Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/12/2004 4:30:18 PM PST by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Alissa
"Bush says he inherited a policy of "regime change" in Iraq from the Clinton administration..." who inherited it from Bush, Sr.

SHEEEESH, it's amazing how the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd is trying to make this into "news"...MUD

2 posted on 01/12/2004 4:34:20 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alissa
I seem to remember Ari Fleisher answering Helen Thomas's question rgarding Saddam Heussein and Iraq in 2000 with these exact words.......

"The president welcomes regime change in Iraq regardless of what manner it takes place"

How can that be interpreted as anything other than "We have a war plan in place?"

3 posted on 01/12/2004 4:35:15 PM PST by blackdog (I'm hooked on phonics but smoking it is not so easy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alissa
Saddam should have been taken out in GWI.

In this war with Islamis, I just hope we're not too late.

6 posted on 01/12/2004 4:59:33 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alissa
Well we got regime change. Time to declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and get the troops home safely.
8 posted on 01/12/2004 5:03:15 PM PST by ex-snook (Protectionism is patriotism in the war for American jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alissa
He's basically admitting that he considered removing Saddam before 911, but so what? He never claimed that the reason we were removing Saddam was because of 911.
13 posted on 01/12/2004 5:40:54 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alissa
It is a matter of United States federal law:

Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998

Excerpts from this U.S. State Department article:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338). [...]

The Act had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, then controlled by Republicans. Republicans backed the bill by a 202-9 margin with 16 not voting. Democrats lined up behind the bill 157-29, with 20 not voting, and the House's sole Independent voted for H.R. 4655.

The Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act by unanimous consent, a Senate bill with the same language had been co-sponsored by six Republicans and two Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) and then Senator John Ashcroft (Republican of Missouri), the current Attorney General.

In the House, those backing the bill included House Minority Leader Representative Richard Gephardt (Democrat of Missouri), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (Republican of Illinois), Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (Democrat of Texas) and Representative Constance Morella (Republican of Maryland).

So what's all the hubbub about?

16 posted on 01/12/2004 6:21:09 PM PST by Imal (The difference between a cult and a religion is popularity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alissa
What is so pathetic here, is that O'Neill wasn't a part of the "transition team" or he would have "KNOWN" this was part of the security measures already in place by the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION for "if" Saddam acted up!!

All this proves is that President Bush was wise to FIRE him. It proves O'Neill is acting like a jilted lover, like a "Fatal Attraction" intent of "getting even" and basically "killing" any chances the President had of re-election in the upcoming election. The problem is.. it won't work because the truth will come out!

You could see it in his 60 minutes interview. He HATES President Bush! It was so bizarre.

It is only logical that if O'Neill thought this administration and especially the President was so out of touch, so un-ethical, why didn't he resign? Why wait until you are fired?

No, I'm afraid O'Neill is "SO FAR OUT OF TOUCH" and "SO FULL OF REVENGE" that he is even willing to RISK Federal Prosecution.

You see, he SEVERELY underestimated this Administration.

He just broke FEDERAL LAW.

He released SECRET information and did so without clearance.

If he thinks he is going to be allowed to get away with this, he is sadly mistaken. Thats why an investigation has been launched.

President Bush can't AFFORD to let him get away with this. To do so would jeopardize "secret and classified information by employee's who have acess" not only by people in this administration, but for all future administrations! It is imperative for the welfare of our country.

It boggles the mind to imagine why O'Neill even thought he could do this with a man of President Bush's integrity. Boy.. did he ever pick the WRONG man to do this with. He can't be allowed to get away with something so traitorious and so wrong.

Once this investigation is over.. I predict O'Neill will have a lot of "splainin' to do"!!

And even perhaps.. some jail time?
46 posted on 01/12/2004 8:06:39 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alissa
Let's see if Clinton (who is so fond of sounding off in order to differentiate his policies and actions from W's) is going to corroborate this statement!
63 posted on 01/12/2004 8:30:19 PM PST by Floratina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson