[chance33_98]

While the Washington Times said (Reuters Dec. 17) that Clinton's attack followed the pattern of the "Wag the Dog scenario," the New York Times said the action "was fully justified." Support for the President and U.S. troops also came from the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune.

Heh.

[Texas_Jarhead]

so Bible believers are tin foilers now... wow

oh wait what am I talking about - they notate people's membership in the CFR, TC, etc and they believe in Biblical prophecy, certainly that is worthy of the degrading tin foil alert.

[Texas_Jarhead]

if I seem a little defensive it's because I've been doin battle over at morons.org and man those people are messed up. Talk about hating Christians. Wow!

[TheDon]

Nice quotes.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

A CNN poll (Reuters Dec. 17) showed that 74% of Americans supported the air strikes with 13% opposed. An NBC poll (NBC De. 17) showed that 75% approved the military strike while 17% disapproved. On the question of whether the air strikes were connected to the pending impeachment vote, 59% disagreed while 27% agreed. But Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott stated (CNN Dec. 16): "It's the right thing to do at the wrong time." Clinton said Thursday that air strikes (Reuters Dec. 17) were "absolutely the right thing to do." Newt Gingrich (CFR) strongly (AP Dec. 17) endorsed the military action as he formally passed his gavel to Bob Livingston: "We must carry the burden of leading the world."

I thought you'd enjoy this. No difference between the parties? Republicans supported President Clinton on Iraq - after knowing about Monica. They put national security before partisan politics. Newt could have turned Americans against the President re. the Iraqi attack by emphasizing Clinton's history of dishonesty, but he didn't.