<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Liberating the people of Iraq was the right thing to do. <br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>I agree with you there.<br><br>But please answer this: if it was the right thing to do, why didn't Bush sell that as the reason to invade Iraq? Why were the lies about WMDs and threats of terror used as the sales pitch instead?<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>But please answer this: if it was the right thing to do, why didn't Bush sell that as the reason to invade Iraq?<p><hr></blockquote><p>He did. On September 12, 2002, at the United Nations, Bush told the world:<br><br><blockquote>"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis."</blockquote><br><br>Weren't you listening? I was. Of course, this won't be found on michaelmoore.com. It doesn't fit in with the conspiracy theories. <br><br>But Bush also continued with the more urgent message, which started rolling out of the White House under Bill Clinton, that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. In March '03, Bush said:<br><br><blockquote>"We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities."</blockquote><br><br>I agree. I agreed then and I agree now. I agreed with Clinton when he said it in '98.<br><br>****************<br>

Funny how the far right demonize Clinton on one hand - he's beelzebulb in the flesh and when it convenient - use him as a credible source on the other..<br><br>are you saying Clinton was a good President ?<br> <br><br>the truth is Matt - 5 - FIVE whole years had transpired when Clinton said that and when we invaded - <br>PLUS Clinton didn't have access to the latest intelligence like W had... so using that quote is about like citing a 1968 quote from George Wallace on racism and saying that was his belief before he died.... times change and so do people's perspectives.<br><br><br>David (OFI)<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Funny how the far right demonize Clinton on one hand<p><hr></blockquote><p>Demonize? I'm not demonizing Clinton. I'm saying he shouldn't have lied to a Federal Grand Jury. That's demonizing him? I'm saying that his taking advantage of a 22 year old intern (then lying about it) offended millions of people in this country, and that they had every right to be offended, no matter how much sneering and jeering liberals do to them. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>are you saying Clinton was a good President ?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I voted for Clinton. I liked Clinton on a lot of issues ... His character sucks. He fscked up and still, to this very day, blames in on everyone else. Sure, in one breath he'll admit he made a mistake, but it's always followed by a seething comment of how others were out to get him. Always. Uh-huh. <br><br>****************<br>