On Thursday, Sep 19, 2002, at 20:04 US/Pacific,
sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu wrote:
> Saddam's Little Helpers
>
> <http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3081>
>
> By Ronald Radosh
> The New York Post | September 16, 2002
given that some of the 'pundits' in the media have become
aware that official american policy of regime change passed
through congress in 1998 - anyone want to deal with the sets
of questions associated to why no one is dealing with the
revenge of watergate
that was the 'congressional investigative horror' that
prevented the clinton regime from winning in iraq - just
as watergate had prevented nixon from winning in vietnam?
or would asking the impolite questions about why adopting
the clinton policy under bush is going to be any more
fashionable or effective???
I mean almost no one has been willing to deal with or cope
with the fact that the bush(43) administration sent out
the very same 'failed clinton policy' limiting arsenic to
only 10 ppb that had been publically 'shut down' in 2000???
So what if a part of the problem is that the nation as a
whole zoned out on the fact that bush(41) actually asserted
a suspension of offensive operations
got a cease fire agreement and we have been trying to get
closure on that 'authorized to use all appropriate force'
congressional funding for over a decade now... Both the
official 'anti-war' types and their 'anti-draft' fellow
travelors like gingrich, rush limbaugh, Dick Cheney { does
anyone really buy the 1962 DUI was really a good enough
excuse to bail out on winning the war in Vietnam??? },
have all been avoiding the longest running congressional
funded but not fully declared war?
That americans are trying to figure out IF we can have a
war without a draft - then is it really as patriotically
correct a war as say, well, uh...
We all once asked about
what if they had a war and no body came
well for a decade now americans have mostly supported that
as official government policy. And now congress is considering
language to make really serious their 1998 position, which had
been passed to get everyone on the same page that we really
really really meant that 1991 paper work....
ciao
drieux
---
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 03:20:09 EDT