Reply #14: Leads revolt?? rotfl

[sandnsea]

This is hysterical. And your link is broken.

June 2002. Clinton was his regular wishy-washy triangulating self. He COULD have pointed out the obvious about the WMD and the 1998 bombing, and fought vigorously against the war. He just DIDN'T. If he were so anti-war, don't you suppose Howard Dean would have quoted him???

"The problem he presents to the world is that he has laboratories working to produce chemical and biological weapons. And they would be working to produce nuclear weapons if they had any weapons grade plutonium. We know that from the people who have defected, we know that from what he's done in the past. We launched a military operation in 1998, after he threw the inspectors out in an attempt to destroy as many of those facilitates as possible. So would it be a good idea if he weren't there? And were replaced by someone committed to a responsible course with regard to weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would it be a good idea if the people of Iraq weren't siding with him, since he's a murderer and a thug? Yes. Should we unilaterally attack him? Well, that depends. And you may want to ask me more about that, and I'll try to weave that into my remarks later on."


http://www.cfr.org/publication/4620/our_shared_future.html