Report: Reagan Aided Iraq Despite Chemical Weapons (ultimate barf...)

Yahoo News ^ | 08/17/02

[Libloather]

Please notice - not one mention of the impeached *Perjurer and his sales of intercontinental nukes to the Chicoms.

The Times - "all the news we want to tell you about..."

[daler]

As you no doubt have already guessed, the above story is merely one component of an organized media effort by the left to both discredit Republicans in general and to short-circuit any plans the Bush administration may have regarding Saddam. Note the story late last week (front page, of course) pointing out how GWB has "sold" the WH to contributors and cronies. Gosh, I vaguely recall a former president (actually!) having done that, but I don't recall the front-page headline that told us about it.

Expect much, MUCH more of the same.

By the November elections, the NYT will be comparing Bush to either Hitler or Satan, or both.

[lawdude]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That is, until I crush the s**t out of my enemy. Then their enemy is my enemy and I will crush the s**t out of them.

Got that, Saddammit? Tom D.? Hil?

[Libloather]

Why a barf alert if it's true?

It's all in the timing. This report didn't come out last summer. This report wasn't planned to come out next summer. The Times decided to report this 20-year-old information - now.

I really don't give a damn if it happened. That was in the '80's and the *Crintons cured everything that's happened since then. That's what I'm told.

Gas compared to intercontinental nukes? C'mon...

[OldFriend]

All the news we can twist and spin..........

[Numbers Guy]

The Times isn't even subtle anymore.

We know two things about the Iran/Iraq war, and we've known these things for well over a decade: 1) we leaned toward Iraq in that war and 2) Iraq used chemical weapons.

Nothing in the Times article is anything new, it just repeats stuff we've known for a good 15 years. The question is why it's on the front page now, and why are the networks playing it up?

I think we know the answer to that question. The attempts by the Times to propagandize against this war before it starts almost makes the case for going to war stronger. Can you imagine what the Times will do next if they succeed?

[GmbyMan]

OK, so let me get this straight. Iran was are #2 enemy in the world at the time behind the Soviet Union. Ayatollah Khomenei had recently taken several of our countrymen as hostages and held them captive for over a year.

Now Iran is at war with Iraq. At the time, Iraq was far, far less of enemy than Iran. So we supported Iraq because we thought (rightly I think at the time) that Iran was a far more menacing force in the world.

So, Reagan was taking an America first POV. How exactly is this a bad thing?????

[Smile-n-Win]

The highly classified covert program

I can't help giggling when I see a leftist paper saying "This is TOP secret, you know" when they're trying to tell an obvious lie.

[Miss Marple]

This story is on AOL's opening screen right now.

[liberallarry]

Agreed. This should be seen, not as a criticism of Reagan, but as as example of how nations must operate in the real world. Realpolitic, as it is called. The end does justify the means.

[Libloather]

...example of how nations must operate in the real world...

The "real" world uses gas. The "real" world uses nukes.

Which is worse, liberallarry?

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Who cares on e way or the other. It's a non-issue.

[Senator Pardek]

This should be seen, not as a criticism of Reagan, but as as example of how nations must operate in the real world. Realpolitic, as it is called. The end does justify the means.

Sad but true, LL.

I surprised that no one has posted

Report: FDR Aided U.S.S.R. Despite Gulags/Mass Murder By Stalin

As my cousin Naczeslaw says "Principle is for bankers and fairy tales".

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Exactly, as though we had any love lost for the Iranians. The same fanaticism that took over after the Shah left is the same fanaticism were dealing with now. We unfortunately may have to do the same someday if we keep sitting on our hands hoping this problem will go away. The longer we give them to prepare the more people we'll lose. Who is running the NY Times anyway? They almost seem to hate the U.S. themselves, as though something better is out there. Where were they on technology transfers to the Chicoms, or missile strikes during the impeachment hearings, or Senatorial Obfuscation during the impeachment of WJC. What is their true agenda anyway? Don't they realize that truth and freedom are the first thing to disappear under any of these other regimes that they appear to support?

[alnick]

Why a barf alert if it's true?

If it's true. If. Unnamed sources. I never trust any report, especially from the NYT, that relies on unnamed sources.

If they can prove it, print it. Otherwise, they should shut the hell up.