[lucysmom]

From the '93 World Trade Center bombing, TWA800 missile attack, to the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, the radical Muslims simply ran rampant over America under Clinton's watch.

The "Oklahoma City terrorist bombing" was carried out by the American government hater, Timothy McVeigh, not a Muslim.

Terror attacks have been carried out in other parts of the world as you not in your post. After 9/11 we had the support of most of the world and IMHO, if Bush had been more of a statesman, we would have more support for our plans than we do now. Instead Bush backed out of treaties, ignored international meetings and took a "you're with us or against us" approach. While we may well be right, the way we have gone about this has been counter-productive.

[cake_crumb]

I respectfully disagree. The countries blocking action in Iraq would block action in Iraq no matter what the president does or says. They need the $$$ from future Iraqi oil contracts because Saddam is into them for billions each. Their economies are tanked, and the loss of those Iraqi oil contracts may be fatal.

Don't follow the newest anti-Bush party line. Follow the truth: follow the money.

[Stallone]

Clinton imported thousands of defecting Iraqi Republic Guard run into the heart of middle America in '93/94.

And guess what city took them in? Oklahoma City!

McVeigh had known contacts with radical Muslims, and in fact early reports were that he was seen in the company of them that fateful morning.

Clinton needed to counteract the Conservative right, and he spun the tale as the risks of allowing anti-government, i.e. anti-Clinton types, to go unchecked. It was in his own words the decisive moment in his presidency. His motives are obvious, as is your Socialist bias.