What about the possibility that we know way more than we are letting on;
that bin Laden is harbored there?  that other major terrorists are harbored
there?  that Iraq is the "candy store" for those who want WMD?  Isn't that
an obvious possibility and something we need to address?

An awful lot of conclusions are being drawn based on what the media
portrays, which is intuitively suspect information.

John Lee



At 07:23 AM 2/21/03 -0500, rosenblatt, joseph wrote:
>Denys,
>When we were children, we should have learned that the "Johnny, did it too"
>defense never got us out of trouble. The corollary to that argument, "Johnny
>did it first" also bought us very little breathing room. Why should it work
>for the President of the United States?
>
>The whole issue of the previous regimes errors is a diversionary tactic at
>best. The current regime's spin-doctors, like those of all regimes, in every
>place and every time, want to show anybody who disagrees with them in the
>light of "political" enemy, i.e. they have some sort of dark, subversive,
>anti-government and non-patriotic agenda. They do not want anyone to think
>that someone may have a legitimate problem with their policies or actions.
>
>The fact is that the Clinton regime did not make its threats on Iraq the
>centerpiece of its foreign policy. Most people were not even aware of the
>threat until it was made public recently. This is either because they didn't
>care or because they thought, his sex life was more important than killing
>Iraqis. The truth is there was a large contingency of people against the
>Clinton bombings. I am even willing to wager that more of today's anti-war
>protesters were protesting the Clinton atrocities than there are of today's
>pro-war people that applauded Clinton's atrocities.
>
>You are trying to turn the morality of death and destruction into a
>political issue. Your basic argument is that it's OK for a Republican to
>kill and destroy but not a Democrat. Don't put so much stock in labels;
>Clinton was as far right on most issues as any Republican. I'm sure you
>never thought you'd be agreeing with a Labor PM, either but here you are.
>
>The anti-war movement is bigger than petty partisan politics. This is an
>issue about the life and death of possibly millions of people. The current
>regime believes that killing these millions may save millions of other
>lives. I can find no historical precedent for that argument nor do I see the
>logic. I, therefore, disagree with the policy. The current regime receives
>the brunt of my disagreement only because they are the "current" regime. If
>the next regime pursues the same policy, I will protest their actions as
>well. For purely pragmatic reasons there is no point in protesting the
>previous regime, they are not in power.
>
>Let Peace be the maxim by which we act because we will Peace to become a
>universal law.
>Work For Peace
>The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my
>employer.
>Yosef Rosenblatt
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Denys Beauchemin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:19 PM
>To: rosenblatt, joseph; [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: OT: We're just haggling over the price
>
>
>But the people who are against it now, didn't say a word in 1998.
>
>I would not say that 450 cruise missiles is just a little attack.
>
>What war crimes has Bush committed?
>
>As for making friends and allies or making enemies and such, here are a few
>more links:
>
>http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/18-2-19103-0-19-59.html
>http://www.iht.com/articles/87142.html
>
>
>Denys
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *