Bush has been recently quoted as saying the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal is "a stain on our country's honor and reputation."

Hmmm, only a few years ago a small stain on a blue dress led to a president's impeachment.

Seems kind of insignificant now, doesn't it?

Hardly.

Clinton blatantly lied to the world, his wife, family, and litterally got got caught with his pants down in the oval office. JFK seemed to have problems keeping his pants up too, but at least he never actually did it in the white house and didn't stick his mug on TVs accross the world and lie through his teath.

So the big difference is that Clinton personally 'stained' the country's reputation, honor, and respect - and thus he personally took the heat for his actions. Bush was not personally involved, but he is going to personally ensure that those who were are dealt with accordingly. Big difference.

Phish Phreak - I, for one, believe that GW blatantly lied to the world about Iraq and as a result several hundred US troops have died, thousands have been injured, our security has been compromised, and his administration appears to have no clue as to how we got here and what to do next. I agree that what Clinton did was wrong, despicable, and impeachable. I believe that Bush falls into the same category. However, unlike the Republicans who decided to have a witchhunt on Clinton (payback for Nixon?), I believe we should let the American voters decide and hopefully they will find that Crawford is a much better place for GW than Washington DC.

Knock, Knock,

Eddie come out of that cave.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"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.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."


So was Bill a liar? Or is this just what our intelligence showed us?

Partisan polotics aside the Liar comments are way out of line.

Fist it was oil then it was a lie. Which one is it which ever one sounds good in a group?

I can also post speeches where clinton siad it would take the US less than a week to oust Saddam if you would like. Or should I bury it so you can think bad things about Bush?

"Phish Phreak - I, for one, believe that GW blatantly lied to the world about Iraq "

OK, here's the deal... you can believe that GW lied all you want. That's your right. But in this country called 'America', people are innocnet until found guilty. Clinton was found guilty. No question about it. If it turns out that GW has purposely lied to the American people and is found guilty of these serious crimes - then he deserves to be treated like a criminal.

Have all the consperacy theories you want, but please offer some restraint in smearing the name of our country, our comander and cheif, our President without first some cold hard facts, and then an actual 'guilty verdict'.

Phish Phreak - You bet, this is America and everyone is entitled to their opinion - even when it is wrong. Let's break it down. Posting a news story about Bill Clinton statements in 1998 is germane to the present discussion how??? How far back do we go? Can we post statements by George HW Bush about how it would be a disaster to invade Iraq and call them germane? Here is where I see the current administration has lied about Iraq. In February of 2003 Don Rumsfeld stated on Meet the Press - "We know Sadaam has WMD, we know where they are." He didn't say Intellegence tells us, or We have good reason to believe, he said WE KNOW. Now, we haven't found the WMD (and probably never will) so what do you call Rummy's statement? I call it a lie because it has proven to be false. You may call it a mistake - either way, GW's administration has sent American troops into harm's way on a basis that has proven to be wrong. Now, of course, this has become a "War of Liberation" for the Iraqi people. Nice spin. I believe that GW's actions have led to a less secure United States. In the America that I love, we get to have these discussions, that is the meaning of freedom.

You say that Clinton was found guilty, no question about it. Technically speaking, he was not found guilty. Impeachment is the bringing of charges, the Senate then finds guilt or innocence. In the case of Clinton, they did not convict and therefore Clinton was never found guilty. I know, a pretty fine technical point, but the truth nonetheless.

I love the double standard on the right. It was fine and dandy to smear the CIC for 8 years when it was Clinton (remember Vince Foster, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Troopergate, yada,yada, yada), but when GW is held up to the same standard - Oh my G*d, we are being UnAmerican.

I try to make my decisions based upon facts, not ideology. In my mind, the facts are clear, GW lied (or he sanctioned lies from his administration) and he has caused material harm to our Country. Guilty? I don't want to put the country through an Impeachment process when we have elections coming up in less than 6 months. So GW will not be found guilty, I pray that he finds himself retired come January 2005.

Eddie, It's relevent because Clinton saw the same things as Bush. It is what the intelligence community thought. BtW Iraq was a hard place to gather intel. Saddam had every one in fear of their life. So if clinton thaought the same way How is Bush a liar? could it bee that Saddam pulled one on everyone? Did it intentionally as a strategy knowing he could never defeat our military? Every member of the Security council thought their was WMD in Iraq. Are they all liars too or only Bush because he took action? On using bashing Clinton to justify attacking Bush. I will quote my Grandma. "if Billy jumped off a cliff would you " At least have the sack to say you attack Bush for your own reasons not in defense of what happened to Clinton.

I never said you shouldn't question and challenge what you see. I think that is part of our job as Americans.

What if we find a stash of nukes in Iraq? Will the liberals who are undermining this war effort be able to pay back all the lives they have cost the American people? By making US fight a war at home, we have hindered the precision and effectiveness of the troops in harms way.

In the end, it may turn out that the war was unjust, we were lied to, and lives were lost for no good cause. If that happens, I'll be up there with the rest demanding severe actions taken against this adminstration. But I have not seen the evidence to prove one way or the other. Clearly a case can be made for either position. I prefer to take a stand that will allow the troops to do their job in the safest,morst effective and efficient way possible and return home as soon as they can.

It's certainly debateble whether Iraq currently, or just prior to us invading, has WMD. Just because we / the UN Inspectors didn't find them, doesn't mean they're not there.

What's germain now is how little this administration has communicated about why we went to war and what we expect to get out of this. Because of its glib, secretive approach, we keep coming back to WMD because they have said so little about anything else.

And now with this prison crisis, it strikes me as one of many unfortunate consequences when we go to war and ask the military to do more than it is trained to do. We inadvertantly slam the intelligence community for not getting info and then complain when they take extreme measures to get the info.

Elvis, If what Clinton said is relevant, why is what Daddy Bush said not? My issue is not that GW was wrong, or that Clinton was wrong, or that the Intel community was wrong. It is what was done with the intellegence. Only GW committed troops with all of the stuff that goes along with that.

Do I attack GW because of what the GOP did to Clinton? Nope, not a bit. So if it will make you happy, my kahonies say that GW has committed us to a war that is not in the interest of the US and in fact hurts our ability to prosecute the war on Terror. And yes, I believe the war on Terror is the biggest issue facing us today (and as far into the future as I can see).

Do I feel that GW has committed our troops under false pretenses? Yes, I do and I feel it so strongly that I call him a liar. I would hope that if a Democrat was in office and did the same, my reaction would be the same.

Phish Phreak - I think we can agree on a lot of your response. I am interested however, in how you see undermining of this war effort by the liberals? Please, not rhetoric, show me the facts of how many lives have been lost because of this supposed undermining.

Eddie,

When was the last time Bush senior had access to intel? When looking for reviews on modern music do you go to your grandparents?
Clinton reflected what was thoought to be the best knowledge of waht Sadam was all about. He even said in interviews prior to the recent invasion that Sadam had WMD's was he mistaken or just a dirty liar. He also agreed Sadam had to go.

Elvis, my guess is that Bush Sr. had access up to January 1993. When it comes to credible intel, I'm not sure that anything past last month is acceptable, let alone what a President may have said in 1998 or 1992.

In regards to Clinton, he may have said that he had WMD's and that Sadaam had to go, but he sure as hell didn't back it up with 135,000 troops. As they say, talk is cheap.

Elvis, you must have met my Grandparents (may they all rest in Peace) because they truly did not know sh*t about music written after 1954.

Eddie,

So backing it up made Bush a Liar and Clinton Saying the same thing but not doing anything about it really makes him not a liar?


Put the crack pipe down Eddie:-)

Crack?? Crack??? How did you know I was a plumber???

Yo King,

That truckload of manure you just had delivered is supposed to go in the organic garden! Not on an internet BB! :p

I'd be willing to bet you the manure delivered is the what they cleaned up after Bush stepped in it........about three seconds after the idea of trumping up a war against Iraq sounded like a swell idea.

Eddie-

These people have blinders on. The points you and I are making are grounded in humanism. The ones 'they' are making are grounded in nationalism. In the past when nations have latched onto either to fervorously, there have been mistakes made.

Consistently the US has gotten into trouble when discretion has given way to pride and valor.

In human terms, Bill Clinton's lie may have cost some reputations and careers but it certainly didn't throw us into a protracted, extremely ill-advised, morally reprehensible conflict in which thousands of lives were lost. Even if Bush did not technically lie, which is arguable, his reliance on bad intelligence has led us down a path that has stained our reputation throughout the world and made the world a lot more dangerous to live.

History will be the ultimate judge of course but in my mind this argument is a no brainer.

Clinton lied about receiving oral sex.

Bush relied on faulty, refuted evidence to convince this country to plunge itself into war.

Which mistake has more far-reaching implications? Which mistake has endangered American security? Which mistake has detracted from our prosecution of the war on terror we are supposed to be engaged in?

Pure and simple, this country has got to get back to the middle, no matter how it gets there.

It's my personal opinion that the political spectrum has shifted to the right. If you're an ultra right winger, you're one of those Nazi-esque militia groupies that hides in the moutains and shoots anyone that gets nearby. If you're right wing, you're moderate (just ask Fox News). If you really are moderate, you're a leftie. If you're really a leftie, you're a commie. If you reallly are a commie, you're a nutcase.

:rolleyes: