posted on June 6, 2003 06:52:37 PM new
bigcitycollectibles - Bill Clinton was only saying what he was told. LOL....let me get my foil beannie on and we can discuss just who's puppet you think Bill Clinton was when he was "only saying what he was told". Implies to me you think he couldn't/didnt' make any decisions of his own. Or maybe you believe Cheney etc were putting lies into Clinton's mind too? LOL You do have a sense of humor after all *if* that's what you think.
Why arent we not attacking Iran and North Korea. They are the real threats. I've answered this several times. Bush wanted China, Japan, So. Korea to get involved too. He would not bow to the NK demand this be between him [only] and that idiot Jong Ill. You guys scream for other country's to be involved....NO UNILATERAL actions by the US. Then when Bush stands his ground so that the other countries will become involved in an issue that will affect them too....you [collectively] keep asking the same question. It's been answered a million times. Don't worry IF jung ill pulls anything funny, we've got a President in office now that will take action. Not bribe them to do what they already promised not to do/build.
Were not attacking them becouse there is no profit in that. No profit? LOL....gee I thought those on your side of the fence felt that this war [Iraq] was costing the US so much money we'd never see the light of day again because of the expenses. Now it's because we're going to make a profit? Which is it? Can't have it both ways. And, of course, this isn't spin either, is it? LOL You guys crack me up.
But that's okay....'cause it statements like this nonsense that are going to keep Bush in the White House for another 4 years.
posted on June 6, 2003 07:45:48 PM new
Ok linda, you keep spinning. The tax payers pay for wars, not the administration. Yes they do make profit and they are making billions right now as you spin the FAR right ideoligy. I just posted atleast 20 FACTS about what is going on and you are still being ignorant.
Thats ok stay ingnorant. The way its looking now you are going to be left behind by your own party. Republicans and Democrats now starting to agree more and more everyday about this issue. People are starting to wake up and I promise you it is only going to get worse for Bush and his administration.
posted on June 6, 2003 08:02:15 PM new
bigcitycollectibles - Going to answer any of the questions about why clinton and most all the other countries felt Saddam had WOMD and yet you say this war was only about oil interests of Bush etc and that's why he lied to us?
Maybe a 'google' search entering the words - clinton 1998 Iraq - will enlighten you to the fact that my statements are NOT spin, but rather a truth you appear unable to admit. Read his words for yourself. Read the statements of Madeline Albright about why a regime change was needed in Iraq. Read their statements and the statements from other world leaders on WOMD.
Or, better yet, show me which other countries stated Saddam DID NOT have WOMD. I'm open to learning what I have not heard/read. Who's spinning what?
"Most of the other countries" did not think that Iraq was ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.-- Neither did Clinton. The difference, Linda, is that Bush didn't just speculate. He was absolutely sure -- so sure that we were told that we were going to war because Iraq had 5,000 gallons of anthrax, several tons of VX nerve gas, between 100 tons and 500 tons of other toxins (including botulinin, mustard gas, ricin and Sarin), 15 to 20 Scud missiles, drones fitted with poison sprays and mobile chemical laboratories.
You, Linda are the spinner here -- with logic that can only be called sloppy.
posted on June 6, 2003 10:01:48 PM new
Oh Helen...you're just upset to have all your predictions of what was going to happen when Bush took us to war in Iraq be proven incorrect.
It makes you angry that we won this war so easily and all your predictions never came to pass.
Text Of President Clinton's Address to the Nation on the Bombing of Iraq
President Bill Clinton December 16, 1998
Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region.
The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars:
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program, we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions.
Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.
If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that.
May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families.
And may God bless America.
Printer Friendly Version
________________
Pretty much exactly what Bush had said....what his advisors had said...what his secretary of state said....what the UN vote was like in 1998...etc.
Only difference is Bush lost the ability to do the 'surprise' military action. That I personally blame on his trying to work to make those who opposed the war see why he felt it necessary. Wrong move. BUT doesn't matter now. The regime change has taken place....FINALLY.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 6, 2003 10:30 PM ]
posted on June 6, 2003 10:44:23 PM new
I am waving my flag Helen. And I'm very proud to do so. I support my country's actions, especially when three administrations, which included two different parties, were in agreement on the Iraq/Saddam issue.
Your president will have to take responsibility for this war. You can't take comfort in trying to associate his decision to lie to the American public about this invasion on Clinton or any other administration as much as you obviously want to.
posted on June 7, 2003 07:22:16 AM new
As much as I hate Bush I am fair and my opinions are unbyess so I will say this. There is a chance that Bush is not behind all this. 95% of me believes he is involved but 100% of me knows Dick Chaney, his friend Rumsfeld and the DIA are the brains and the ones that influence alot of the action taken. Theyve been planning this war way before 911 and before Bush was in office. So says the leaks in intellegiance.
You cant deny that Linda. You know these guys are P.O.S. If Bush is unlikely realected we need to atleast get ride of most of the administration.
posted on June 7, 2003 09:38:06 AM new
Cheryl - No need to apologize. I know that some of my posts aren't stated in the best way they could be and have been taken in the past in a way other than I intended. It's not your fault, it's mine.
-------------
bigcitycollectables - At least you're willing to be open the 5% that's more than others are. My problem was really ONLY with your statements/copy&pastes that Bush lied to us about Iraq having WOMB. Because our government and the world have long known he did. The other 'stuff' is all politics, imo.
----------------
Helen - you said, "Clinton didn't wage a preemptive invasion without the approval of the UN." Could you please show me where you've read that? Everything I've ever read has said that clinton DID NOT get UN approval for the attacks NOR did he get Congressional approval for them, which President Bush did. I'd like to see your source for your above statement. And in addition to that I've read where many countries were totally against those attacks on Iraq. Russia and China being the most in opposition, but also France and many Arab countries.
posted on June 7, 2003 09:47:08 AM new
Read with comprehension, Linda.
Linda, I said, "Clinton didn't wage a preemptive invasion without the approval of the U.N,resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and one hundred forty American soldiers!
There is no way that you can link this war with anything that Clinton did.
President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations address, September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio address, October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
posted on June 7, 2003 09:50:02 AM new
Helen - Linda, Your president will have to take responsibility for this war. You can't take comfort in trying to associate his decision to lie to the American public about this invasion on Clinton or any other administration as much as you obviously want to. Helen
He has taken responsibility and earned the support from many who felt this should have been done a long time ago. Boy....you must have missed the poll numbers of how many American's supported his decision to do this immediately following our troops being sent in. He had a LOT of support for those actions.
Comfort? I'm not taking 'comfort'. He didn't lie about Iraq no matter how much you wish to believe that. The 'association' you speak of are FACTS helen. And anyone reading what was being said by the world and the clinton administration verifies that they all saw Iraq/Saddam as the threat they were. Your saying differently doesn't make it so. But then again, you're not as opened minded as bigcitycollectables....at least on the issue of Clinton saying the same thing Bush has said in regards to Iraq.
posted on June 7, 2003 09:51:46 AM new
Give it up Helen. The loyal,ignorant and naive Bushites will never change their mind. Bush could have Europe nuked and they would still aprove and make excuses for them
posted on June 7, 2003 09:55:24 AM new
Like I said before Linda. The Dia and were the ones telling Clinton that Iraq had WOMD. The same people that are advising Bush. The only difference is George Bush handled the situation the wrong way and got involved in the greed
posted on June 7, 2003 09:59:35 AM new
Helen - Could you just speak with insulting my comprehension please?
Clinton did not get approval from either the UN or our Congress before he attacked Iraq. If you read any of his statements he himself states that there will be deaths both to our soldiers and Iraqi's that are UNAVOIDABLE. So what did I miss in your suggestion that he had prior approval and support when he didn't.
You're reading MUCH more into what I'm saying than I'm actually saying. I am showing the comparisons that our government under the Clinton administration thought and acted for the same reasons. I AM NOT PLACING BLAME ON CLINTON for those actions. I agree with his decision to attack Iraq then and with his statements that Saddam needed to be removed. That any of the issue we debate here are the exact same ones we debated when this attack was happening. Those who oppose war for any reason, like yourself, will never be able to see the similarities....they didn't agree with clinton attacking iraq and they didn't agree with bush attacking iraq.
Point is the SAME problem was identified [Saddam/Iraq] and that is what didn't change until Bush took action. It IS NOT as previously stated a fact that Bush lied to us about Iraq having WOMD because of anything personally connected to him, but rather because those who opperate within our government, security people, see/saw the threat of Saddam having WOMD in the same way.
Anything other than that you're reading into something I'm not saying.
posted on June 7, 2003 10:03:49 AM new
You can go ahead and cover these actions with the flag and call yourself a patriot but I hate to tell you this but our goverment is corrupt and in this day in age money speeks louder then the flag. AND THAT IS FACT. If we rushed to attack Iran and North Korea like we did Iraq then I will call it justified but since that is not the case then there is no motivation here but the cheese.
posted on June 7, 2003 10:20:07 AM new
bigcitycollectables - Don't take my word for it. After all I supported the military actions of all three last administrations against Iraq [other than feeling Bush1 and Clinton didn't go far enough by actually doing a regime change instead of just saying it needed to happen]....so [according to some] what do I know?
Here are some links for anyone that has a little time to read what was going on and being said during the clinton administration in Nov. and Dec. 1998. Their personal statements. ***Not my take on what they said.*** ***Not right-wing statements....they're lefties ****
You will see MANY similarities in regards to their stand on Iraq/Saddam and the threat he has long posed to the world. You will see that almost every country believed Saddam had WOMD, which has been my whole point. So my argument is that this wasn't something Bush concocked on his own. You will read the statements of world leaders and their OWN opinions of what was going on at that time.
Take a look at the 'Voice of America' website for more FACTS and quotes of the issues being discussed by the Clinton administration. Use Iraq/1998 in the search field.
On the Voice of America website there are many *quotes* taken from world leaders who were against clintons war on Iraq. It wasn't just their hatred of Bush....his alienation of world leaders that he as been accused of by those who lean to the oh-so-far-left. They felt the same way when clinton attacked Iraq.
CHINA ALSO SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE STRIKES AND JOINED SEVERAL OTHER COUNTRIES IN PROTESTING THE FACT THAT THEY TOOK PLACE WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE SECURITY COUNCIL. BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES DEFENDED THE STRIKES, SAYING ALL POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE WEAPONS DISPUTE WITH IRAQ WERE EXHAUSTED. As did Russia...as did many Arab countries.
also
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812172.html
posted on June 7, 2003 10:41:23 AM new
Helen, interesting poll. From the number of people I've personally talked to and who weren't polled, the numbers could be even worse. Especially on the economic end of things. A small vendor I know bought tons of American Flags before, during and after the war. Before and during the war, he sold a lot of them and had a hard time keeping them in stock. Even for a short while after the war, he was able to sell them. Now, with some things coming to light, he cannot even give them away. He's saving them for the 4th of July hoping he can get rid of all of them. Surely that says something.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 7, 2003 10:56:28 AM new
Helen - I was referring to the polls on Bush's decision to go in for the regime change. Those polls, not his 'overall' job ratings then or now.
Impeachment? Your perfect dream...but it won't ever happen. So sorry to disappoint you. And Buckley?
bigcitycollectables - Bill Clinton didnt take over their country and make money off of oil and rebuilding contracts. LOL How could he have? He didn't have the guts to do what he said he felt needed to be done...regime change. And the day you can PROVE to me that Bush himself profited from the Iraq war, I'll listen. Right now it's just the left doing their best to continue their accusations without any proof. And so far everything that the left has brought up to try and create a scandal about him has failed. But hey....I'd never expect them to quit trying.
posted on June 7, 2003 11:31:50 AM new
Well, I have to give Bush credit for one thing. Before his election, I was fairly passive politically. I'd weigh my decision carefully and vote for the person I thought would do the better job. If he got in, great. If not, I would do my best to support the one who won and go quietly on my way. This past election I didn't even vote at all. I tried, but couldn't. I wasn't comfortable with any candidate. Gore completely neglected the state of Ohio (huge mistake) and I think he did a poor job campaining everywhere. He started out caring and ended it not really caring at all. I didn't vote for Bush because first of all, he'd have to be one he** of a politician to get me to vote Republican. Second, I remember the Bush Sr. years all too well. So, I sat this one out. And I watched. What I saw was one of the most crooked and poorly run elections I had ever seen. It was a joke everywhere including overseas. I'm still not comfortable that the tally was correct in the end. The Electoral College is outdated and does not work - the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
What Bush did was motivate me to pay closer attention to what is happening in the White House, the Congress and the Senate. He has motivated me to speak my mind when I think an elected official is being a total jerk. For the first time since I became elegible to vote, I'm more passionate about who is being elected into office. And sorry, all right wing conservatives, but I will fight hard to see that Bush is NOT re-elected. And if he is? At least I'll know that I didn't cave in or brush aside my own convictions and I'll support him in the things he does responsibly and with consideration of the welfare of the entire country. However, I will not support decisions made based on favors owed to special interest groups or ones made that will put money into the pockets of those not deserving.
Maybe all of this comes with age and suddenly finding yourself acting more responsibly.
JMO
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jun 7, 2003 11:32 AM ]
LOL....let me get my foil beannie on and we can discuss just who's puppet you think Bill Clinton was when he was "only saying what he was told". Implies to me you think he couldn't/didnt' make any decisions of his own. Or maybe you believe Cheney etc were putting lies into Clinton's mind too? LOL You do have a sense of humor after all *if* that's what you think.
that's more than others are. My problem was really ONLY with your statements/copy&pastes that Bush lied to us about Iraq having WOMB. Because our government and the world have long known he did. The other 'stuff' is all politics, imo.
