideal president...

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

If what you are saying were true, why then isnt he being tried on charges?

Why isn't Bush?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

OK. you are assuming I disagree with what he did. I can tell you now, that I fully sympathize with the Serbs against the Muslims, based on the many centuries of Muslim ethnic cleansing of Serbs. Yet, historically it is Serbian land, and Muslims are relative newcomers. I work with several Serbs and they can tell you that the US troops were viewed as liberators. Contrary to the spin machines. You can think what you want but I know what the ex-patriots say........

I will think what I want because I know right from wrong. If you can't admit that your beloved Clinton had an affection for indiscriminate bombing, that's your deal.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by dissention

INTENTIONAL.



I thought you stated that:

"in Clinton's entire time in office I can only recall ONE time when he bombed anyone"

"that doesnt explain how Clinton's ONE TIME use of force constitutes 'indiscriminate bombing'"

"please understand: once does NOT equal 'indiscriminate'."

Lux never made any mention of Iraq in her first post, she simply said "he launched indiscriminate bombing raids." The facts back her up.

the definition of "indiscriminate": Haphazard, lacking in care, judgement.
Clinton never acted Haphazardly or without care. He could not do so and you know it. You may not have agreed with him (so what?) but it wasnt without judgement (or approval on some level) Clinton, by virtue of his weakened status, could not just go about willy nilly bombing anyone.

therefore, the FACTS do NOT back her up. I will concede that there may have been more than ONE engagement. but at NO time did Clinton act the way Bush is now, without regard to public sentiment or international input.

So. I was wrong about ONE bombing.
I was RIGHT that it wasnt indiscriminate.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

ha, no. I just wanted to use that phrase. Feeling peckish, a slightly insulting, slightly funny phrase brightens my spirits a little...

But I don't get why Irishgirl is only talking about Iraq. Clinton clearly did many indefensible things, bombings specifically, so why bother to defend him about this? He still comes out to be a much less than ideal president...

Beats me. As a man, he was a cheating dog. As a president, he wasn't liberal and his favorite pastimes were dropping bombs, telling them queers to keep shut about their sexuality, and socking it to welfare moms. Only in America.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

the definition of "indiscriminate": Haphazard, lacking in care, judgement.
Clinton never acted Haphazardly or without care. He could not do so and you know it. You may not have agreed with him (so what?) but it wasnt without judgement (or approval on some level) Clinton, by virtue of his weakened status, could not just go about willy nilly bombing anyone.

If the vast majority of his bombings weren't haphazard and lacking in judgement, I'm Barbra Streisand. Again, he's the one who bombed an aspirin factory and attacked Kosovo and Serbia against the pleas of the CIA and NATO. He's the one whose justification for sending missiles to Iraq were as tissue thin as Shrub's.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

therefore, the FACTS do NOT back her up. I will concede that there may have been more than ONE engagement. but at NO time did Clinton act the way Bush is now, without regard to public sentiment or international input.

C'mon, Mary! When did the public back his bombings in the late nineties? They didn't.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

So. I was wrong about ONE bombing.
I was RIGHT that it wasnt indiscriminate.

No, you were wrong in both instances, but believe what you want.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

I can't say I'm surprised that you've continually used my insanity as evidence that you are correct. If the insanity of the person arguing the counter position is any kind of proof then I think we had this one down before it even started. In my informed opinion: Mary, go and make your bed, brush your teeth and get ready for school.

Lux, you've paraded your insanity like a blue ribbon from the beginning. Im only pointing out that you can hardly call ME loony when you point out to us daily that you've lost your tenuous grip......oh and for your information: I never alluded to your 'condition' before to support anything. I dont know any more about you than what you are disposed to shout from the rooftops.
or the cellar.

[BTFLCHLD]

Originally Posted by amber

ha, no. I just wanted to use that phrase. Feeling peckish, a slightly insulting, slightly funny phrase brightens my spirits a little...

But I don't get why Irishgirl is only talking about Iraq. Clinton clearly did many indefensible things, bombings specifically, so why bother to defend him about this? He still comes out to be a much less than ideal president...

and i was just summizing that it doesnt matter which one we are talking about we/they all suck imo

[amber]

Originally Posted by BTFLCHLD

and i was just summizing that it doesnt matter which one we are talking about we/they all suck imo

oh. I don't get calling U.S. presidents "we". I thought you were talking about all of us here right now.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by dissention

If the vast majority of his bombings weren't haphazard and lacking in judgement, I'm Barbra Streisand. Again, he's the one who bombed an aspirin factory and attacked Kosovo and Serbia against the pleas of the CIA and NATO. He's the one whose justification for sending missiles to Iraq were as tissue thin as Shrub's.


C'mon, Mary! When did the public back his bombings in the late nineties? They didn't.



No, you were wrong in both instances, but believe what you want.

I guess you better start warming up yer vocal chords missy!
He HAD authorization/permission/etc. As for the aspirin factory, Im not sure why that bothers you so....I remember when Bush Sr. accidentally hit civillian targets thinking they were military. but nobody castigated HIM to this degree..
I guess the only answer is you hate Clinton as much as I hate Bush. in which case, there really IS no point in going on because I wont give and you wont give.......so.......whatever.

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

As for the aspirin factory, Im not sure why that bothers you so.....

you're not? Really?

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by dissention

Why isn't Bush?

I can tell you this much:
in law everything hinges on WHAT you knew and WHEN you knew it
That is why Bush is more culpable that Clinton.
sorry.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

He HAD authorization/permission/etc.

Good christ, what are you reading?

Originally Posted by irishgrl

As for the aspirin factory, Im not sure why that bothers you so....

Oh, I don't know. Because I don't like to see bombs dropped for no reason. Because I don't like innocent people losing their lives for nothing. Because he never should have attacked Sudan in the first place...

Just a few reasons why it bothers me so.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I remember when Bush Sr. accidentally hit civillian targets thinking they were military. but nobody castigated HIM to this degree..

Justifying bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of someone else, eh? If that's the game we're gonna play, I also remember when Clinton "accidentally" bombed a Chinese embassy.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I guess the only answer is you hate Clinton as much as I hate Bush. in which case, there really IS no point in going on because I wont give and you wont give.......so.......whatever.

Precisely. They're both pigs.