Originally posted by DVPGSR:

Lied? Where have I lied? Clinton did nothing to prevvent Al Quaida from carrying out terrorist attacks on the US at home and abroad. Never have I ever portrayed Clinton as the devil...but I do disagree with the way he went about protecting this country. You need to get your facts straight and reread my statements.

DVPGSR 01-24-2003 04:07 PM:
Right...so 8 years of terrorist bombings on American interests around the world and Clinton did nothing to OBL. (emphasis added by me)

You went on to list several incidents that the Clinton administration did act on, and bring people to justice. You played revisionist history--you lied.

No I am not! SirSmokesAlot said it was Bush that stopped the investigation...that is what I was talking about...and it was the INS that ****ed it up once they got into the country. Again you need to get your facts straight.

Again, you need to lay off the personal attacks, and stop evading the evidence that I'm showing.

I saw the movie...do you have a point to how this is relevent?

When you said "Maybe if Clinton had had the balls to go and get these terrorists they would have not gotten to us first." you were saying that we should lock people up before they commit a crime. That was the main plot element of "Minority Report". That plan didn't work out in the movie either. Let's also remember that Bush has failed to capture Osama Bin Laden. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Yes...but we are still going after him and he does not have a place to base his operations such as Afghanistan. This is still more than previous administrations

If "going after him" means "letting him get away", then you're right. Since Al Quaeda is not gone, it is basing its operations somewhere. But this isn't a contest to see who can spend the most taxpayer dollars putting on a big show; no results means failure. Clinton did do something, and IMHO what he did quietly was more effective than the Big Bush Show.

All you need to do is keep up with current events and you would know I am right. I guess CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, USAToday, NY Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal & I am sure there are others those are just the source I have read or heard it from are all sputing the same BS. At least I know I am in good company.

The problem for your message is that I do keep up, and I do pay attention. So when the news media reports that Bush claims this and that, I know that it's nothing more than heresay. As it stands the weapons inspectors, the ones who are actually there, say they have found no weapons. But you're claiming they do, so you're calling the weapons inspectors liars. Since you're not there, and therefore you are not able to speak authoritatively, then I must conclude that it is you who is lying.

Really? It has? When? Where?

That story turned out to be heresay. There is no evidence of the meeting ever taking place.

And by making a comment like this you have not only shown that you do not know what you are talking about but that you are also an asshole. Making that comment sounds like someone that is lashing out when they know they are beaten.

What I'm reading here is you attacking me personally, but keeping far far away from my points. My points are valid, and you can't argue with them, so you attack me. Attacking the person is the sure sign of the loser, and you wear that mantle. I illustrated quite well the hypocricy in your statements; that you would never choose to live by the rules that you propose.

 

Yet another promise to produce evidence some time in the future falls far short of convincing me.

 

Slow-N-Low...since you yourself are not in Iraq how can you conclude that I am the one that is lying? And if you watched the State of the Union address last night Bush did an excellent job of clearly illustrating the reasons why we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. The exact reasons that I am speaking of. And like Bush said last night the weapons inspectors are not in Iraq to conduct some scavanger hunt...it is up to Iraq to show where the weapons are and destroy them or to show proof that the weapons and biological and chemical agents they had during the last rounds of inspections have been destroyed.

And this is nothing like Minority Report...at all. OBL and Al Quaida have committed many terrorist attacks against the US at home and abroad...that alone is enough to go after them. Maybe had Clinton's action followed up what he said we would not be in the situation we are in today. After the first World Trade Center bombing we should have gone after OBL and his network of terrorists. In the case of Iraq Saddam Hussein has been in violation of UN resolutions for 12 years. How much longer does he need to keep violating them? And why does he need those weapons? The simple truth is he doesn't. And the weapons inspectors have found weapons...16 artillery shells that are illegal for him to have because they have the ability to transport chemical or biological agents. This was not in their report to the UN on the state of their WOMD...and like Bush said last night where are the other 29,984 similar shells that he had the last time inspectors were there? Again I have proven you wrong.

And since you have such a short term memory I will give you a little refresher course. It was you that started the personal attacks when you told me to put a bullet in my head...and for that you are an asshole. Other than me calling you what you are for making such an inappropriate comment for a discussion board there has not been one personal attack on you by me. So please enlighten me on how I have personally attacked you...and please stop the hypocrasy...you quote only what you need to make an argument no matter how much of a half truth it is. If you did keep up you would know that what Bush is talking about is not heresay, and he is actually telling the truth. I already listed many news sources that I get my information from...some of the very liberal (New York Times) that have written stories that support the position that myself, President Bush, and many others in this country know.

 

uhh clinton was the one who wanted to get involved with the Bosnian conflict even though NATO was against his intervention, he didnt boost our economy at all, its all nature of the time.

 

Excepted from Investor's Business Daily - Monday July 29, 1996 Page 2 - Editorial Page

"It's bad enough that the Clinton team hired dozens of people who'd used drugs in the year before joining the White House. Worse is the defense of this conduct by President Clinton's top aides.

"To grant security passes to some recent drug users, the White House overruled the Secret Service. Even when crack cocaine showed up in staffer's FBI reports, the Clinton team issued passes.

"The White House notes that such staffers got clearance only if they entered a special drug-testing program. In other words, what's the big deal?

"The very fact the the White House has had to monitor its staff to keep drug abusers clean IS an big deal. Indeed, it's surreal: This is the WHITE HOUSE we're talking about. Why hire crackheads in the first place, especially when you must have hundreds of qualified applicants?

"Moreover, the White House didn't set up the drug-testing program on its own. It only did so after Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va, forced it to admit, in March 1994, that press secretary Dee Dee Myers and more than 100 other staffers had failed to get final security clearance.

 

It appears that the democrats are now on the same side as the republicans in terms of waging war on IRAQ.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...nse/index.html

 

Originally posted by DVPGSR:

Slow-N-Low...since you yourself are not in Iraq how can you conclude that I am the one that is lying?

Read my post, it's all there. The weapons inspectors, who are there, say there aren't weapons, and you say there are. But you have no proof.

And if you watched the State of the Union address last night Bush did an excellent job of clearly illustrating the reasons why we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. The exact reasons that I am speaking of.

That's a function of your willingness to believe whatever Bush says, without question. I do question things, and have to say that Bush's "sound bite" excuses just don't hold water.

And like Bush said last night the weapons inspectors are not in Iraq to conduct some scavanger hunt...it is up to Iraq to show where the weapons are and destroy them or to show proof that the weapons and biological and chemical agents they had during the last rounds of inspections have been destroyed.

Problem is, they don't work for Bush! The UN, who they do work for, says they're there to find weapons, hidden or not.

And this is nothing like Minority Report...at all. OBL and Al Quaida have committed many terrorist attacks against the US at home and abroad...that alone is enough to go after them.

So why do you want us to waste our time in Iraq when we have more important things to do?

Maybe had Clinton's action followed up what he said we would not be in the situation we are in today.

That's mighty vague. Let me know if you ever come up with specifics to back up that blanket condemnation.

After the first World Trade Center bombing we should have gone after OBL and his network of terrorists.

Should have? What about all those people who are sitting in US jails right now? What about the Al Quaeda camps that Clinton bombed? What about all those FBI agents who were hard at work on just that? Something was done, and this game pretending otherwise is getting old.

In the case of Iraq Saddam Hussein has been in violation of UN resolutions for 12 years. How much longer does he need to keep violating them?

If you can't figure out that "UN" is not "US", you really shouldn't post here. Obviously Clinton was not responsible for the UN!

And why does he need those weapons? The simple truth is he doesn't.

Not your call, and not enough reason to start a war.

And the weapons inspectors have found weapons...16 artillery shells that are illegal for him to have because they have the ability to transport chemical or biological agents. This was not in their report to the UN on the state of their WOMD...

Before you fall over patting yourself on the back, you should know that the shells were empty. No sale.

and like Bush said last night where are the other 29,984 similar shells that he had the last time inspectors were there?

They were supposed to be destroyed. If you're saying that George H. W. Bush failed to do that when he had the opportunity, then I have to say that I want someone better than his son to take that case over.

Again I have proven you wrong.

LOL..whatever you say...

And since you have such a short term memory I will give you a little refresher course. It was you that started the personal attacks when you told me to put a bullet in my head...and for that you are an asshole.

That right there is an example of your personal attacks, and it has to stop. All I did was illustrate how insane your line of reasoning was. I never told you to kill yourself. Your faulty logic made you look like an idiot, and you're mad. That's your fault, not mine. Get over it.

Other than me calling you what you are for making such an inappropriate comment for a discussion board there has not been one personal attack on you by me. So please enlighten me on how I have personally attacked you...and please stop the hypocrasy...

There's another example right there.

Well it's obvious that you are out of relevant things to say. Since you finish your post with nothing but personal attacks, there's no reason to continue. If you have anything to say about the topic "War with Iraq" I'll be happy to oblige you. But if you persist in the hateful personal rhetoric, I'll let the moderators do the talking. This is a serious issue that needs to be discussed.