| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 06:40 PM
|
|
|
|
| Dave wrote: | | *diane* wrote: | | Dave wrote: | | *diane* wrote: | | Dave wrote: |
This was near the end of Bush 41's administration and the beginning of Clinton's. Someone dropped the ball, and it wasn't a Republican. (As usual) IMHO.
~Dave
|
Dave,
That makes absolutely no sense (as usual). IMHO.
Diane |
And as usual you fail to comment on "why" it makes no sense.
~Dave |
You appear to be blaming on the Clinton administration events that took place during the Bush/Reagan administrations. That makes no sense.
Diane |
Why not? The Dems blame the economy fall which started under Clinton, on the Bush administration.
~Dave |
Why not? Because it's stupid.
I blame the economy fall on lots of things, but the Bush administration is not one of them.
Diane |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 06:45 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 19345
Location: Somewhere right of center.
|
|
| *diane* wrote: | | Dave wrote: | | *diane* wrote: | | Dave wrote: | | *diane* wrote: | | Dave wrote: |
This was near the end of Bush 41's administration and the beginning of Clinton's. Someone dropped the ball, and it wasn't a Republican. (As usual) IMHO.
~Dave
|
Dave,
That makes absolutely no sense (as usual). IMHO.
Diane |
And as usual you fail to comment on "why" it makes no sense.
~Dave |
You appear to be blaming on the Clinton administration events that took place during the Bush/Reagan administrations. That makes no sense.
Diane |
Why not? The Dems blame the economy fall which started under Clinton, on the Bush administration.
~Dave |
Why not? Because it's stupid.
I blame the economy fall on lots of things, but the Bush administration is not one of them.
Diane |
Just because something "begins" under one administration, doesn't mean that the next administration doesn't have a responsibility to follow through on these "in-place policies" with some kind of oversight. The ball is being dropped from one administration to the next. There is sometimes no continuity of purpose. And it is bipartisan. It applies to both parties. IMHO.
~Dave |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
erifah |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 06:48 PM
|
|
This account has been Permanently Banned
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 2110
Location: The Great State of Arizona
Status: Offline
|
|
| *diane* wrote: | | erifah wrote: |
It will take some work on your part to think through the subtle nuances of my thinking, but I'm sure you are up to it... |
Erifah,
"Subtle" is usually not the word I associate with you.
Nah, this is just a case where your slip is showing, which is something you are usually careful not to do.
And I'm sure you are equally up to understanding what I am saying as well.
*arched eyebrow*
Diane |
I mean what I say and say what I mean. I see no inconsistency between what June and I have posted. Her conclusions are different than mine, of course. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
rag451 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 06:53 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 352
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
|
|
| *diane* wrote: | | erifah wrote: |
It will take some work on your part to think through the subtle nuances of my thinking, but I'm sure you are up to it... |
Erifah,
"Subtle" is usually not the word I associate with you.
Nah, this is just a case where your slip is showing, which is something you are usually careful not to do.
And I'm sure you are equally up to understanding what I am saying as well.
*arched eyebrow*
Diane |
Erifah's slip is showing? Maybe there are a few things about the old boy that we don't know...? 
Robert |
_________________
"Maybe we weren't meant for Paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute, we must march to the sound of drums."
-- Kirk to McCoy
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
erifah |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 06:54 PM
|
|
This account has been Permanently Banned
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 2110
Location: The Great State of Arizona
Status: Offline
|
|
| *diane* wrote: |
Nah, this is just a case where your slip is showing, which is something you are usually careful not to do.
And I'm sure you are equally up to understanding what I am saying as well.
*arched eyebrow*
Diane |
BTW, are you trying to say you want to look up my slip? You are such a dirty girl! And I'm feeling like such a bad boy! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 06:55 PM
|
|
|
|
| erifah wrote: |
I mean what I say and say what I mean. I see no inconsistency between what June and I have posted. Her conclusions are different than mine, of course. |
Yes, that is exactly what I find interesting.
By the way, I haven't seen this posted yet, but I may have missed it. The UN resolution is downloadable as a pdf from this site.
Diane |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 07:01 PM
|
|
|
|
| erifah wrote: |
BTW, are you trying to say you want to look up my slip? You are such a dirty girl! And I'm feeling like such a bad boy! |
 *sigh* I suppose you want to be spanked....
Brings to mind this image, much too large to post.
Diane |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 07:03 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 19345
Location: Somewhere right of center.
|
|
| *diane* wrote: | | erifah wrote: |
BTW, are you trying to say you want to look up my slip? You are such a dirty girl! And I'm feeling like such a bad boy! |
*sigh* I suppose you want to be spanked....
Brings to mind this image, much too large to post.
Diane |
OH MY!!
~Dave  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
erifah |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 07:07 PM
|
|
This account has been Permanently Banned
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 2110
Location: The Great State of Arizona
Status: Offline
|
|
| *diane* wrote: | | erifah wrote: |
I mean what I say and say what I mean. I see no inconsistency between what June and I have posted. Her conclusions are different than mine, of course. |
Yes, that is exactly what I find interesting.
By the way, I haven't seen this posted yet, but I may have missed it. The UN resolution is downloadable as a pdf from this site.
Diane |
So what is YOUR view, Diane?
1.) The U.S. did not provide anthrax to Iraq with a malicious intent.
2.) The U.S. did so, as June says, with "blinders" firmly in place.
Or,
3.) The U.S. did help the Iraqi biological-weapons or chemical-weapons program on a knowledgeable basis. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
erifah |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 07:08 PM
|
|
This account has been Permanently Banned
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 2110
Location: The Great State of Arizona
Status: Offline
|
|
| *diane* wrote: | | erifah wrote: |
BTW, are you trying to say you want to look up my slip? You are such a dirty girl! And I'm feeling like such a bad boy! |
*sigh* I suppose you want to be spanked....
Brings to mind this image, much too large to post.
Diane |
*erifah clicks on the link, and proceeds to laugh his arse off...* |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 07:11 PM
|
|
|
|
| erifah wrote: |
So what is YOUR view, Diane?
1.) The U.S. did not provide anthrax to Iraq with a malicious intent.
2.) The U.S. did so, as June says, with "blinders" firmly in place.
Or,
3.) The U.S. did help the Iraqi biological-weapons or chemical-weapons program on a knowledgeable basis. |
Erifah,
I'm not trying to wiggle out of this, but I honestly have no idea. Your answers have me choosing between a government/military/CIA that is either
1) naive
2) self-serving to the point of thoughtlessness
3) stupid
Whichever of the three it was, I hope we've learned from our mistake, and don't repeat it someplace else.
Diane |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
erifah |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 07:19 PM
|
|
This account has been Permanently Banned
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 2110
Location: The Great State of Arizona
Status: Offline
|
|
| *diane* wrote: |
I'm not trying to wiggle out of this, but I honestly have no idea...
Diane |
Ok, so I flash my slip, and you start wiggling. Hmmmmmm. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
rag451 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 07:38 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 352
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
|
|
I'd rather look up this kind of slip...
Robert |
_________________
"Maybe we weren't meant for Paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute, we must march to the sound of drums."
-- Kirk to McCoy
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 08:25 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 439
Location: New York City
|
|
Guys - just a point of reference. The review of Commerce Dept. procedures I was talking about last night came in 1991 from the Committee on Government Operations called "Stengthening the Export Licensing System" July 2, 1991.
The whole system was just a bloody mess and very easy to manipulate....which is what casts suspicion on the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations.
Can't blame this one on Bill
Take care,
June |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
rag451 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 08:30 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 352
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
|
|
| June wrote: | Guys - just a point of reference. The review of Commerce Dept. procedures I was talking about last night came in 1991 from the Committee on Government Operations called "Stengthening the Export Licensing System" July 2, 1991.
The whole system was just a bloody mess and very easy to manipulate....which is what casts suspicion on the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations.
Can't blame this one on Bill
Take care,
June |
Can I blame it on Dan Quayle? I never did like him anyhow. 
Robert |
_________________
"Maybe we weren't meant for Paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute, we must march to the sound of drums."
-- Kirk to McCoy
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 08:34 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 439
Location: New York City
|
|
| rag451 wrote: | | June wrote: | Guys - just a point of reference. The review of Commerce Dept. procedures I was talking about last night came in 1991 from the Committee on Government Operations called "Stengthening the Export Licensing System" July 2, 1991.
The whole system was just a bloody mess and very easy to manipulate....which is what casts suspicion on the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations.
Can't blame this one on Bill
Take care,
June |
Can I blame it on Dan Quayle? I never did like him anyhow.
Robert |
LOL!!! I'm with ya on that!
June |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 09, 2002 - 09:44 PM
|
|
This account has been Permanently Banned
Joined: Oct 26, 2002
Posts: 3515
|
|
| *diane* wrote: | | erifah wrote: |
So what is YOUR view, Diane?
1.) The U.S. did not provide anthrax to Iraq with a malicious intent.
2.) The U.S. did so, as June says, with "blinders" firmly in place.
Or,
3.) The U.S. did help the Iraqi biological-weapons or chemical-weapons program on a knowledgeable basis. |
Erifah,
I'm not trying to wiggle out of this, but I honestly have no idea. Your answers have me choosing between a government/military/CIA that is either
1) naive
2) self-serving to the point of thoughtlessness
3) stupid
Whichever of the three it was, I hope we've learned from our mistake, and don't repeat it someplace else.
Diane |
Diane, you forgot : 4) evil satanic illuminati bastards |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tj03a |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 10, 2002 - 07:53 AM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 1264
Location: New York, Long Island
Status: Offline
|
|
| Actually I don't think anyone can really blame any administration on the exporting of Anthrax bit. That really boils down to a risk we take with being a free society in some ways and in others it has to do with how many research scientists have very little common sense in these matters. I wouldn't be at all surprised if whoever was in charge of that mess actually thought it was a good idea because they probably thought Iraq was working on making the world a better place by doing some research to help fight disease. Personally I would like to think that they had more sense than that but in reality I doubt it. Unless you want every bit of research that may have some sort potentially bad side effect to be treated as if it were the Manhattan project which would cause quite an uproar in the academic community. The anthrax is an extreme case where they really should have known better but where do you draw the line on something like that. Research projects often times have unexpected results and those may turn out to be very harmful and completely unpredictable. Anyway it's getting very late and I feel like I'm losing my focus on this and I hope it's somewhat understandable. It's closing in on 3 am here and I'm up way past my bed time. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
