Hmm... I thought Libs keep stating there's no connection?

[Mr.Conley]

well considering its already been established that Saddam has links to Bin Laden and to terrorist groups why does this article have to demonstrate it?

We don't have to demonstrate that. We know that Saddam financed Hamas and gave money to the families of suicide bombers, but that does not demonstrate a tie between Bin Laden and Saddam. That is the important connection. Although Hamas and the other Palestanian terrorist organizations are bad, the best solution is continue to allow Israel to deal with them.

Have you ever read UN Resolution 1441? It explicitely mentions that one of the reasons it was issued was because of Saddams connections with terrorism.

But is that terrorist organization al-Quada? Most terrorist organizations are primarily concerned with some non-US related goal. This document, nor the resolution your present or proof that Saddam and Bin Laden closely cooperated on any level.

I cant figure out the Bush haters here. I mean there is plenty of evidence that Saddam had connections with terrorist groups. Yet he didnt, becausue for some reason the evidence presented by the news, the government, and the UN, not to mention Saddams own regime, is not enough to convince them.

Ah, the standard, "I hate Liberals," bit. I don't think you're really trying to make a point here so much as bash people. Correct?

There is physical evidence of Weapons of Mass destruction, yet they dont exist and Bush lied because "These arent the right ones"

Don't make stuff up in you antiLiberal rant.

We have mass graves created by Saddam, but we are thet bad ones for liberating the Iraqis from torture, rape, and genocide because some terrorists, murderers or thugs might not get the best treatment in the world.

e
The reason I supported the Iraq war was because of his crimes against humanity. You're speaking to the wrong crowd.

This is just Vietnam again despite the fact that its Nothing like Vietnam.

No one in this thread ever mentioned Vietnam. We are discussing Saddam's connection to Bin Laden, something that this article fails to demonstrate.

To be a Bush hater you have to throw all rational thought and objective analysis out the window. The only rule is does it make Bush look bad. It doesnt matter what it takes he has to look bad. There is nothing good about that line of reasoning and I am not going to let the left endanger America because they are having a tantrum over the President clearly and decisively winning both elections.

Not a bad Anti-Lib rant. Not very accurate, and it doesn't go off wildly into the unknown. I'll give it a 7.2/10 with 5 being average.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Germany? Korea? Haiti? Bosnia? You were of course against sending our military to these places also, right?

How about the excess of 350 cruise missles Clinton launched in an attack on Iraq. Were you as critical of this action?

http://www.elmandjra.org/clinton.html

Just checking your level of hypocrisy.

That's a good point. Many liberals who criticize Bush's actions remained silent, or actually defended all of Clinton's foreign misadventures--bombing the aspirin factory right after Monicagate came to light, bombing Serbia, sending troops into Somalia, etc. Frankly I'm bewildered that they think Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Our government was already itching to invade in the late 90's, they just didn't have an excuse yet. Al Gore might have delivered a slicker sales pitch--he would have suckered up to the UN better, and bamboozled the eurosnobs better. He would have labeled the Iraq war as "a war against hate" or some other warm fuzzy-feeling crapola, and american liberals would have gone apeshit (never mind that his family has some of the same oil connections to the same oil companies as Bush).

To answer your question though, I though pretty much all of Clinton's military actions were scripted, symbolic actions designed to appeal to focus groups and boost his approval ratings. In all truthfullness though, I probably would have supported them at the time if done by a republican president, seeing as how I was basically a neocon at the time instead of a libertarian.