From: "Eric Burgess" < zteecher@yahoo.com >

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 7:26 AM

Subject: What's Good for the Clinton, Is Good for the Bush

 

Robert Scheer recently wrote, "We now know that the threat of deployed WMD was a blatant falsehood. What has not been established is whether the president was in on the lie. If he was, he should be impeached."

 

A simple question for you all. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

 

==============================================

 

From: "THE KID" <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: What's Good for the Clinton, Is Good for the Bush

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:39:20 -0700

 

It depends on what you mean what "Was," was?

 

But since it was suggested by "Robert Scheer" why not? I'm sure he was for Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath.

 

Jack

 

==============================================

 

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:37:43 -0700 (PDT)

From:  "Joseph Vasquez" <jvasque8@yahoo.com> 

Subject: Re: What's Good for the Clinton, Is Good for the Bush

 

if bush knew that he was sending troops into harms way based on faulty intelligence, he should certainly face an impeachment trial. however, he will not face such an ordeal because he can hide behind the cia. already the bushies have passed the buck off on the agency, just as they passed the buck onto the state department when texas-style diplomacy didn't rally the world around our grab for oil. also, there is precedent when it comes to a commander in chief using faulty intelligence to increase hostilities (see gulf of tonkin), so don't hold your breath, especially with a republican controlled house. on a side note, rep. tom delay, house republican big wig, opposed clinton's war in kosovo because he felt that it was immoral and diversionary. he even advocated the passage of a bill that would cut funding to the troops in order to bring them back home. how would the republicans react if such a stand were taken by a democrat? should rep.

nancy pelosi take such a stand? and finally: for all those, like myself, who believe that the democrats have yet to produce a candidate worth voting for (with apologies to dean, but come on, the last time they ran a new englander he ended up looking like a pinata), ret. general wesley clark has been the focus of a "presidential drafting." i don't know much about him other than the fact that he led the brutal nato assault in kosovo, but, he isn't w. since the goal in 2004 should be to rid the nation of the imposter in chief (at least for those who feel like the constitution has been violated), clark maybe worth some investigation. finally, scheer is at times over the top, but it is important to note that he did report that pvt. jessica lynch sustained no bullet or knife wounds and that she received excellent care from iraqi doctors, which was confirmed by the pentagon yesterday. perhaps the bbc story he referenced will also one day be validated. of course, that would suggest that our leaders have lied, and unless they are named clinton or gore, leaders never lie, do they?

joe

 

==============================================

 

From: "THE KID" <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: What's Good for the Clinton, Is Good for the Bush

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:30:46 -0700

 

Here is a late response to this question. I found an interesting (at least to a neo-con like myself) op-ed from the wall street journal that Rush Limbaugh (Yes... Rush Limbaugh) penned about this topic regarding Democratic Senator Carl Levin's Amnesia.

 

I know as you've stated in the past " jack, why would I answer questions regarding your cleverly-chosen Clinton quotes when they are completely irrelevent to the current situation. besides the fact that your quotes are FIVE years old, there were many people that believed saddam had WMDs but only dubya started a war over the issue."

 

Well it's simple, you can't. It's totally relevant, only you don't think so.

 

If 9/11 happened when Clinton was in office I know without a doubt he would have done the same thing. And to be honest I think he wouldn't have waited so long to do something and I would have liked Bush to do the same but he was to concerned about how people like you would respond and he was right.

 

And to the detriment of our country's effort to find these weapons due to Bush having to carefully take every precaution before doing anything to appease people like yourself, Saddam had even more time to play three card Monty with the WMD.

 

Then you say " clearly Clinton was smart enough to demand real proof before starting a full-scale war on a third world country.

using flawed intelligence to justify an invasion just "wouldn't be prudent." Clinton agreed."

 

Clinton was not smart enough, he was just pre-occupied with "Other" important matters. And as far as the "Flawed intelligence" goes, was it flawed when Senator Levin passed it on to Clinton as you can read in the article?

 

The fact that all those on the side of Clinton who would have been for taking Saddam out with that "Flawed Intelligence" and are now doing a complete "180" show's that this is purely politically motivated, or as Hillary would say... It's a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy! LOL

 

Here's the link http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/gen/LevinsAmnesia.jpg

Jack

 

==============================================