David, you make a point of spelling out that you are not tas. Likewise, I am not Paul. We are different individuals, and we think differently.

But the gist of your point is that I call the memos chickenshit, while he says bullshit. In both cases, we agree on the "shit" part.

Now as to your comment about the war being a "vendetta." I presume you mean it's payback for Saddam attempting to assassinate Bush 41 back in Kuwait a while ago.

Let's set aside the fact that he's the current president's father. Here we have a head of state of a nation already under severe sanctions attempting to kill a former president for actions he had taken in the line of duty of his office. That is something we can not and should not tolerate. If every president has to constantly keep in mind that he could be killed later for his actions while in office, that president is crippled. Does Saddam get special consideration because the current president happens to be the former's son? That's so insane as to be laughable. It's an eternal mark of shame on him that Clinton didn't react more strongly at the time.

And speaking of Clinton... while he was busy getting a fantastic 'job... er, doing a fantastic intern... er, "doing a fantastic job," Al Qaeda carried out four separate attacks, attempted a fifth (the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the African embassies bombings, and the attempted Millenium Bombing plot), and did nearly all the planning and legwork for 9/11. Maybe in 100 years we'll finally see just how many opportunities Clinton pissed away while he was too "busy." I know of at least two -- once, when the Sudan offered him Bin Laden, and a second time, when Special Forces had him in their sights, but Clinton wouldn't interrupt his golf game to give them the word.

Yes, I know I haven't gone after the "lied" canard. I'm doing this on my lunch break, and it's over now.

J.

Well ... then somebody should have attacked Reagan with that kind of thinking. Or was it somebody else who gave Bin Laden all that money and armed him? I mean, really, who helped Bin Laden become the terrorist he is now?

For real, if you are going to blame Clinton for terrorism, take it on back a little farther. I am sure we could just keep going back ... it wouldn't change the fact that Bush Jr. totally screwed the pooch on Bin Laden and doesn't even care where he's at. No, he has been far too busy going after Saddam for Daddy. Bin Laden lives another day to attack again.

And again.

Jay, love your arguments...

Let's set aside the fact that he's the current president's father. Here we have a head of state of a nation already under severe sanctions attempting to kill a former president for actions he had taken in the line of duty of his office. That is something we can not and should not tolerate. If every president has to constantly keep in mind that he could be killed later for his actions while in office, that president is crippled. Does Saddam get special consideration because the current president happens to be the former's son? That's so insane as to be laughable. It's an eternal mark of shame on him that Clinton didn't react more strongly at the time.

I believe it was Bush I, who did not finish the job with Saddam in the first place. When the WORLD DID SUPPORT US. But as for the insanity comment, well I am sure I am not the only person who has thought that.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

And speaking of Clinton... while he was busy getting a fantastic 'job... er, doing a fantastic intern... er, "doing a fantastic job," Al Qaeda carried out four separate attacks, attempted a fifth (the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the African embassies bombings, and the attempted Millenium Bombing plot), and did nearly all the planning and legwork for 9/11. Maybe in 100 years we'll finally see just how many opportunities Clinton pissed away while he was too "busy." I know of at least two -- once, when the Sudan offered him Bin Laden, and a second time, when Special Forces had him in their sights, but Clinton wouldn't interrupt his golf game to give them the word.

And I know you dont want to go there... What exactly was Bush doing while 9/11 was in its final implementation stage???

I seem to recall a couple of Golf games too, as well as some "Hard Work," vacations in Crawford...

And Ditto to what Rogue said... I mean you cant have it both ways... If your argument is that Clinton should have captured or killed Bin Laden, then why has Bin Laden suddenly lost importance since we screwed the pooch and lost him in Afghanistan? But of course, getting Saddam was far more important than finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Oh, and Jay, while you are at it, read this.

I believe it was Bush I, who did not finish the job with Saddam in the first place.

Too true. My first husband was in Desert Storm and that is exactly what he came home with. He said they had him, knew exactly where he was and could have taken him out whenever they wanted, but Bush Sr. said no.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: