Senator, you're no Hitler (no Who)

[Zenswhen <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Sorry if the truth hurts

Alan:

It's not the truth, though. Saddam is not in Hitler's league. Having lost relatives in Hitler's rampage, I personally resent the comparison. You don't know what the eff you're talking about.

>You're forgetting his attack on Iran in 1988: "Of the many conflicts in progress around the world in early 1988, the Iran-Iraq War was by far the bloodiest and the costliest." -- 

Yeah...I'm trying my best to forget...that was the one Reagan supported, right? With weapons, arms, chemicals and "biological samples" given to Iraq? Yes? And nothing was said when Saddam used them on Iran? Uh huh. I'm glad you're so proud of that moment in our history.

>Daddy Bush told Hussein to invade Kuwait, then spent billions of dollars and 240 coalition lives to repel him? Pardon my skepticism.

Be as skeptical as you like, but it's a matter of public record that our ambassador to Iraq, when told of the upcoming invasion, said (and I quote): "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts." What do you call THAT, but a "go ahead?" See for yourself:

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm

>I can't imagine that his victims (or their relatives) take much comfort in calling him 

Yeah, Alan, there's a lot of bad people out there who kill innocents. That doesn't make them Hitler. Are we going after all of them? No? I wonder why.

>But discounting them, the effect of his funding of terrorists unfortunately extends far beyond Iraq's borders, to New York at least. 

There's that "link" to 9/11 that doesn't exist cropping up again! The ONLY terrorist attack the CIA can verify is Saddam giving funds to Palestiniens whose relatives have been suicide bombers. That's it, and anyone saying different has more proof than the administration has been able to come up with to justify the war they had reportedly planned before 9/11. I mean...I don't want to SAY it's a total effin' lie, but that's what it looks like to me.

>before the weapons he is hiding get into the hands of those

Mc:

Not that there's a SHRED of evidence he even thought about doing so until Bush mentioned it. But hey, guilty without a trial, that sounds like the new American way...

>his regime since he has violated every major portion of both the cease-fire agreement and the post-war treaty he agreed to in 1991.

That would be the UN's problem, not ours. I wouldn't mind helping them if they ask, but doing sending nearly all the troops and funding it all...nope!

>Bill Clinton

Blame Clinton, blame Clinton. Yeah yeah yeah...Reagan funded and gave weapons to Laden and Saddam. Who's to blame again?

>done it. Clinton took a pass and decided to leave it as part of his "legacy." 

He didn't take a pass, but the GOP hounded him about trying to divert attention from Monica. He TRIED.

>And exactly who is our government murdering right now?

Right now? I can't give you specifics, right now, just some history...some recent. However, US oil companies are still buying oil from Iraq right now, supporting you know who...

> It is flatly a lie and there is not a shread of evidence to back this up.

As Alan might say: Sorry if the truth hurts. I guess you're forgetting about the black people in the Mississippi clinic who were dosed with diseases for "research" or the US troops who were tested with Agent Orange, or went into an area which had just experienced a nuclear explosion etc. etc. etc...oh, NO, the US would NEVER do such a thing to its own people...


"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
                                 Isaac Asimov

                 Cheers             ML
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more