Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam

[muckmaw]

Sandman,

That was pathetic. I've come to expect better retorts from you.

So if George Bush is a Liar and took us to war for no good reason, Clinton would be a liar as well, but lacked the conviction to actually do anything about the threat.

That's how this reads to me. The uber-politician, who is most interested in covering is arnold gets re-elected, but the man who stands by his principles and does something about the problem loses the left wing vote.

They both made the same statements, and both relied on the same basic intelligence community. But one is a liar and the other is the greates president we ever had, according to the left.

There's just something terribly wrong about this to me.

[Sandman]

Quit trying to use Clinton as the yardstick by which you measure Bush.

The buck stops at the Oval.

[Gunslinger]

its no different than Putin telling Bush that Sadam was planning to attack America.

Its obvious to the librals we need to just sit back and wait to die before we do anything.  Not to mention that Saint Sadam.  He was such a swell guy.  We are such bullies

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Its obvious to the librals we need to just sit back and wait to die before we do anything.

Well... you can believe Saddam was a threat to the U.S., but the evidence doesn't support it.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Sandman
Quit trying to use Clinton as the yardstick by which you measure Bush.

The buck stops at the Oval.

Not using a yardstick here.

He was president before Bush and Bush inherited Clinton's Sucesses and Failures.

So why is Bush a Liar and went to war for Haliburton, but Clinton is not when they said the same thing?

I jsut don't understand the uneducated left. You might not be able to answer this Sandman, because you seem much smarter than most Liberals I've talked to.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Sandman
Well... you can believe Saddam was a threat to the U.S., but the evidence doesn't support it.

Apparently, we are not reading the same article.

[Sandman]

Okay... so Clinton lied about sex and his administration either lied (or was possibly mistaken) about a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

The decision to invade came from the current admin. Right, wrong or otherwise, the ultimate responsibility belongs to the CINC.

[muckmaw]

So his ADMINISTRATION lied, but Clinton did not?

Which member of his staff had his hand up ol' Bill's arnold, making his lips move?

Of course, the final burden weighs on GWB. But you give Clinton a pass on it, but hang GWB out to dry for acting in what they both believed would have been our best interests!

How ridiculous is that?

And they were both right. Clinton was right. John Kerry was right. Ted Kennedy was right. Hillary was right. And GWB was right. There were ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.

He did represent a grave threat to the US. But the left won't face up to it because it's an election year, and regaining power is more important to them than protecting the United States!

[Sandman]

That's why he's president.

Responsibility and authority go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

Blaming the Clinton admin is a weak excuse.

[muckmaw]

I am not BLAMING Clinton.

I;m asking why the left loves to scream BUSH LIED and all the other crap they've been programmed to say when they're beloved Former President said the same thing, but No one says a word about it.

[Sandman]

Has I stated eariler, because it does not matter. Clinton is no longer president.

First rule of leadership... You cannot delegate responsibility.

[lada]

Originally posted by muckmaw
What do you fellas think?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

What weapons are they speaking about.... those very well hidden on my toilet ?


Fact is that nothing what this link contain were never ever confirmed. Its all based on sci-fi inteligency, whitch reported pure BS in past years.


Im wondering that they arent able to find some Iraqi who could confirm that Al-quaida did cooperate with them....


US`s inteligence agency doesnt have any credit from world wide public.

I do not see anything special in that text..... ok well, Clinton had some crappy informations as well, but he may be realized that they could be crappy so he didnt do any BS.

and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

SofD were lobotomized or he knew a bit more about source of informations that guy who asked.

[Lizking]

Doh!