OT: Bushies historic "Arm Deal"

Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
fissionable material as they want.
Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
the country can't afford your incompetence.
Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
knows what damage he's doing.

In article <1141431082.234758.149980@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
> allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
> allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
> fissionable material as they want.
> Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
> the country can't afford your incompetence.
> Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
> knows what damage he's doing.[/color]

Fact is, India has been and will continue to be a nuclear power for
ever. They really don't need the U.S., but they know about
co-operation. Bush was correct in cutting a deal with India.

This is a changed world. What once was a very small club, U.S. v.
U.S.S.R. has now proliferated to several small countries, as was
predicted many years ago. We can only try to make deals and protect our
homeland. I don't think the gaget is going away any time soon.
--
"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."

Al Gore

On 3 Mar 2006 16:11:22 -0800, "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
>allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
>allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
>fissionable material as they want.
>Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
>the country can't afford your incompetence.
>Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
>knows what damage he's doing.[/color]

Not much....just saving your sorry arse....I'd guess....

--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On 3 Mar 2006 16:11:22 -0800, "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
> >allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
> >allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
> >fissionable material as they want.
> >Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
> >the country can't afford your incompetence.
> >Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
> >knows what damage he's doing.[/color]
>
> Not much....just saving your sorry arse....I'd guess....
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

Thanks for the laugh.

ToMh, 3/3/2006,7:11:22 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
> allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
> allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
> fissionable material as they want.
> Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
> the country can't afford your incompetence.
> Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
> knows what damage he's doing.[/color]

Maybe he's showing them there are rewards for being responsible.

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:55:33 GMT, The BeNevolent dbu
<relaxa.n.d@smeltherose.comm> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Bush was correct in cutting a deal with India.[/color]

Of course you'd say that, neocon. You have no choice.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

The BeNevolent dbu wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1141431082.234758.149980@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
> > allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
> > allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
> > fissionable material as they want.
> > Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
> > the country can't afford your incompetence.
> > Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
> > knows what damage he's doing.[/color]
>
> Fact is, India has been and will continue to be a nuclear power for
> ever. They really don't need the U.S., but they know about
> co-operation. Bush was correct in cutting a deal with India.[/color]

Are you programmed to agree with everything Bush does, and feel
compelled to share with us you're pathetic responses. Do yourself
a favor and think for yourself just once. You know that cult members
like the Moonies and Hare Krishna's eventually get so brain dead that

even their own cult doesn't want them anymore. You must be close
to approaching that status. Maybe you can explain how giving the
go ahead to a Middle Eastern country to produce as many Nukes
as they want is going to make the world safer? How will it affect
negotiations with Iran, N. Korea and Pakistan? What sort of
message does that send to these counties?
How is it good to abandon the concept on stopping Nuclear
proliferation.
Remember Reagan? His treaties reduced nuclear arms.
India needs the US far more than we need them. Our business
is the only hope they have for thing keeping their country from
becoming a complete cesspool. Any competent president would
never have given them the store. All these thoughts came off the top
of my head, are you capable of these kinds of independent thoughts?

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> ToMh, 3/3/2006,7:11:22 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
> > allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
> > allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
> > fissionable material as they want.
> > Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
> > the country can't afford your incompetence.
> > Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
> > knows what damage he's doing.[/color]
>
> Maybe he's showing them there are rewards for being responsible.[/color]

What rewards would that be. Pakistan has done pratically nothing in
hunting down Al Queda. It's all lip servece. It's a joke.
I guess maybe Bush is offering them control of our airports.

In article <1141436580.800377.74170@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> The BeNevolent dbu wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <1141431082.234758.149980@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
> > > allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
> > > allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
> > > fissionable material as they want.
> > > Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
> > > the country can't afford your incompetence.
> > > Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
> > > knows what damage he's doing.[/color]
> >
> > Fact is, India has been and will continue to be a nuclear power for
> > ever. They really don't need the U.S., but they know about
> > co-operation. Bush was correct in cutting a deal with India.[/color]
>
> Are you programmed to agree with everything Bush does, and feel
> compelled to share with us you're pathetic responses. Do yourself
> a favor and think for yourself just once. You know that cult members
> like the Moonies and Hare Krishna's eventually get so brain dead that
>
> even their own cult doesn't want them anymore. You must be close
> to approaching that status. Maybe you can explain how giving the
> go ahead to a Middle Eastern country to produce as many Nukes
> as they want is going to make the world safer? How will it affect
> negotiations with Iran, N. Korea and Pakistan? What sort of
> message does that send to these counties?
> How is it good to abandon the concept on stopping Nuclear
> proliferation.
> Remember Reagan? His treaties reduced nuclear arms.
> India needs the US far more than we need them. Our business
> is the only hope they have for thing keeping their country from
> becoming a complete cesspool. Any competent president would
> never have given them the store. All these thoughts came off the top
> of my head, are you capable of these kinds of independent thoughts?[/color]

cult? I don't belong to a cult. What you drinking tonight tom? Or
smoking?
--
"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."

Al Gore

"The BeNevolent dbu" <relaxa.n.d@smeltherose.comm> wrote in message
news:relaxa.n.d-BD9381.04291104032006@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <1141436580.800377.74170@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The BeNevolent dbu wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > In article <1141431082.234758.149980@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
>> > > allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
>> > > allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
>> > > fissionable material as they want.
>> > > Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
>> > > the country can't afford your incompetence.
>> > > Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
>> > > knows what damage he's doing.
>> >
>> > Fact is, India has been and will continue to be a nuclear power for
>> > ever. They really don't need the U.S., but they know about
>> > co-operation. Bush was correct in cutting a deal with India.[/color]
>>
>> Are you programmed to agree with everything Bush does, and feel
>> compelled to share with us you're pathetic responses. Do yourself
>> a favor and think for yourself just once. You know that cult members
>> like the Moonies and Hare Krishna's eventually get so brain dead that
>>
>> even their own cult doesn't want them anymore. You must be close
>> to approaching that status. Maybe you can explain how giving the
>> go ahead to a Middle Eastern country to produce as many Nukes
>> as they want is going to make the world safer? How will it affect
>> negotiations with Iran, N. Korea and Pakistan? What sort of
>> message does that send to these counties?
>> How is it good to abandon the concept on stopping Nuclear
>> proliferation.
>> Remember Reagan? His treaties reduced nuclear arms.
>> India needs the US far more than we need them. Our business
>> is the only hope they have for thing keeping their country from
>> becoming a complete cesspool. Any competent president would
>> never have given them the store. All these thoughts came off the top
>> of my head, are you capable of these kinds of independent thoughts?[/color]
>
> cult? I don't belong to a cult. What you drinking tonight tom? Or
> smoking?
> --
> "Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."
>
> Al Gore[/color]

Tom's the one that belongs to a cult, the Clintonistas . . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

ToMh, 3/3/2006,8:46:03 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> badgolferman wrote:[color=green]
> > ToMh, 3/3/2006,7:11:22 PM, wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
> > > allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
> > > allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
> > > fissionable material as they want.
> > > Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
> > > the country can't afford your incompetence.
> > > Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
> > > knows what damage he's doing.[/color]
> >
> > Maybe he's showing them there are rewards for being responsible.[/color]
>
> What rewards would that be. Pakistan has done pratically nothing in
> hunting down Al Queda. It's all lip servece. It's a joke.
> I guess maybe Bush is offering them control of our airports.[/color]

I'm no fan of Pakistan but they were the first to help in
identification of local terrorists and if I remember right, they were
instrumental in helping the US to rid the Taliban. No doubt it was in
their best interest, but Musharaff was very unpopular by sticking his
neck out like that. Anyway, Pakistan has done more than the Clintons
ever did.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ejc5ow20uppo007@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> ToMh, 3/3/2006,8:46:03 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> badgolferman wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > ToMh, 3/3/2006,7:11:22 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> > > Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
>> > > allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
>> > > allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
>> > > fissionable material as they want.
>> > > Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
>> > > the country can't afford your incompetence.
>> > > Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
>> > > knows what damage he's doing.
>> >
>> > Maybe he's showing them there are rewards for being responsible.[/color]
>>
>> What rewards would that be. Pakistan has done pratically nothing in
>> hunting down Al Queda. It's all lip servece. It's a joke.
>> I guess maybe Bush is offering them control of our airports.[/color]
>
> I'm no fan of Pakistan but they were the first to help in
> identification of local terrorists and if I remember right, they were
> instrumental in helping the US to rid the Taliban.[/color]

First off the Taliban is still in Afghanistan, just not in power.
Those not istill in Afghanistan have found refuge in
Pakistan.
[color=blue]
> No doubt it was in
> their best interest, but Musharaff was very unpopular by sticking his
> neck out like that. Anyway, Pakistan has done more than the Clintons
> ever did.[/color]

There you go falling back on the Clinton bashing. This has nothing
to do with the present, but just to play along, please explain
what the Republicans wanted done that Clinton
didn't do? In hindsight you can blame Clinton, but in pre- 9/11
he didn't have the support of either party or the public to do
too much. At least Clinton didn't arm, train and negotiate with
them like Reagan did. At least the Clinton administration wasn't so
incompetent as to give Sadaam Hussein the green light
to invade Kuwait, and then not even try to negotiate a peace
when Iraq amassed their tanks on the border, while Saddam
waited for a sign of any opposition from the US and would
have backed down if the US voiced its opposition. It was almost as
though Bush Sr wanted to have a war with Iraq . Until 9/11 Bush
never even talked about terrorism, and certainly had no
anti-terrorism plans. I can easily argue that Bush did less than
Clinton did until 9/11 and current evidence clearly shows
the current administration ignored warnings that could
have prevented 9/11. You know more Americans have died
from terrorists on Bush's watch than on Clintons. Of course
that makes no sense, but it's the type of logic the right uses
all the time. Sort of like the simplistic reasoning that Bush must
be doing the right thing because we haven't been attacked
since 9/11, despite the fact that Al-Qaeda takes several
years to plan their attacks, and you can bet they are
planning one right now. Remember it was almost 8 years
between the 1st world Trade center bombing and 9/11.
I guess Clinton was pretty affective after all with no terrorist
attacks for eight years after that, Bush has only gone 5 (if you
don't count all the Americans killed abroad by terrorists).

And don't forget, terrorist attacks worldwide have increased dramatically
since Bush became president. Clearly Clinton was the superior anti
terrorism president.


"ToMh" <th@hot_mail.com> wrote in message
news:NQuOf.3624$CT.1583@trnddc04...[color=blue]
>
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0ejc5ow20uppo007@news.readfreenews.net...[color=green]
>> ToMh, 3/3/2006,8:46:03 PM, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> badgolferman wrote:
>>> > ToMh, 3/3/2006,7:11:22 PM, wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Evidently Bush is so desperate for a good headline that he
>>> > > allowed India to get what ever they wanted in this deal which
>>> > > allows India to produce as much Nuclear weapons and
>>> > > fissionable material as they want.
>>> > > Do us a favor Bush, don't negotiate any more treaties,
>>> > > the country can't afford your incompetence.
>>> > > Scary thing is, he is in Pakistan right now. God
>>> > > knows what damage he's doing.
>>> >
>>> > Maybe he's showing them there are rewards for being responsible.
>>>
>>> What rewards would that be. Pakistan has done pratically nothing in
>>> hunting down Al Queda. It's all lip servece. It's a joke.
>>> I guess maybe Bush is offering them control of our airports.[/color]
>>
>> I'm no fan of Pakistan but they were the first to help in
>> identification of local terrorists and if I remember right, they were
>> instrumental in helping the US to rid the Taliban.[/color]
>
> First off the Taliban is still in Afghanistan, just not in power.
> Those not istill in Afghanistan have found refuge in
> Pakistan.
>[color=green]
>> No doubt it was in
>> their best interest, but Musharaff was very unpopular by sticking his
>> neck out like that. Anyway, Pakistan has done more than the Clintons
>> ever did.[/color]
>
> There you go falling back on the Clinton bashing. This has nothing
> to do with the present, but just to play along, please explain
> what the Republicans wanted done that Clinton
> didn't do? In hindsight you can blame Clinton, but in pre- 9/11
> he didn't have the support of either party or the public to do
> too much. At least Clinton didn't arm, train and negotiate with
> them like Reagan did. At least the Clinton administration wasn't so
> incompetent as to give Sadaam Hussein the green light
> to invade Kuwait, and then not even try to negotiate a peace
> when Iraq amassed their tanks on the border, while Saddam
> waited for a sign of any opposition from the US and would
> have backed down if the US voiced its opposition. It was almost as
> though Bush Sr wanted to have a war with Iraq . Until 9/11 Bush
> never even talked about terrorism, and certainly had no
> anti-terrorism plans. I can easily argue that Bush did less than
> Clinton did until 9/11 and current evidence clearly shows
> the current administration ignored warnings that could
> have prevented 9/11. You know more Americans have died
> from terrorists on Bush's watch than on Clintons. Of course
> that makes no sense, but it's the type of logic the right uses
> all the time. Sort of like the simplistic reasoning that Bush must
> be doing the right thing because we haven't been attacked
> since 9/11, despite the fact that Al-Qaeda takes several
> years to plan their attacks, and you can bet they are
> planning one right now. Remember it was almost 8 years
> between the 1st world Trade center bombing and 9/11.
> I guess Clinton was pretty affective after all with no terrorist
> attacks for eight years after that, Bush has only gone 5 (if you
> don't count all the Americans killed abroad by terrorists).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

Art, 3/7/2006, 10:14:29 AM,
<prhPf.1148$sL2.235@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Clearly Clinton was the
> superior anti terrorism president.[/color]

Are you typing this with a straight face?

--
“An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.”
~ Simon Cameron

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> Art, 3/7/2006, 10:14:29 AM,
> <prhPf.1148$sL2.235@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Clearly Clinton was the
> > superior anti terrorism president.[/color]
>
> Are you typing this with a straight face?
>
> --
> "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought."
> ~ Simon Cameron[/color]

I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that Clinton's policy was as
good
as could be expected for the times, while Bush's policies have been
ineffective, incompetent, self serving and damaging.