LRod wrote:
On 9 Mar 2005 15:58:59 -0800, "bb" wrote:

FWIW, we should have sent a cruise missile to each and every
facility
that Saddam denied the weapons inspectors access to, as they were
denied access. But no, Clinton ignored the problem for years and
years
and years. Eventually we came to the conclusion that he was hiding
something.

So, your irrational, Clinton-hating conclusion is that Clinton should
have barged in there and done something BEFORE we came to the
conclusion that Hussein was hiding something?

I can picture your reaction had he actually done that.

--
LRod

LRod Hubbard, did you say irrational? Clinton-hating? Those two
concepts simply cannot be used in the same sentence. Having a low
regard for Clinton is very, very rational.

Anyway, it was Saddam who agreed to the weapons searches, under the
Bush administration. Saddam agreed to everything, even a second war
for non-compliance, so Clinton wouldn't have been barging in - Saddam
had already granted permission. All Clinton did was keep an 8 year log
of non-compliance. He da man!

What I do remember of the Clinton Administration was all the news about
Lewinsky, and all the news about the weapons inspectors being denied
access.

That and him letting the EPA gas-mileage requirements fall flat on the
floor putting us in the fuel predicament we currently find ourselves
in. Wasn't it him and Algore being referred to as the environmental
administration? Hi! Now we've got to go after Arctic Refuge oil years
and years before it would have been necessary otherwise.

Hell, I don't even hold a grudge about him making an income tax-hike
retroactive to before he took office.

Then there was his boy, Greenspan, saying that he had to put the brakes
on the economy. Those words keep ringing in my ears as Ohio keeps
losing manufacturing jobs for burger flipping jobs. And we're sick of
burgers in Ohio.

I'm sure you get the point.