Originally posted by: Gaard
No. I wouldn't want someone who lies under oath as my president again.
Originally posted by: daniel1113
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Sounds familiar... Clinton must be a liar too then since he reacted in the same manner as Bush.
And yet when Clinton declared the same exact statements about Iraq (their weapons and threat to America) based on the same "false intelligence" as Bush, it's all ok.Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: Gaard
No. I wouldn't want someone who lies under oath as my president again.
But you wouldn't have any problems if Clinton just lie to the country in the state of the union address, lie again and again about weapons of mass destruction, Al Queada links to Iraq; would you?
Clinton did a great job as president, despite what history revisionists might have you believe.
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
clinton should have taken care of al queda when he had the chance
Originally posted by: Brie
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
clinton should have taken care of al queda when he had the chance
Why....There are hundreds if not thousands of terrorist orgs out there even. If Clinton knew that one would attack (Which they NEVER want to do) how could he know which one to "take out"? I really didn?t care for Clinton but all of this 9-11/terrorism blame game crap is really getting old...
Don?t mean to flame this goes out to all complainers...