Us presidential election 2004

[walker 0]

Yep, good thing that Democrats have never lied to us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/50000/video/_50772_clinton_vi.ram

Hi KaRRiLLioN

Yeh let us compare:

Trying to keep your sex life and a failing marriage private realy compares with lying to start a war that needlesly kills thousands of people, destroyes a country and wastes the lives of hundreds of service men and women leaving thousands wounded.

I think not

Kind Regards Walker

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

OK, so you don't think that Clinton's bombing of an asprin factory in the Sudan, killing several people with the collateral damage, the day before Monica Lewinsky was to testify was senseless? It's not "thousands" of people, of course, but you believe it's justified, or doesn't compare at all?

Especially since his own lies cast doubt about all of his intentions:

http://slate.msn.com/id/23297/

Look past your own propaganda, my friend.

[bn880 5]

It is not justified, it is also not comparable!

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Ah, so the proven lies of Clinton which drastically affected more than his sex life are not comparable to the alleged lies of Bush?

I see an act of war (the Sudan) that resulted from the lies of Clinton, not to mention the conflict in Kosovo was poorly planned and conceived primarily so Clinton could have a legacy that was not completely overshadowed by his outright bald-faced to the camera lying about his affair.  Kosovo's poor planning cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were brutally butchered.

A lie is a lie, is it not?

[EiZei 0]

Am I missing something here or is Clinton running for 2004?

[bn880 5]

A lie is a lie, is it not?

No not really, it depends on what you lie about, and what the possible consequences are. Anyway, point made above is a good one, it's not what Democrats DID a while back anyway, it is that they DID NOT do what Republicans ARE doing at the moment, they stood against it (ok usually).

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Am I missing something here or is Clinton running for 2004?

I'm sure many Dem's wish that were true!

Doesn't matter if Clinton is running or not. I'm just pointing out to Walker that the Dem's are not as clean as the wind-driven snow.

Both Gore and Clinton had some pretty severe ethical lapses. To state what happened to John Ashcroft in 1998 and yet ignore what Gore was doing at around the same time is somewhat hypocritical.

I submit to you that a politician is a politician, Dem or Rep. To think that John Kerry is any better is wishful thinking.

[bn880 5]

Umm, okay, even IF thinking that Kerry is any better is wishfull thinking, logically people of America are OBLIGED to try and see an alternative, as Bush + current members are criminals and other things, such as Bush being a moron.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

In your opinion.

If Bush is such a moron, then the Dem's must be even moreso. After all, Bush increased the number of Rep's in the Congress and defeated the Dem's handily in the 2002 elections.

Not only that, but he's gotten his way with almost every policy he's pushed.

But, if it helps you to feel better thinking that he's a moron, please continue to delude yourself. :P

[Acecombat 0]

Just to lightne this up a bit

Quote[/b] ]Barry for President

Dave Barry

My fellow and gal Americans:

For the past few months, as I have traveled around this great nation talking about my campaign for president, the one question I’ve heard most often from the voters, in these troubled times, is: “President of what?â€

Ha ha! Such kidders, those voters! But seriously: According to my team of policy advisors, it is now 2004, which means this November the American people will go into the voting booth and cast ballots for the leader of our nation, except in Florida, where they will become confused and attempt to produce urine samples.

But that is the imperfect nature of our political system. As the late Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the ... the ... (WHAM).†Winston was drunk when he said this, and would have broken his nose had he not landed face-first on a member of the British Royal Family, who, fortunately, was lying on the floor at the time.

Yes, Winston Churchill, like democracy itself, was not perfect. Neither was Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or the late Perry Como. And like these great Americans, I am not perfect, either. To quote the classic song “My Way,†which I think we can all agree, as Americans, has some of the worst lyrics ever written: “Regrets, I’ve had a few. But then again, too few to mention.â€

Yes, I have made mistakes. But who has not? Are you perfect? Can you look yourself in the eye and honestly say: “I have never, while high on crack, driven a bank-robbery getaway car into an elementary school?â€

So if my opponents wish to dredge up that unfortunate incident from my past, I say to them: “Fine, go ahead, but I do not believe the American voters are so petty and vindictive as to punish a candidate for something that happened nearly six weeks ago.â€

I say this because, unlike my opponents — with their image consultants, their pollsters — I trust you, the American people. I am not some professional politician in a silk suit who has never worked with his hands. I work with my hands! I am typing with my hands right now! I’ve tried working with my feet, but it comes out Welsh, as follows: “Wel, dyma i chi ddefaid da!†(“My goodness, what magnificent sheep!â€)

Yes, voters, I trust you, because I am one of you. I even talk like you. For example, when I’m campaignin’ in the South, I leave the “gâ€s off the ends of words, and I use old country expressions that express the homespun wisdom acquired by rural people over years of drinkin’ contaminated groundwater, such as: “Don’t light a match ‘til you know which end of the dog is barkin’.†As your president, I will govern the nation, or at least the South, in accordance with those words, whatever they may mean.

Voters, I have the same values, morals, religious beliefs, ethnic background and number of children as you. We even have the same blood type! If I am elected president, and you ever need blood, or an organ, you just come to the White House, and I will immediately hang up the Hot Line phone, and, bam, I will give you a kidney, lung, pancreas, liver segment, whatever you need, no questions asked. Name me one other candidate, besides Dennis Kucinich, who has made that promise.

Of course, this is not enough for the so-called “news media,†which as we know is dominated by left wingers; or, if you prefer, right wingers.

The point is, they are wingers, and they are always nosing around, asking questions, trying to make me reveal intimate details about my personal life, such as which party do I belong to, and do I have a domestic or foreign policy.

Well, you can call me a man of deep moral principles if you want, but I happen to believe that even a presidential candidate is entitled to a “zone of privacy†covering his political beliefs, criminal record, recreational use of household chemicals and Internet purchases of inflatable sheep.

Because in the end, I am a man, just like you, unless you are a woman, in which case, so am I. And in the words of the great Canadian-American songwriter Mr. Paul Anka: “For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught.â€

I believe those words, voters, which is why I am asking — or, if you are Southern, askin’ — for your vote. Please. You’re havin’ my baby. Thank you.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The latest polls show George bush Jnr's popularity continuing to decline.

Quote[/b] ]Bush ratings slide on Iraq, economy

President Bush, the target of months of criticism during the Democratic primary season, has seen public support fall to the lowest level of his presidency for his performance on the economy and the situation in Iraq, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll has found.

Quote[/b] ]Bush narrowly trails likely Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry by 4 percentage points, 48 to 44 percent,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4482401/

The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. has been loosing ground with many Republicans who say they will vote democrat to oust him because of his failures in policy on the Iraq and most importantly the Republicans Tax and Spend policy of running up a tax expensive defecit. The fact that none of the promised jobs and have come, other than tax payers paying for more government jobs, and that the US dollar is at a record low has US Republican voters checking their wallets.

With most of the rest of the world in a boom and the US economy sliding back, latest stock market predictions expect a big slump in US stocks over the next 6 months, this after record fall in 2003 has many US business worried. They are also fearfull of the bill for George Bush Jnr.'s loan and his loan on a loan. The tax bill on that will hit business next year no matter who wins the election.

The fact that US tax payers will have to pay that bill has many companies looking to shift their business abroad by next year so they dont get hit by the costs.

The Defecit Tax bill if paid over 20 years will add 70% to the US tax payers bill.

As US Tax payers many who voted Republican will be switching to vote democrat in protest at the Republicans Tax and Spend policy that has left them holding a giant bill while George Bush and his special interests cronies laugh all the way to bank at the bill they have stuck the US tax payer with.

The US Tax payer needs to remind George Bush Jnr.

ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!

Kind Regards Walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

Ah, so the proven lies of Clinton which drastically affected more than his sex life are not comparable to the alleged lies of Bush?

I see an act of war (the Sudan) that resulted from the lies of Clinton, not to mention the conflict in Kosovo was poorly planned and conceived primarily so Clinton could have a legacy that was not completely overshadowed by his outright bald-faced to the camera lying about his affair.  Kosovo's poor planning cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were brutally butchered.

A lie is a lie, is it not?

they are both lies, but one is about his sex life, the other about politics. if you want to say anything done wrong is wrong regardless of degrees, then i can give examples of how such logic can come back to haunt many people. Rush Limbaugh needs to be sent up the river, Rob Barr needs to be burned for failing marriage, Cheney needs to be killed since it is wrong to have lesbian duaghters.

Funny thing about Kosovo is that Republicans were the ones who argued against sending troops. wonder how US troops there are doing. they were supposed to be home about 3 years ago.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Both Gore and Clinton had some pretty severe ethical lapses.  To state what happened to John Ashcroft in 1998 and yet ignore what Gore was doing at around the same time is somewhat hypocritical.

I submit to you that a politician is a politician, Dem or Rep.  To think that John Kerry is any better is wishful thinking.

that doesn't mean we can't criticize(nor Democrats) can't criticize Ashcroft. however, GOP is doing just that. they are saying 'we are holier than thou, so we can do anything'

at least Kerry can think instaed of just nod head and have no clue on world politics.

Quote[/b] ]If Bush is such a moron, then the Dem's must be even moreso. After all, Bush increased the number of Rep's in the Congress and defeated the Dem's handily in the 2002 elections.

Not only that, but he's gotten his way with almost every policy he's pushed.

here's fun thing to think. if Dems blocked Bush's agenda, then GOP and whitehouse could blame the Dems for 'scuttling' the 'great plan' for America. If Dems pass the plan, GOP can claim that they are doing something, even when the effect of it is not what it was hyped up to be.

and people are now slowly realizing that 'conservative' doctrine may not be waht is hyped uo to be. just before the Iraq war, Dixie chicks were condemned for criticizing Bush. Guess what, same people are now having doubts.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

What I'm getting at is both sides are guilty of many of the same things. There's no "purity" in politics, except demagoguery and rhetoric for the most part.

Each side tries to lay blame on the other for things they probably would have done similarly had they been in the same situation.

If Clinton hadn't gotten a Lewinsky, I don't think he would have attacked Sudan, or sent in airstrikes against Kosovo. I think he was using that as a diversion from his problems. So in his case a lie, I beleive, led to larger issues.

If Kerry wins, then I'm more than willing to see if he can do what it takes, but personally, I wish to see a cut in social spending and I'd like the tax cuts to remain. I just think that a Kerry administration would raise taxes and increase social spending.

As I've stated before I'm against many of the social spending increases that Bush and the Republicans have implemented. They were successful in the 90's because they cut spending and reformed wasteful social programs. If Bush would have listened to his fiscally conservative base and the Republicans had shown some backbone, they could have easily cut the deficit, or at least not increased it as much as they have been.

I'm waiting for the first few debates to hear solid (one can always hope) plans for the budget. It is still my belief that the combination of Clinton vs. Republicans + booming economy is what helped eliminate the deficit in the 90's. Had Gore come into office instead of Bush, he probably would have had the same issues, although it's too hypotheical to even warrant a true guess.

Bottom line for me is that I have severe reservations about a Dem in the President's office.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]If Clinton hadn't gotten a Lewinsky, I don't think he would have attacked Sudan, or sent in airstrikes against Kosovo.  I think he was using that as a diversion from his problems.  So in his case a lie, I beleive, led to larger issues.

you are assuming that to cover something Clinton would have done bigger thing. in ironic way, assuming that assumption holds, it was GOP fault that they tried to push Paula Jones case and Lewinsky case. If they did not push this, it would have been better, since Clinton would not have attacked under such assumption.

Quote[/b] ]If Kerry wins, then I'm more than willing to see if he can do what it takes, but personally, I wish to see a cut in social spending and I'd like the tax cuts to remain.  I just think that a Kerry administration would raise taxes and increase social spending.

good luck. Even GOP can't cut spending.

Quote[/b] ]If Bush would have listened to his fiscally conservative base and the Republicans had shown some backbone, they could have easily cut the deficit, or at least not increased it as much as they have been.

yup. on top of that a war with little grounds and planning also contributed to that. but they are politicians in the end. try cutting social spending and voters will not be happy. when people say 'i want cut in social spending.' they mean 'i want social spending that won't affect what i get.'

Quote[/b] ]Clinton vs. Republicans + booming economy is what helped eliminate the deficit in the 90's.

somewhat true, but not entirely. Clinton cut 14bil(or was it 140 bil?) from federal budget which was criticized by GOP. it also came with tax increase, but did good job getting the economy shape up.

Quote[/b] ]Bottom line for me is that I have severe reservations about a Dem in the President's office.

considering the choice of candidate for 2000 election, and their fan base, i say GOP warants more of worry.

anyways, to get this back on topic. and fun side note to read;

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/16/markets/election_demsmarkets/index.htm

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - History shows the stock market does better under Democrats.

A recent study from the University of California at Los Angeles, published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance shows that between 1927 and 1998, a broad index of stocks (similar to the S&P 500) returned approximately 11 percent more a year under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the same index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills under Republicans.

<snip>

John Kerry

"The market never met a tax cut it didn't like and it would not be happy with a complete roll back," said Barry Ritholtz, market strategist at Maxim Group, "but if the economic recovery seems to be full-throated, the market might be willing to accept the rolling back of select tax cuts as a means of reducing the deficit, making John Edwards and John Kerry more appealing."

Pros:

Does not support repeal of all of Bush's tax cuts.

Wants to give a tax credit to companies that create U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Cons:

Wants to close tax loopholes for companies that move jobs overseas.

Wants to set a cap on executive pay.

[denoir 0]

If Clinton hadn't gotten a Lewinsky, I don't think he would have attacked Sudan, or sent in airstrikes against Kosovo.  I think he was using that as a diversion from his problems.  So in his case a lie, I beleive, led to larger issues.

That's pure bullshit. Sorry, but no other way to put it. Yeah, right Clinton coherced the UN and NATO to go and bomb Kosovo because he was caught getting a blowjob. I'm sure you'll be saying that he made a deal with Milosevic as well so that he could make a little ethnical cleansing diversion, just to shield Clinton from criticism..

As for lying, wait, yeah, it's a very difficult thing to see what is worse:

1. Lying about having an affair.

2. Lying and starting a war that killed thousands if not tens of thousands.

You can lay off the moral relativism. There is a big fucking difference. Have you ever lied? Have you ever lied about something that got people killed? Do you think that there is a difference, or is it all the same to you?

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Plain and simple, denoir, Clinton didn't want a legacy that only consisted of his sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.  As they say, it only takes one "Oh shit!" to wipe out 10 "Good Job!"'s, and Clinton wanted something bigger.  So, the day before Monica Lewinsky was to testify, he launched missile attacks at an asprin factory in Sudan.  Later, he went against the UN and instead used NATO to launch a poorly conceived air campaign against Kosovo.

I understand that you can't take the truth about it, but that's the way it was.  And it perfectly relates to today's current situation IF you think GWB was intentionally lying about Iraq's WMD.  Most of the world believed Iraq had WMD, they just didn't have the guts to do anything about it.  Well, that plus the main coalition against the war (France, Germany, Russia) had some very cozy relations with Saddam.  So I guess there isn't that much of a parallel since I don't think GWB intentionally lied about it.

Clinton may have been merely lying about some Lewinskies that he got, but as the President, he used his power to try to divert attention away from it.  And remember, it wasn't the sexual affair that landed him in trouble, it was the fact that he lied to a grand jury about it, and guess what?  That's breaking the law.  The end result was that his diversions got hundreds of thousands of Muslims buthered because of a rushed, sloppily planned invasion that he pushed for more quickly in order to preserve his legacy.

So, what's worse...

1. Lying about an affair and attempting to divert the public's attention away from it by killing innocent people in Sudan and then escalating a conflict with a badly planned air strike campaign that allows Muslims to be methodically exterminated.

2. Be accused of lying after intelligence was wrong (so far) about WMD, even though the military plan carried out worked so well that instead of losing thousands of troops on the ground, far less were actually killed, a dictator was overthrown and captured, and the country is now free to sign a new constitution.

[denoir 0]

Plain and simple, denoir, Clinton didn't want a legacy that only consisted of his sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.  As they say, it only takes one "Oh shit!" to wipe out 10 "Good Job!"'s, and Clinton wanted something bigger.  So, the day before Monica Lewinsky was to testify, he launched missile attacks at an asprin factory in Sudan.  Later, he went against the UN and instead used NATO to launch a poorly conceived air campaign against Kosovo.

He launched a missile attack as a retaliation for the embassy bombings. Are you claiming that he ordered the embassy bombings from Osama? If you do then dude, you should be institutionalized for acute paranoia.

As for Kosovo, you should read up on your facts before you make statements. It saves you from the disappointment of making an ass of yourself. The Kosovo intervention was, believe it or not a Franco-German initiative that USA joined along with every security council member except Russia. The intervention was done through NATO because of Russia's objection. It was approved by the General Assembly while the SC never took a vote on it. This was all laid out a year before the actual attacks when the peace talks were held in '98. Clinton had very little to do with it, apart from letting US forces join the international force.

Quote[/b] ]Most of the world believed Iraq had WMD, they just didn't have the guts to do anything about it.

You said that your wife was Russian? You know you would have been a very good little apparatchnik in the Soviet union. They liked to repeat Pravda propaganda the same way you do with FOX propaganda. It's utter bullshit. An absolute majority of the world agreed on that there was no evidence that Iraq had WMD. That the inspectors should be allowed to finnish their work. Disputing that is a fabrication of history. The second part of "they didn't have the guts to do anything about it" is more a showing of lack of intellectual reflection of what you are saying. Nobody had to do anything. Just give a thumbs up to Bushie boy and he would have stormed off with his tanks (like he did anyway).

I don't like my neighbour's dog, so I want to blow my neighbour's brains out with a shotgun. I ask you for help, and you reply "no way, I'm not comitting a murder". Do I say that you did not have "didn't have the guts to do anything about it"?

Anyway, I had incorrectly from your previous post assumed that you were a semi-reasonable person. Obvious to me now is that I was mistaken. Just another FOX News watching, Bush loving conservative zombie.. I will not waste my time on proving you wrong. Experience tells me that people like you are not very open to facts but rather enjoy having their own twisted picture of the world. End of discussion for me.

[SpongeBob 0]

Quote[/b] ]Kerry says terrorists alone merit execution

Though he always has opposed the death penalty, Sen. John Kerry said Tuesday that the Sept. 11 attacks made him realize that he would want to "blow Osama bin Laden's brains out."

Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, makes an exception for terrorists in his otherwise unflinching opposition to capital punishment. That exception, he said, was sealed by the realization that war had been declared against the United States that balmy autumn morning more than two years ago.

"That status of war led me to find it impossible to suggest I wouldn't want to blow Osama bin Laden's brains out and treat him as an enemy," he said in an interview with the Tribune while visiting the Chicago area for several campaign stops.

"I walked out of the Capitol and said, `We're at war."' said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran. "That was my instant reaction as I looked in the air for another airplane that was heading toward us. I think you destroy the enemy."

[ralphwiggum 6]

1. Lying about an affair and attempting to divert the public's attention away from it by killing innocent people in Sudan and then escalating a conflict with a badly planned air strike campaign that allows Muslims to be methodically exterminated.

2. Be accused of lying after intelligence was wrong (so far) about WMD, even though the military plan carried out worked so well that instead of losing thousands of troops on the ground, far less were actually killed, a dictator was overthrown and captured, and the country is now free to sign a new constitution.

You gotta be kidding me. Are you implying that Clinton went into Kosovo just to divert his personal problem? Before the action, there were people calling US for more action regarding the matter. and when US finally gets in, you say its because of Lewisky?

And please don't be naive. CIA is not stupid enough to miss a proofreading of State of the Union adress. GWB was more like a pawn and hawks in the whitehouse were biased towards implementing their agenda of how things should be in Middle east.

If you go into a war with such and such claim, then you need to prove it. TBA's argument was that WMDs were still in stock, which has yet to be proven after almost a year.

Quote[/b] ]I understand that you can't take the truth about it, but that's the way it was.  And it perfectly relates to today's current situation IF you think GWB was intentionally lying about Iraq's WMD.  Most of the world believed Iraq had WMD, they just didn't have the guts to do anything about it.  Well, that plus the main coalition against the war (France, Germany, Russia) had some very cozy relations with Saddam.  So I guess there isn't that much of a parallel since I don't think GWB intentionally lied about it.

Not really, UN inspectors were on the ground doing their work, and just before the war, Blix EXPLICITLY asked US to provide help on where the WMDs are, cause he was finding none. US has enough WMDs to kill earth. why isn't US getting IAEA inspection?

Quote[/b] ]Clinton may have been merely lying about some Lewinskies that he got, but as the President, he used his power to try to divert attention away from it.  And remember, it wasn't the sexual affair that landed him in trouble, it was the fact that he lied to a grand jury about it, and guess what?  That's breaking the law.  The end result was that his diversions got hundreds of thousands of Muslims buthered because of a rushed, sloppily planned invasion that he pushed for more quickly in order to preserve his legacy.

His private affairs are worthy of presidential investigation? If you can't deal with it, fine, but the whole investigation of Paula Jones was to piss Clinton off and harass him. Whatever he does in his personal life is hardly a matter for impeachement. IF that is so, Bush needs to be impeached for incompetency since he mismanaged CIA, incur greater national debt. of course, there is election coming up

[walker 0]

Hi all

The continuing decline in the US economy under the Republicans Tax and Spend policy showed its ugly head today with yet more bad figures, once again the US trade Defecit hit record high with this January being worst Trade Defecit on Record.

Quote[/b] ](CBS/AP) America's trade deficit mushroomed to an all-time high of $43.1 billion in January as sales of foreign-made goods hovered near record levels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/10/national/main605060.shtml

With most of the rest of the world in a boom and the US economy sliding back, latest stock market predictions expect a big slump in US stocks over the next 6 months, this after record fall in 2003 has many US business worried.

The fact that US tax payers will have to pay that bill for George Bush Jnr. loan has many companies looking to shift their business abroad by next year so they dont get hit by the costs.

The Defecit Tax bill if paid over 20 years will add 70% to the US tax payers bill.

The bad economic figures are reflected in the polls with Republicans leaving The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. in droves and switching to vote democrat.

And it looks like US voters as Tax payers are reminding George Bush Jnr.

ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!

The latest poll in USA Today shows Kerry with a massive 8% lead over The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr.

The latest figures for 2004 Mar 5-7  show John F. Kerry 52%  and George Bush Jnr. 44%  

http://www.usatoday.com/news....lls.htm

Kerry's Vietnam War Hero status is part of what has given John F. Kerry a greater charismatic apeal to voters than the bumbling George Bush Jnr. The fact that still some of the Records of his period when George Bush Jnr. was suposed to be in the Alabama National Guard are kept back is once again fueling the media hunt for what he did then that has been kept hidden from US voters.

Kind Regards Walker

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Why denior, just because facts don't back up your side of the "story" doesn't mean you have to stoop to calling names and go away mad!

You are obviously letting your hate for Bush blind you it appears.

I happen to watch 6 different news sources on TV, including Canadian news, plus I read daily from several other online sources.  You must be getting your news from IhateBush.com.

Anyway, just to quote the story which nobody bothered on clicking the link to earlier...

link:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/22/air.strikes.follow/

Quote[/b] ]

The Lewinsky factor

Several critics of the U.S. raids repeatedly stated that President Clinton launched the attacks to divert attention from his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

At the rally in Khartoum, the podium was decorated with pictures of Clinton and Lewinsky and bore the slogan, "Clinton: Screw Monica, not Sudan."

In Egypt, the Islamic Group issued a statement saying Clinton ordered the attack "to cover up the scandals of the White House and its humiliation."

Iraqi newspapers Saturday denounced the missile strikes, saying "a criminal and playboy president" ordered them to divert attention from the Lewinsky affair.

Another interesting link regarding Kosovo, although it doesn't go enough into some details:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html

The UN had been trying to get open access to find WMD in Iraq for a decade with little to show for it.  Bush's threats finally made Saddam open up the doors a bit wider, but still not wide enough because Blix still wasn't able to get the entire picture.

Rather than use a "shoot the neighbor's for no reason" story, how about this:

Your neighbor's dog has killed off your neighbor's cats, and any other dogs that have come near it.  Your neighbor lets the dog walk around without a leash outside.  Then the dog goes next door and kills the cat there.  Every time you go near this dog, it growls.  Even though it's a few houses down from you, you're not comfortable with it in the neighborhood.  Then one day you see the dog making threatening advances at your little daughter, so you tell your neighbor to put the dog on a leash.  The neighbor doesn't.  You go to the neighborhood committee and ask them to help you in this, but some of the people on the committee have business dealings with this neighbor and don't want to insult him so nothing happens.  Finally after having seen this dog threaten and kill  for many years , you finally decide to take matters into your own hands.  You get a shotgun and shoot the dog.  Then you tell the neighbor, you'll buy him a new dog and help you choose a better one that will be friendlier to kids.

I can't fit WMD into a dog, unless it sprays all over your new silk suit, but analogies are always limited. =)

[EiZei 0]

Your neighbor's dog has killed off your neighbor's cats, and any other dogs that have come near it. Your neighbor lets the dog walk around without a leash outside. Then the dog goes next door and kills the cat there. Every time you go near this dog, it growls.

Oh, and you seem to forget who were saddams good buddies during those first wars before he started threatening western oil supplies with invading kuwait. You want proof, go search the iraq thread <tm>.

For all my life I have not heard anyone saying that saddam was a threat, how the hell the most powerful country in the world could have been threatened by a single screwball dictator with a stagnated WMD program? The war just might be justifiable from a human rights viewpoint but not from a security one.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

All of this makes me not want to vote for Clinton in November. Wait a sec...

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Your neighbor's dog has killed off your neighbor's cats, and any other dogs that have come near it. Your neighbor lets the dog walk around without a leash outside. Then the dog goes next door and kills the cat there. Every time you go near this dog, it growls. Even though it's a few houses down from you, you're not comfortable with it in the neighborhood. Then one day you see the dog making threatening advances at your little daughter, so you tell your neighbor to put the dog on a leash. The neighbor doesn't. You go to the neighborhood committee and ask them to help you in this, but some of the people on the committee have business dealings with this neighbor and don't want to insult him so nothing happens. Finally after having seen this dog threaten and kill for many years , you finally decide to take matters into your own hands. You get a shotgun and shoot the dog. Then you tell the neighbor, you'll buy him a new dog and help you choose a better one that will be friendlier to kids.

1. In this girl, You (the US) has a daughter that is threatened by the dog (irag). Who is that daughter in the analogy?

2. Killing peoples animals is a crime, no matter how you put it.

3. And to make the analogy correct, its more along this line:

"You get a shotgun and breach the door of his house. On the way in, you shoot a couple of his other dogs in the heat of it all. You also, by accident, shoot out the TV, the phone, the fusebox, the water heater and the AC unit. Then you shoot the dog. You then tell the neighbor, you'll buy him a new dog and help him choose a better one that will be friendlier to your kids. You then get your oldest son to move in and supervise the new dog under gun point. You also give him a couple of fuses for the ruined fusebox, an old gas driven boiler and a black and white TV without antenna to bring the house back to modern standards."

Thats a bit more along the line of the situation in Iraq I reckon.