Could WACO be a diversion from Y2K? I would not put anything past the evil twins that occupy our White House. The greatest day in history will be when we don't have to hear the name CLINTON in the news anymore. He is a pig and she is his trough.

-- (Gang@green.com), September 02, 1999

Answers

YES, the Clintons would attract more attention to themselves and ruin their administrations credibility to remove the focus of Y2k.

Oh boy, do I agree with this. And Janet Reno wants to get fired so she loses her job and possibly dozens of people get the axe or possibly indicted for some kind of crime so they can stop people from thinking about y2k.

This is sound reasoning to me.

-- tinfoil (tinfoil@wrapmyhead.com), September 02, 1999.

The Texas Rangers are overseen by a political commissioner that released the information about the pyros. He is the campaign treasurer for Senator Hutchison of Texas a Republican. W. is a Republican. Gore is a Democrat. It's called politics. Get it?

-- youroutthere (realpoop@deepshit.com), September 02, 1999.

If he were independent, would you still indict his credibility?

-- Tim the Y2K nut (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), September 02, 1999.

If anything, it lends more credence to those who believe that the Koskinen & Co. are deliberately lying regarding what they really know about Y2K. Most people who don't "get it" say something like, "Hey, if it REALLY were that bad, surely our Government would be telling us to make major preparation plans." Waco serves as a living example of how the Government will not say anything if it is not in its best interests.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

KOS,

If you blaim the duplicitous nature of govt on the people currently in power then you give them the illusion that a "good" president could be trusted.

You also give them the illusion that some Knight In Shining Armour might come and get rid of those Evil Clintons and save us all.

Gimme a break. Do you seriously live under the illusion that it matters who is in office? Clinton signed in NAFTA and eliminated FDAC. He is a poster boy for the Republican agenda.

This president is a figure head and a front for the military/industrial complex. Just like every other president. He probably chose to run as a Democrat because he knew most voters were just plain old bored with Republicans. The electorate regularly vacillates between the parties like a frat boy dating twins.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

No, R, that is not what I meant. I PERSONALLY think anyone in a powerful government position is likely to abuse it. (Excepting Spanish kings, of course.) As someone pointed out, most of those really scary Executive Orders were officiated by John F. Kennedy, who has long been revered as the most wonderful of caring leaders.

Like it or not, the Clinton administration has "owned" the Y2K problem for nearly 7 years. This administration will continue to own it on Jan 1, 2000, and for the rest of 2000.

If you want to make a JUDGMENT as to whether this administration is TRUTHFUL in describing Y2K, you should consider OTHER events as well. That is common sense.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

R,

If you don't like NAFTA, vote for Buchanan. He's the only one taking a stand against that globalist it-takes-a-village all-one-world peace-love-and-constant-survelliance Marxist totalitarian anti-democratic unconstitutional mega-multi-national carpet-bagging.

I never cease to wonder at the people who "don't believe in conspiracies" while NAFTA and the rest of the socialist/globalists work their plan in broad daylight. Conspiracy has become a mode of government unto itself; backstage deals have hollowed out our democracy in plain view, and nowhere is this more obvious than in GATT and NAFTA.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 02, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

the Clintons would attract more attention to themselves and ruin their administrations credibility to remove the focus of Y2k.

Oh boy, do I agree with this. And Janet Reno wants to get fired so she loses her job and possibly dozens of people get the axe or possibly indicted for some kind of crime so they can stop people from thinking about y2k.

If the surprising admissions of recent days are timed as a diversion, I could see it as a case of Clinton sacrificing another one of his FOBs. I can imagine this act by someone who is convinced that public panic at this point can only make Y2K worse, no matter how bad the technological aspect of the problem may end up being.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), September 02, 1999.

No, not related to y2k functions at all.

It appears to be related to a combination of the wrongful death law suite, changes in the TX Dept of Public Safety (TX Rangers office) and slow revelations from the survivors (and perhaps internal "aid" from people in the FBI as they realize how dangerous (and weak) Reno really is.

As her disease increases, it might have been politically wise for Clinton to "cut her off" and cast her to the wolves to remove him from attention.

The Republicans would look weak if they impeached a Democrat suffereing from a deadly disease....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 02, 1999.

My opinion, yes, Waco is a just one more spin ploy that is working well on this forum. We're blessed with freedom of expression here, so I hope you don't mind if I express my viewpoint also.

Thx

-- TM (digiratoX@mindspring.com), September 04, 1999.

http://www.dabney.com/WacoMuseum/

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), September 04, 1999.