"Joe from wrote in message
...

Maybe they will try Clinton for that as soon as they try
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz for lying us into two fake wars.
History will show that Bush et al failed America in those dark days.

I understand your feelings for the scores killed at Waco. Now if only
you could work up some sympathy for the *thousands* of American troops
and *tens of thousands* of civilians maimed and killed by W's folly.

On 4/24/2010 6:51 PM, Cicero Venatio wrote:

Bush fought for oil, Clinton executed the Davidians simply because they
absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Bush fought for oil??? You may be right, that -may- have been the real
reason, but as far as I know, that was NEVER publicly admitted to by the
Bush administration -- essentially the American public was lied into two
phony wars (that we are STILL paying the price for).

Anyway, even if Bush did do it "for oil", are you implying that Bush gets
a free pass to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of
innocent civilians just because it was "for oil"? Does oil justify that?

...absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Well, I'm not sure about that. It may have had more to do with the
Davidians having illegal weapons. The fire appeared to be
accidental/unintentional. I don't think the ATF or Bill Clinton overtly
planned on having a fire. The government probably would have been
perfectly happy if the Davidians honored the ATF legal search warrant.

Finally, let's be pragmatic...

Yes, the 86 bogus Waco deaths were sad, even though accidental and not
specifically planned.

However, Bush DID overtly plan the two bogus wars.

86 accidental deaths versus tens of thousands of deaths that we the people
were lied into. So, you tell me, who is the bigger criminal, Clinton or
Bush?

If you think Clinton should be tried for those 86 deaths, well, fair
enough. But then I'm contending that Bush should be tried for the tens of
thousands of deaths he lied us into.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:17:02 -0500, "John Agosta
wrote:

Good post.

On 4/26/2010 7:01 PM, First Post wrote:

It is for those of you with selective memories.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire,
including interference with weapons inspectors.

Yup, Saddam did that but basically minor harassment on his part, hardly
a reason to start an almost TRILLION dollar war.

* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to
develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region."

Pure bull$hit. You don't commit American lives and a trillion dollars on
"alleged". Ultimately, Bush and Cheney admitted on national TV that
there were *NO* WMDs.

On top of all that, you talk about "security in the Persian Gulf
region."

Us being there threatens the "peace and stability" of the region because
first of all, a war can hardly be defined as peace, now can it? More
importantly, when we leave the region (if we ever can), the Shiites,
Sunni and Kurds who still hate each other, and will start the biggest
civil war you have ever seen, hardly leading to "peace and stability" in
the region.

This all goes back to Bush Junior having NO exit strategy when he
started this fiasco -- and there is still no exit strategy.

I won't even talk about the fraudulent "yellowcake" lies.

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Huh? This is a reason to spend a trillion American dollars and THOUSANDS
of American lives? Who put us in charge of Iraqi civilians?

Besides, if we followed your fractured "logic" above, we would be at war
with 20 or 30 additional countries that don't treat their civilian
population nicely.

* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass
destruction against other nations and its own people".

Well, sorry. WE (the USA) sold Saddam the chemicals to make the poison
gas they used on the Kurds. And Rumsfeld has the receipts to prove it.

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by
the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H.
W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones
following the 1991 Gulf War.

So? A LOT of countries are hostile to us and many because of G.W. Bush's
fake war. It is a matter of public record that Bush hurt our image
abroad more than any president in history. (And there you go with that
"alleged" again).

* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq.

Again, PURE B-U-L-L-$-H-I-T!!! They were NOT "known to be in Iraq" at
the time the war started. (Are they in Iraq now, seeing as we have
destabilized the country? Maybe.) You obviously missed the national TV
broadcast when Bush/Cheney said "there was NO al-Quaeda in Iraq". (or
were they lying then, too?)