Comments on: Oprah, Bill Clinton Provide Star Power

Washington Post: Looming Showdown Between Talk Show Host And Former President In Iowa

[sgtrds]

Posted by kansas1946 at 12:40 AM : Nov 29, 2007

True that. Bill Clinton''s hands were tied by being an ex-president who felt that he needed to be as supportive as possible of the nation during a time of war. As such he really couldn''t speak out as forcefully as he would have liked to. Still many people on the right are, as Dan Abrams said on MSNBC this evening, playing this as a "gotcha" moment when if Bill had spoken out more forcefully at the time the would have vocally eviscerated him for not being a "good American" during a time of battle. Their hypocrisy is nauseating. Much to his discomfort Dan Abrams called that smug little bast*ard Tucker Carlson on it too.

[kansas1946]

Bill Clinton: I Opposed Iraq War At Start
**************
Unfortunately you weren''t president, Bill. And I wish your wife would have had the courage to vote against the dictator in the senate. Of course, she was try to make sure she didn''t look weak on defense so she could run for president. That is what happens when you bet on which way the wind will blow. You should vote for what you think is right, and let the chips fall. She guessed wrong, voted wrong, and is paying the price for it trying to explain the vote.

[sgtrds]

Posted by AJMarine1 at 11:10 PM : Nov 28, 2007

I''m sure he was bluffing. He had to be since the WMD''s were gone. As for showing where they''d once been, Saddam was being defiant. After all he was an arrogant prick, but his iron grip on power was slipping and he faced constant threat of assignation. My guess is that he was being defiant to the end to show his supporters that he could stand up to America''s aggression. In which case the US should been the "bigger person" and not gone to war. After the invasion we did find artillery shells that had trace amounts of old chemicals in them, but all they proved is that he used to have WMD''s, which we already knew since we sold them to him, but didn''t have them at the time of the invasion. The UN weapons inspectors also said time after time that there was no evidence that he had WMD''s at the time of the invasion and no evidence that he was trying to build or acquire any. Most intelligence agencies around the world at the time, including our own, said that while there was a chance that he had them (something the White House and neocons have twisted in to saying things like "everyone agreed he had them" and "He fooled everyone into thinking he had them") that it was unlikely.

[ajmarine1]

The bulk of them were destroyed in front of UN weapons inspectors after the first gulf war and the rest have long since expired of old age and would no longer be effective. Chemical weapons have a shelf life of somewhere around 10 years, after which you need to discard them and make new ones.

Posted by SgtRDS at 10:17 PM : Nov 28, 2007

No argument about this, but after the shelf life, when you discard them, he still should have been able to take the whole world to where they were discarded and show them what was left. It could have stopped the Iraq war before it got started.

I have also heard that Saddam was bluffing about them to keep his neighbor scared of him.

[logicanada]

democracy: governing of the people, by the people and for the people.

Plurocracy: governing of the people by multiple entities of a common goal.

It matters not who wins the election. It''s all smoke and mirrors.

[sgtrds]

Shhh--you''''re not supposed to let anyone know! And here, I thought democrats were all celibate, you know, just like Catholic priests, except for the occasional young boy

Posted by Candide777 at 08:12 PM : Nov 28, 2007

No not at all, that''s the republicans who are closeted child molesters.

Democrats are quite open about being constant horn dogs........

;-)

[sgtrds]

Posted by jonesforch at 09:27 PM : Nov 28, 2007

This post is one of the biggest steaming piles of bullsh*it and lies ever posted here.

Not surprising considering the source though....

[sgtrds]

If they "no longer existed," that means they existed at some point in time. What happened to them? If Saddam had said that he dumped them in his backyard, there would be proof of where they went; he said nothing.

Posted by AJMarine1 at 08:12 PM : Nov 28, 2007

All of his WMD''s were biological and chemical weapons, almost all of which he purchased from Western governments like the US and Great Britain. For instance the chemicals he used to gas the Kurds were made in the USA as was the poison gas he used in Iranian troops, along with our spy satellite intel he used to direct the attacks. The bulk of them were destroyed in front of UN weapons inspectors after the first gulf war and the rest have long since expired of old age and would no longer be effective. Chemical weapons have a shelf life of somewhere around 10 years, after which you need to discard them and make new ones. There is no evidence that Saddam had the capability to make more considering we finally stop selling him the ingredients.

[sgtrds]

Are we beyond the media brainwashing or just better at finding things out for ourselves?

Posted by logicanada at 09:13 PM : Nov 28, 2007

Better at finding out for ourselves I think. Like many people I''d heard a lot of bad things about Mexico, until I went down and looked for myself. There are many fantastic (and inexpensive) places to live along the coasts of Mexico. Full of wonderful, friendly and welcoming people. A person down there can actually live quite comfortably off nothing more then just their Social Security payments if they choose. I''m looking forward to quiet walks on the beach and sipping the best tequila in the evening. My needs are few and a quiet Mexican fishing village (with satellite Internet and TV) fills them perfectly.

[candide777]

Posted by jonesforch at 09:27 PM : Nov 28, 2007

How dare you call Bill a draft dodger when you''re hero still lies to us about his own draft dodging and is now directly implicated, according to his own former spokesperson in the outing of a CIA agent? Tell me, are you as treasonous as your disgusting hero?