Replies

You were defending Clinton.

When was I defending Clinton? I was merely pointing out the fact that the same conservatives who jumped all over Clinton when he went to war for humanitarian reasons are the same conservatives who are using the humanitarian accomplishments in Iraq as justification for the war. If the main reason was to end Saddam's WMD capabilities, then nothing else should matter as far as U.S. security interests are concerned.

Deb must be gone for the day. She normally replies to these kind of challenges, if only to lob an insult.

It will become apparent in a few short years, I think, that U.S. military actions in Vietnam, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, even Iraq, were precitipated by not just big lies (eminent threats to national security, potential genocide, alleged attacks on American forces) but a number of small ones as well.

It could be the small lies -- the most believable at face value, and therefore the ones few journalists waste time to examine -- which tip the scales in the public mind toward war.

I'm thinking in particular of the Saddam-9/11 connection which is still believed by a majority of Fox News viewers.

If the administration has formally dismissed it a hundred times, it's still not enough as long as Cheney says, "There can be no doubt . . ."

Everyone paying attention knows WMD were used because that was the main violation of UN offenses. It was not the main reason given by Bush in his State of the Union speech. You're just parroting what has become conventional wisdom in the Democrat dominated press. Try thinking for yourself.

I repeat...Clinton went to war to wag the dog away from Monica and impeachment. At no other times did he care about human rights around the World. Let me amend that to include one other time when Clinton paid off the Congressional Black Congress for defending him during the Whitewater hearings by deposing Haitian leader General Cedros, who never fired a shot against us either, and reinstating the Marxist Aristide to power.

We also denounced him for that one.

Your point and your arguments are bogus. Clinton was and is a corrupt ex-govenor from a tiny one-party state, who accidentally became president because of the arrogance of H. Ross Perot. Bush is a man of his word, who is the only world leader to step up and attempt to do something about Islamic terrorism. Part of that included denying them a haven in Iraq (the mastermind of the first twin towers attack was Iraqi and returned there after the bombing) and financing (Saddam paid Palestinian suicide bomber's families $25,000 a piece).

I do not believe that the humanitarian efforts in Iraq are a justification for the war - just as the humanitarian efforts in Germany were not. The war was justified based on the threat Iraq posed to the world and Saddam's flagrant violations of the cease fire pacts after Gulf War I.

The point made by Fox is that the efforts currently underway are successes which the mainstream media refuses to cover by instead concentrating on body counts and all things negative.