clinton demonstrates what ACTUAL lying looks like...again

[pwrone]

Instead of supporting the President during war-time, clinton has taken the road of another maggot, carter. These are the only presidents so clueless that they have attempted to undermine Presidents in office. I would say he should be ashamed but he is has proven incapable of that. I am sure our lib friends will adroitly explain that he did not mean what he said here, and perhaps they will also answer the age-old question...what does 'is' really mean?:

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.


'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

[dchristie]

Instead of supporting the President during war-time, clinton has taken the road of another maggot, carter. These are the only presidents so clueless that they have attempted to undermine Presidents in office. I would say he should be ashamed but he is has proven incapable of that. I am sure our lib friends will adroitly explain that he did not mean what he said here, and perhaps they will also answer the age-old question...what does 'is' really mean?:

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.


'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Uh huh...but there's one major difference here, Monkey Boy. Clinton had the brains and the common sense to eschew and reject the prospect of an invasion and military occupation. I might believe my next door neighbor is a pedophile and denounce him roundly. That's fine. But if I break into his house and take the law into my own hands to gather evidence, I will end up where Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld belong: Jail.

[bairdi]

Instead of supporting the President during war-time, clinton has taken the road of another maggot, carter. These are the only presidents so clueless that they have attempted to undermine Presidents in office. I would say he should be ashamed but he is has proven incapable of that. I am sure our lib friends will adroitly explain that he did not mean what he said here, and perhaps they will also answer the age-old question...what does 'is' really mean?:

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.


'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

And exactly how many American soldiers were killed and injured? Also, it looks like Operation Desert Fox worked.

[Ysne58]

Why are you posting something that happened in 1998 as relevant to what is going on today with Bush. Geez, I was expecting to see some new lies from Clinton, and you dissappointed me with something from 1998.

[sojustask]

Why are you posting something that happened in 1998 as relevant to what is going on today with Bush. Geez, I was expecting to see some new lies from Clinton, and you dissappointed me with something from 1998.

'


Get use to this kind of thing from Pwrone, it's his MO.

I too thought this was going to be something new, not a story that happened 7 years ago. He had to lie in the thread Title in order to get response. What a clown. But he did prove that he's a good follower of Bush, he Lies about the condition of things too.

LOL

Lady Mod

[Grim17]

I'm sorry, but why didn't any of you respond to Clinton's reasons for a strike? They sound almost exactly the same as the reasons given by president Bush, and you all claim that those were all lies made up by the administration?

.

[dchristie]

I'm sorry, but why didn't any of you respond to Clinton's reasons for a strike? They sound almost exactly the same as the reasons given by president Bush, and you all claim that those were all lies made up by the administration?

.

That's just the point, you Monkey miscreant. They were military strikes, not a massive full scale invasion, military occupation and hopelessly complex and expensive nation building project. There's a rather BIG difference here, you incredibly stupid Monkey bastards. The Clinton option was based on containment, deterrence and responsible, common sense procedures whereas NO Americans lost their lives and very few Iraqi civilians. The Bush option...well, we don't need to go into that again do we? The ongoing catastrophic consequences of that option are still be tallied. Today 3 more US soldiers blown to bits for nothing. Go back to playing with yourselves, you gibbering Monkey assh*les.

[pwrone]

That's just the point, you Monkey miscreant. They were military strikes, not a massive full scale invasion, military occupation and hopelessly complex and expensive nation building project. There's a rather BIG difference here, you incredibly stupid Monkey bastards. The Clinton option was based on containment, deterrence and responsible, common sense procedures whereas NO Americans lost their lives and very few Iraqi civilians. The Bush option...well, we don't need to go into that again do we? The ongoing catastrophic consequences of that option are still be tallied. Today 3 more US soldiers blown to bits for nothing. Go back to playing with yourselves, you gibbering Monkey assh*les.

clintos 'exercise' solved nothing...it simply alerted our enemies to our weakness by having NO target, other than distraction from perjurous testimony...The point, however, is that like everyone else who mattered he was convinced of the need to do something--just lacked the stones to proceed. Now, it seems that all who were in favor of the military action have forgotten that they were...it is why they can be easily identified as 'soulless'. You see, if you lie continuously to undermine a strategic military objective by claiming falsely that you were NOT in favor of it...you might be a liberal.

[sojustask]

clintos 'exercise' solved nothing...it simply alerted our enemies to our weakness by having NO target, other than distraction from perjurous testimony...The point, however, is that like everyone else who mattered he was convinced of the need to do something--just lacked the stones to proceed. Now, it seems that all who were in favor of the military action have forgotten that they were...it is why they can be easily identified as 'soulless'. You see, if you lie continuously to undermine a strategic military objective by claiming falsely that you were NOT in favor of it...you might be a liberal.

What weakness? If you lie continuously to undermine the integrity of the American people by telling them we must go to war because this guy is a terrorist and is amassing Weapons Of Mass Destruction only later to be discovered that there were none, and then you lie to cover up the original lie, the American People lose faith in you and before you know it, they ALL start thinking like Liberals.

With the exception of a few retarded neocons who are incapable of ever attaining that level of intelligence. In which case, those neocons just show up on scam.com and vainly try to PIMP for the president who lied to the American people in the first place.

And around and around they go, never really making their point because there is no point they can make.


Lady Mod

[dchristie]

What weakness? If you lie continuously to undermine the integrity of the American people by telling them we must go to war because this guy is a terrorist and is amassing Weapons Of Mass Destruction only later to be discovered that there were none, and then you lie to cover up the original lie, the American People lose faith in you and before you know it, they ALL start thinking like Liberals.

With the exception of a few retarded neocons who are incapable of ever attaining that level of intelligence. In which case, those neocons just show up on scam.com and vainly try to PIMP for the president who lied to the American people in the first place.

And around and around they go, never really making their point because there is no point they can make.


Lady Mod

Hey, you're alright. Maybe I won't detour around Texas after all the next time I feel like driving cross country to L.A. I bet you don't speak with a Texas accent either. :D

[sojustask]

Hey, you're alright. Maybe I won't detour around Texas after all the next time I feel like driving cross country to L.A. I bet you don't speak with a Texas accent either. :D

LOL, you are right, no Texas accent.

Namaste'

Lady Mod

[pwrone]

What weakness? If you lie continuously to undermine the integrity of the American people by telling them we must go to war because this guy is a terrorist and is amassing Weapons Of Mass Destruction only later to be discovered that there were none, and then you lie to cover up the original lie, the American People lose faith in you and before you know it, they ALL start thinking like Liberals.

With the exception of a few retarded neocons who are incapable of ever attaining that level of intelligence. In which case, those neocons just show up on scam.com and vainly try to PIMP for the president who lied to the American people in the first place.

And around and around they go, never really making their point because there is no point they can make.


Lady Mod

Do you have any evidence that the President lied? Seriously. If you do, the DNC is looking for you. Hard.

[umdkook]

this thread does not even warrant explanations as to why Clinton was SOOO MUCH smarter than Bush.

Dchristie hit it on the head, he was smart enough to avoid an invasion and just bombed the hsit eoutta them.

o well, you missed the point again

[sojustask]

Do you have any evidence that the President lied? Seriously. If you do, the DNC is looking for you. Hard.

Was it Bush's Evil twin addressing the nation that day? Or was it just a mass hallucination that millions of people tuning in heard him say Saddam was amassing weapons of mass destruction and posed a terrorist threat to America?

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
October 7, 2002

THE PRESIDENT:
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America...

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

...While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people...

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons...

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas...

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups....And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade... We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror...Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem....

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed....

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities,[B] America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud...

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist...


After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

COMPLETE UNEDITED FOR SPACE STORY HERE

[pwrone]

Do you understand what a 'lie' is? I do not think so. Even after clintons overt displays...

He did not lie. Many different investigations, from both sides of the Atlantic, have shown this. Were all of those people lying, too?

[umdkook]

Clinton didnt lie becuase he redefined the definition of sexual relations.

Bush didnt lie becuase he could blame his acitons on the intelligence that others gave him.

around and around we go...

O and the reasons Clinton gave to strike were extremely similar to Bush;s, but the point was HE DIDNT COMPLY WITH UN RESOLUTIONS THAT WAS THE REASON.

Bush tries to tell us the reason was WMDs and terrorism.

SO DIFFERENT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT