A world wide nightmare coming in 2008?

[Edric O]

By the way, in case you're wondering - I support NEITHER Bush or Clinton on the way they handled Iraq. Clinton was just as wrong to bomb Iraq as Bush is.

[emprworm]

Neither, Liebermann :)

But who is at least handling it better? We know that you believe neither is handling it well, but which one is a bit better than the other?

[nemafakei]

Try to stay off the excessive caps, everyone...

Duke, just answer his question, be it with a yes, no, or don't know... howsoever expanded upon to clarify your stance.

[DukeLeto]

this is what happens you corner a liberal: SPIN, LIES, DECEIT.

......

And finally, in his latest fiasco, Leto starts comparing Clinton to Bush Sr. I'm not talking about Bush Sr. I'm talking about Bush Jr.

Funny you should talk about lies and deciet. I never said ANYTHING about George Bush Sr. Not once. George W. Bush ordered US forces to begin bombing Iraq in February 2001, almost immediately after being inaugerated. He did this WITHOUT GETTING APPROVAL from the UN OR Congress.

So my answer remains: They both handled it the EXACT SAME WAY. So i support neither.

BTW, I will once more define "liberal" for you, since it ain't getting through your thick skull:

lib·er·al

adj

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

3. generous: generous with money, time, or some other asset

My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.

4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount

a liberal helping

5. language not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in translation or interpretation

6. arts culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study

a liberal education

7. history of political liberalism: relating to a political ideology of liberalism

n (plural lib·er·als)

liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or reform

[14th century. Via French from Latin liberalis , from liber “free” (source of English liberty). The underlying sense is “suitable for a free (later wellbred) person.”]

-Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

EGAD! Broad-minded, tolerant, and giving? THE HORROR! ::)

[emprworm]

"George W. Bush ordered US forces to begin bombing Iraq in February 2001, almost immediately after being inaugerated. He did this WITHOUT GETTING APPROVAL from the UN OR Congress."

*yawn*

Haven't we been over this? Another liberal spin from the liberal distorter of truth.

Clinton ordered 30,000 troops, 300 planes, 40 ships, 400 ordinances on Bagdad and other cities. No permission, no UN consultation or public diplomacy.

Bush struck isolated targets in the no-fly zone for firing on planes as been done for the last 12 years by all presidents and by other allied nations.

Repeat after me Leto: Clinton Bombed Bagdhad, 400 bombs, 30,000 troops, 40 ships an all out war with Iraq. Bush attacked some air defense sites in the no-fly zone like allied forces have been doing routinely for 12 years.

say it again.

Clinton Bombed Bagdhad, 400 bombs, 30,000 troops, 40 ships an all out war with Iraq.. Bush attacked some air defense sites in the no-fly zone like allied forces have been doing routinely for 12 years.

Now, say it one more time. Let it sink into that liberal skull. Lets sing it this time with a nice melody!! :D

Clinton Bombed Bagdhad, 400 bombs, 30,000 troops, 40 ships an all out war with Iraq. Bush attacked some air defense sites in the no-fly zone like allied forces have been doing routinely for 12 years.

and of course, once again, as if I was talking to a rock, I ask the question for the seventh (eighth?) time:

QUESTION: based upon the facts of Bill Clinton unilaterally carpet blasting Iraq with 400+ bombs/missles, 30,000 troops, 40 ships in 1998 w/o obtaining congressional approval, without bringing the matter before the UN, and without public diplomatic efforts with allied forces, and instead simply acting on his own, who is dealing with Iraq better?

BUSH OR CLINTON?

[Acriku]

I'll answer that when I find how it turns out. But how they are doing it, well both seem to be doing the same way - ignoring other countries and going without UN support.

[emprworm]

I'll answer that when I find how it turns out. But how they are doing it, well both seem to be doing the same way - ignoring other countries and going without UN support.

how are they doing it the same way? Bush obtained congressional approval. Clinton did not. Bush brought the matter before the UN, clinton did not. Bush does INDEED have pre-public support from many members of the UN. Clinton did not. Bush has actively pursued diplomatic channels, even giving Hussein an "out". Clinton did not. Bush has actively pursued diplomatic channels with allies and potential allies. Clinton did not. Bush has waited several months now . Clinton did not. I don't think they are doing it anything even remotely the same way. so who's better?

[DukeLeto]

Emprworm, this is getting nowhere.

Clinton deployed no troops to Iraq, for one thing.

In December 1998 Clinton ordered four days of intense air bombardments against military installations in Iraq.For months afterward, U.S. airplanes continued to target defense installations in Iraq, in response to what the Clinton administration said were provocations by the Iraqi military, including antiaircraft fire and radar locks on American planes.

-Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

No troops.

Funny, isn't how first it was precision missile strikes, then it was carpert bombing (or "blasting", depending on the size of your vocabulary), now it's an all our invasion. Pretty soon you're going to say he nuked Baghdad. ::)

You want me to say Bush or Clinton? Fine. CLINTON. He attacked military targets in Iraq with aircraft. So did Dubya. But at least Clinton never said he was going to invade. Happy now?

Oh, and thsi is going to be at the end of everyone of my posts to you until you learn it:

lib·er·al

adj

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

3. generous: generous with money, time, or some other asset

My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.

4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount

a liberal helping

5. language not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in translation or interpretation

6. arts culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study

a liberal education

7. history of political liberalism: relating to a political ideology of liberalism

n (plural lib·er·als)

liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or reform

[14th century. Via French from Latin liberalis , from liber “free” (source of English liberty). The underlying sense is “suitable for a free (later wellbred) person.”]

-Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[DukeLeto]

Bush obtained congressional approval. Clinton did not.

You're not going to get over that, are you? The Congress has handed over every power and law that Bush has asked for. BUSH RUNS A DICTATORSHIP AT THIS POINT. >:(

[emprworm]

COMPARISON OF GW BUSH AND BILL CLINTON REGARDING THE CARPET BOMBING OF IRAQ

[TABLE][TR][TD] [/td][td] B CLINTON -[/TD][TD]GW BUSH [/TD][/TR]

[TR][td]Asked Congress?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]YES[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Obtained Permission from Congress?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]YES[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Asked the UN?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]YES[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Obtained Permission from the UN?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]unknown[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Carpet Bombed Iraq Anyway?[/td][td]YES[/td][td]unknown[/td][/tr]

[/table]

QUESTION: based upon the undisputed empirical facts of Bill Clinton unilaterally carpet blasting Iraq with 400+ bombs and missles in 1998 w/o asking anyones permission and acting without US congressional approval (and killing all those women & children and not even removing Hussein from power! ::) ), who is dealing with Iraq better?

BUSH OR CLINTON?

I received my answer from DukeLeto (finally after 2 pages of nonsense): CLINTON.

Leto believes that Clinton did a better job in Iraq because he declared unilateral war without any UN consultation, congressional approval, or public diplomacy, let alone not even having the curtosey to inform the UN Security council of his decision.

So the question remains: how can GW Bush improve his job in Iraq? Well obviously, according to Leto, for Bush to do a better job, he should do as Clinton did. Bush should flip his finger at the UN and turn cast off the house, the senate, and say F-you to his allies and turn his nose at public diplomacy, say "screw it!" to giving Hussein any outs or waiting for several months....and just bomb the #$#$#$ out of Iraq. But make sure...MAKE SURE that Hussein still remains in power (that is important! We want to do as Clinton did- that means killing women and children with bombs, but not Hussein and his regime). Blast them into smitherines but keep Hussein in power. If GW Bush did that, so that he was more like Clinton , I have a feeling that DukeLeto would applaud GW Bush and give him due honor and respect.

thanks, Leto, for finally clearing up this issue. I will now rest my case. This discussion was very enlightening. ;D :D :)

[DukeLeto]

Lets try correcting that chart now, shall we?

COMPARISON OF George W. BUSH AND BILL CLINTON REGARDING THE BOMBING OF IRAQ

[TABLE][TR][TD] [/td][td] B CLINTON -[/TD][TD]GW BUSH [/TD][/TR]

[TR][td]Asked Congress?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]NO[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Obtained Permission from Congress?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]NO[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Asked the UN?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]NO[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Obtained Permission from the UN?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]NO[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Bombed Iraq Anyway?[/td][td]YES[/td][td]YES[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]UN was outraged at actions taken?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]YES[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Hmm...

The Congress has handed over every power and law that Bush has asked for. BUSH RUNS A DICTATORSHIP AT THIS POINT. >:(

I like how you never once read any part of any of my posts ecept the word "Clinton." You didn't even read why I said clinton. Typical Republican.

Oh yeah:

lib·er·al

adj

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

3. generous: generous with money, time, or some other asset

My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.

4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount

a liberal helping

5. language not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in translation or interpretation

6. arts culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study

a liberal education

7. history of political liberalism: relating to a political ideology of liberalism

n (plural lib·er·als)

liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or reform

[14th century. Via French from Latin liberalis , from liber “free” (source of English liberty). The underlying sense is “suitable for a free (later wellbred) person.”]

-Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[emprworm]

Wherever DukeLeto inserts an "N/A" that doesn't change the fact that clinton STILL had no permission to do such an action.

When a rebellious kid takes out his parents car w/o asking permission, the following is true: He did not ask, and he did NOT have permission. There is no "N/A" about it. Lol, thats such a rediculous response. ha ha thats so rediculous.

Teenager taking out the parents car w/o asking:

Asked Permission to take the car? NO

So when asked "Do you have permission to take the car?" what does he say "NOt Applicable?" LOL ::) ::)

HE STILL DIDN"T HAVE PERMISSION TO TAKE THE CAR! DUH!

If I asked my son "Son, did you have permission to take that car out?" and he responded with "Sorry, dad, that's N/A", I would ground his teenage butt for a month. That is a slap in the face to intelligence and is simply unbearable absurd nonsense I could hear protruding from my sons mouth. I would be ashamed as a father.

Lets try correcting that chart now, shall we?

COMPARISON OF George BUSH AND BILL CLINTON REGARDING GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ

[TABLE][TR][TD] [/td][td] B CLINTON -[/TD][TD]GW BUSH [/TD][/TR]

[TR][td]Asked Congress?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]YES[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Obtained Permission from Congress?[/td][td]N/A(and still NO)[/td][td]YES[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Asked the UN?[/td][td]NO[/td][td]YES[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Obtained Permission from the UN?[/td][td]N/A (and still NO)[/td][td]unknown[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Bombed Bagdad Anyway?[/td][td]YES[/td][td]No[/td][/tr]

[/table]

KEY:

" The Congress has handed over every power and law that Bush has asked for. BUSH RUNS A DICTATORSHIP AT THIS POINT. >:("

No comment on lunacy like that. Leto doesn't know the first thing about dictatorship or is too blind to allow his intelligence to overcome his emotion against Bush.

now repeat after me, nice and slow. Let it sink in:

Clinton Bombed Bagdhad, 400 bombs, 30,000 troops, 40 ships, 300 planes an all out war with Iraq. Bush attacked some air defense sites in the no-fly zone like allied forces have been doing routinely for 12 years.

Clinton had no permission from congress, and no dialogue with the UN. No diplomacy with allies and acted soley on his own w/o so much as discussing it with the security council first. Bush did all of these and still hasn't gone to war with Iraq.

[DukeLeto]

Repeat after me: G.W. Bush initiated a massive bombing campaign on Iraq in February 2001. He did this without asking the UN or Congress.

Clinton sent 0 troops to Iraq. None at all. Are you just making things up or what?

400 bombs! Wow! When you consider in one run, most fighters drop several bombs, that's not that many. Bush has probably dropped 400 thousand since Feb. 2001. ::)

Oh yeah, almost forgot:

lib·er·al

adj

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

3. generous: generous with money, time, or some other asset

My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.

4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount

a liberal helping

5. language not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in translation or interpretation

6. arts culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study

a liberal education

7. history of political liberalism: relating to a political ideology of liberalism

n (plural lib·er·als)

liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or reform

[14th century. Via French from Latin liberalis , from liber “free” (source of English liberty). The underlying sense is “suitable for a free (later wellbred) person.”]

-Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[SurlyPIG]

Emprworm, you're totally mistaken about Bush. He did not ask the UN or Congress for approval to BOMB Iraq, he asked them for approval to start a WAR.

Both Bush and Clinton bombed Iraq without consultation or approval from the UN or Congress. In these cases, they could legally do so without it. They didn't need approval to begin. Bush is bombing it right now, and he's just as correct or incorrect as Clinton for doing so.

They both wanted to bomb, they both did without approval from Congress or the UN because they didn't need it. Is that clear now?

The difference is that Bush wants an all out war and invasion of Iraq, Clinton did not. If Clinton had wanted that, he would have had to obtain approval from Congress and the UN as well.

You can't harp on Clinton for bombing w/o UN or Congress approval when Bush has done the same thing already (Yes, I know he obtained permission from congress for war, but he has not utilized that permission and declared war, but he has still bombed Iraq)

It's not as if either of their actions were bad anyway...

[emprworm]

the more you post, Leto, the more false statements and lies that keep coming. maybe its better for you not to post at all on this since you really dont know what you are talking about. (the post about the president needing senate approval for military strikes was false....the post about Bush obtaining approval from a republican controlled congress was wrong...and now this is wrong)

According to post war reports of Clinton's Iraqi war in 1998:

650 strike and strike-support sorties were carried out by U.S. and British aircraft.

About 415 Tomahawk and cruise missiles were fired.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/19/iraq.us.forces.02/

that is 415 MISSLES. That does not take into account all the thousands of munitions dropped from the 650 sorties. Nice try Leto. Wrong again. Tomahawk cruise missles are big time and are not even close to munitions dropped from sorties. Clinton pounded Iraq hard. Very hard. And he didn't even remove Hussein. ::) ::) wow. Fortunately, Bush wont be so ineffective and incompetent when he cleans up Clinton's mess and finishes the job clinton couldn't finish.

"Clinton sent 0 troops to Iraq"

Misleading distortion. Clinton sent 30,000 troops. There were no ground forces in Iraq. So that somehow makes it all better? Carpet blast Bagdad, but send in no one to help the suffering and starving children after you bomb them to smitherines, and now its all better? Send in ZERO troops to help clean up the holocaust you just dropped now makes Clinton a hero? ::) ::)

some role-model you got there!

[emprworm]

lol nice try Ace. Get your facts right.

you compare routine skirmishes that have gone on for 12 years with Clinton's bombing of BAGDHAD (uhhh..when did Bush bomb bagdad?)

Clinton firing 400 tomahawk cruise missles (how many has bush fired?)....650 sorties... and did it all w/o a single consultation from the UN, or congress- nor even the curtosey to inform the security council.

and how is this like Bush again? ooo wait, let me guess: 450 cruise missles and attacks on your capital city in a 4 day span isn't a "war". LOL. Thats funny. got another one? :D

Bus

[DukeLeto]

Ah, so intense bombing for over 2 years isn't a "War", but a few days of such is? Hmmm... ::)

So there were no ground forces in Iraq...got ya. Calling the fighters and bombers "troops" was a "misleading distortion".

Aces facts ARE right. Your "facts" are not.

I like how the number of missiles keeps growing too. ::)

Ah wait..."And British"...so Clinton didn't go it alone...

Oh yeah:

lib·er·al

adj

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

3. generous: generous with money, time, or some other asset

My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.

4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount

a liberal helping

5. language not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in translation or interpretation

6. arts culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study

a liberal education

7. history of political liberalism: relating to a political ideology of liberalism

n (plural lib·er·als)

liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or reform

[14th century. Via French from Latin liberalis , from liber “free” (source of English liberty). The underlying sense is “suitable for a free (later wellbred) person.”]

-Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[GhostHunter]

And Empr I agree with Leto on the ditatorship thing, hes one step away from putting a crown on top of his head and saying "I am the Emperor of all the land."

[emprworm]

Ah, so intense bombing for over 2 years isn't a "War", but a few days of such is? Hmmm... ::)

of course intense bombing for over 2 years is a war. But thats nothing that Bush did. Do you have some proof of this "intense bombing?" Bombing the capital city is definately a war. When did Bush bomb bagdad? Clinton did. And clinton sought what congressional approval? Clinton brought what before the UN? ::) ::)

So there were no ground forces in Iraq...got ya. Calling the fighters and bombers "troops" was a "misleading distortion".

calling any military member a troop is fully accurate. there were 30,000 of them sent by clinton to wreak haavoc in an all out war in the capital city of Iraq. Of course, being the sloppy guy Clinton is, he couldn't finish the job and he left Hussein in power. ::) ::) Had clinton done even a half baked job, we would not be having these problems with Iraq now. What a total waste of 415 tomohawk missles. All they did was kill innocent women and children. And this has your hearty approval? Yea, what a role model Clinton is for dealing with Iraq. Gun em down! Leave no survivor....except for Hussein! ::)

I like how the number of missiles keeps growing too. ::)

the number is at 415. I have been rounding down to 400 for ease of typing. The only thing really growing here are the number of distortions you continually propogate and the amount of times you dodge my questions.

Ah wait..."And British"...so Clinton didn't go it alone...

they joined Clinton while he was already in progress to save him the utter embarrassment of looking like a solitary imperial cowboy riding his white battle steed. Why they joined Billy boy in his personal crusade is beyond me. ::)

At least Bush has notified everyone in advance and has obtained approval from a democratic congress and has pre-support from numerous allies. And he even had the curtosey to inform the security council. Fancy that! Wonder if Clinton ever heard of something called the "UN" ::)

and get this...Bush will actually complete the job...something Clinton never was able to do (except with Monica) :O

[SurlyPIG]

Emp, I don't know where the heck you're getting your "facts" from, but the two situations are completely different. Clinton didn't consult congress because he didn't need to in order to send cruise missles across thousands of miles. In order to send in troops he'd need approval from both the UN and congress, something which he knew very well was not possible at the time because the congress was stuffed with Republicans that would reject anything from him no matter what it was, and the UN would never allow it without provocation (violations or provocation such as 9/11, both of which Bush has working in his favour).

Clinton was never able to land a single troop in Iraq, how can you expect him to take out Saddam? He hides in an underground complex in a giant network of the human shield called Baghdad.

Bush Sr., however, did have the opportunity and did not take it. That was a greater mistake. He was too cooperative near the end of the war.

Why must you US citizens be so black and white about your political parties??? I mean here you are ragging on Clinton for not taking out Hussein, when the current's presidents father had a much, much better opportunity and didn't do it either. Hypocrisy to me.

"and get this...Bush will actually complete the job...something Clinton never was able to do (except with Monica)"

Again, typical. How is this at all relevant? What Clinton does and does not do with little Billy should be none of your business. And if you think it should be, then I think you should take a good look at how daddy pulled junior out of the Gulf War despite his being a marine. Cowardess. Not very relevant, but cowardly nonetheless.

Pick your evil; promiscuity or cowardess and disregard for duty.

I'd take Billie Bad Touch over the Thorny Bush of Cowardess.

[sneezer3]

I don't like Slick Willy never did, he lied under oath and that alone is a good enough reason.

plus the above(what emprworm said). :)

[emprworm]

Emp, I don't know where the heck you're getting your "facts" from, but the two situations are completely different.

rofl! Yea, one of us has a factual problem Ace. But it is not me. You should stop, think, research before you post in the middle of an argument. I know that you want to come to Leto's defense, but his position is indefensible. As such, you only drag your reputation down when you post things that are historically false. (not "opinion" false which is just opinion, but factually false which is undisputable)

"Clinton didn't consult congress because he didn't need to in order to send cruise missles across thousands of miles"

HAHA! You really think the US launched those missles thousands of miles away? Yea, they sent live missles right over Paris and Hamburg to land in Iraq! lol. ::)

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

the missles were launched from the 40 battleships that the US had sitting right in the gulf at Iraq's doorstep. Hardly "thousands of miles away". Read this carefully:

30,000 troops

40 ships

300 planes

400+ tomohawk missles

600+ sorties with untold amounts of precision bombing

this is a war Ace. this is not a routine skirmish in the no-fly zone that the US and British planes have been engaged in for the past 12 years with full UN knowledge. THis is an "unofficial" war declared by Clinton (as if there is such a term as "unofficial war", lol!) This is BILL CLINTON's cowboy soloing in the name of uhhh....well it wasn't freedom thats for sure.

"In order to send in troops he'd need approval from both the UN and congress, "

lol! no he doesn't. you don't know american law very well. And he did send 30,000 of them. He didn't send them into Bagdad- he sent bombs instead (sooo much better right?) ::) but get this: He could have sent them into bagdad- w/o approval from the senate. If you want to know instances of the US sending troops via command of the president into foreign territory to fight on their soil, just ask Zamboe. he's got quite a list, I'm sure.

something which he knew very well was not possible at the time because the congress was stuffed with Republicans that would reject anything from him no matter what it was, and the UN would never allow it without provocation (violations or provocation such as 9/11, both of which Bush has working in his favour).

lol! So when you think the politics are against you, just bomb the #$$% out of them anyway! Wow, what a role model president! "uhhh, the legal constitutional channels in the US government put in place through Democracy won't support my decision. Well..*#$! them! I'll do it anyway!" ::) That makes it right now Ace? Good grief. I am ashamed to be an American with this kind of cowboy diplomacy.

Clinton was never able to land a single troop in Iraq, how can you expect him to take out Saddam?

he chose not to. it was his specific order. He could have landed them but he didn't want to have to explain american deaths to his country for launching a war they never agreed to. (who cares about Iraqi lives) So yea, he chose not to land men, but he sure as heck landed a bunch of bombs in Bagdad instead! :O Wow, that is such a superior alternative!! Drop bombs, not men! ::) ::) Kill everyone...except Hussein! Ooooh, I'm so impressed by Clinton. UNfortunately, now Bush has to clean up his unfinished work.

Bush Sr., however, did have the opportunity and did not take it. That was a greater mistake. He was too cooperative near the end of the war.

again, you know not your history. Bush obeyed the UN demand at a ceasefire, just like it was the UN that ordered the conflict to begin with. Before Bush Sr sent in a single troop into the desert in 1991, he already had full authority and blessings from the UN to do so. Bush didn't take out HUssein because the UN stopped him. READ YOUR HISTORY ACE! You know better, and you shouldn't make me correct historical facts. Let us argue opinions, not facts of history! (don't make me dig up the UN resolution ordering a cease fire)

Pick your evil; promiscuity or cowardess and disregard for duty.

I'd take Billie Bad Touch over the Thorny Bush of Cowardess.

just don't talk about American imperialism then. Clinton said #$#$ U to the UN and all its diplomatic channels. Something Bush is not doing.

[SurlyPIG]

What I post is the accumulation of what I remember from the news and other things. What I remember abotu Desert Fox is that it was a successful mission to degrade Saddam's methods of making WMDs that was in retaliation for his violating international agreements. (It should even say that in the link you posted if it describes the mission purpose). If you really want to be petty had have me nit-pick every exaggeration you make while linking it to a historical site that contradicts it, fine. I shal do that, seeing as how you are unwilling to do so yourself. I have a life, though, and I havn't the time to dig up all the links this week.

One quick comment, though; there's a huge contradiction in your arguements. You rag on Clinton for not having UN approval, "cowboy diplomacy" as you call it, yet you also condemn him for NOT invading Baghdad when he had the chance. Which one is it, emrworm? Was he wrong for attacking in the first place, or was he wrong for stopping where he did? Pick ONE. I know you Americans like to have your political cake and eat it too but you can't drive one car two directions on a two-way street.

[zamboe]

"and get this...Bush will actually complete the job...something Clinton never was able to do (except with Monica)"

Again, typical. How is this at all relevant? What Clinton does and does not do with little Billy should be none of your business. And if you think it should be, then I think you should take a good look at how daddy pulled junior out of the Gulf War despite his being a marine. Cowardess. Not very relevant, but cowardly nonetheless.

Pick your evil; promiscuity or cowardess and disregard for duty.

I'd take Billie Bad Touch over the Thorny Bush of Cowardess.

I agree on that.

How come an affair is relevant to this whole thread.?

Emprworm you seem to have run out of ideas to support your position, and you start taking it personal, very yours, I somehow expected it, I see it comming.

But since you and James T, brough it up, I'll put my 2 cent on it.

James T, you wrote :

"I don't like Slick Willy never did, he lied under oath and that alone is a good enough reason."

Actually I wouldn't be so sure that he's lied. Bill Clinton's statement that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." According to his testimony, "sexual relations" require a pleasuring by both parties, and since Mon did all the pleasuring, he was comfortable in claiming that he did not have sexual relations with her.

[emprworm]

retalliation for breaking UN resolutions? Well like...yah! what else is new? Could he not have sought congressional approval? Could he not have sought public diplomacy with our allies? Could he not have had at least the curtosey to inform the UN Security council his intentions?

No, he didn't. Bush did all of the above, btw.

One quick comment, though; there's a huge contradiction in your arguements. You rag on Clinton for not having UN approval, "cowboy diplomacy" as you call it, yet you also condemn him for NOT invading Baghdad when he had the chance. Which one is it, emrworm? Was he wrong for attacking in the first place, or was he wrong for stopping where he did? Pick ONE.

i condemn him for BOMBING iraq w/o making any effort whatsoever to garner in world cooperation. It was a meaningless mission. Of COURSE the US pentagon will call it a success!! ::) they probably called Vietnam a success too at the time. Unless you TAKE OUT HUSSEIN, you are only picking fruit off the tree. It is a MEANINGLESS war. Clinton went half-way, and did it as a soloing cowboy. Had he actually toppled Hussein, I might have another view, but because all he did was drop heavy bombs and kill Iraqi's while leaving the "ROOT" of the tree fully in tact, it only delays the clean up for a later date, and ultimately just kills people needlessly.

YES, I fully condemn Clinton's unilateral personal "unofficial" war on Iraq in 1998. Unless you remove Hussein, bombing Iraq is completely futile and nothing more than a massive waste of lives and money.

1. Do it all the way, or not at all.

2. Make EVERY EFFORT to garner in world-wide support, and at MINIMUM approval from your own government's congress