where he says it, counts. Love of Bush is clouding your thinking.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 12:38 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: CBC News: Bush rushed into Iraq invasion: Clinton
As I said how can it be a function of the so-called democratic attack
machine when it happended in a foreign country. Get real.
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:32:55 -0500, Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Oops, I didn't realize that it wasn't an attack if you spoke from
certain,
> pre-designated locations. Perhaps you could publish a list of those
> pre-approved, non-attack locations and whether they are available to both
> parties or are party specific. And the article never mentioned that he
was in
> an attack-free zone.
>
> The bottom line is that any comments about Kerry are an attack, while any
on
> Bush are about his record. Turn-about is a fair play.
>
> Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:26 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: CBC News: Bush rushed into Iraq invasion: Clinton
>
> Excuse me how do you work that one out? Look at the location of where
> he was speaking - Toronto Ontario CANADA. Look who was reporting on
> the event - THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
>
> Democratic attack machine indeed. You really need to read the article
> first and frothing at the mouth before responding.
>
> larry
>
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:18:54 -0500, Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Democratic attack machine at work. And this is not a surprise, since
he
> would
> > be to busy getting head to use his head.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:25 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: CBC News: Bush rushed into Iraq invasion: Clinton
> >
> > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/08/05/clinton_iraq040805
> >
> > Bush rushed into Iraq invasion: Clinton
> > Last Updated Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:11:24
> >
> > TORONTO - Former U.S. president Bill Clinton said Thursday he would
> > have taken the word of United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix over
> > U.S. intelligence reports about evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass
> > destruction.
> >
> > "It's not a question of believing [Blix] over the intelligence
> > agencies, but the intelligence was ambiguous on the point," Clinton
> > said in an interview with CBC's The National.
> >
> > Blix led the UN weapons inspections in the months leading up to the
> > U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
> >
> > His teams found little to support the pre-war assertions by the United
> > States that Saddam Hussein's regime was actively developing and
> > stockpiling chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
> >
> > "I certainly would have believed it enough to put [the war] off and
> > try to build more support," said Clinton, referring to building a
> > consensus among the international community before invading Iraq.
> >
> > "I mean, what was the hurry?" asked Clinton, who was in Toronto to
> > sign copies of his best-selling memoir My Life.
> >
> > Recently, a U.S. Senate committee report criticized pre-war
> > intelligence reports claiming Iraq possessed weapons of mass
> > destruction for being wrong and overstated.
> >
> > Clinton criticized the Bush administration for rushing into war with
> > Iraq, saying the country posed a lesser threat to the U.S. compared
> > with four other international hotspots.
> >
> > He accused the Bush administration of putting too much focus on Iraq,
> > saying it diverted resources from the top threat to the U.S.: al-Qaeda
> > and its leader Osama bin Laden.
> >
> > As an example, he spoke about the recent terror alert indicating a
> > possible threat, based in part on four-year-old intelligence, to five
> > financial institutions in the U.S.
> >
> > "Who's the threat from? Iraq? Saddam Hussein? No, from bin Laden and
> > al-Qaeda," he said, adding that the U.S. only learned of the threat
> > from Pakistani intelligence.
> >
> > "Why did we put our number 1 security threat in the hands of the
> > Pakistanis with us playing a supporting role, and put all of our
> > military resources in Iraq, which I think at best was our number 5
> > security threat?
> >
> > "How did we get to the point where we got 130,000 troops in Iraq and
> > 15,000 in Afghanistan?"
> >
> > Clinton said the absence of a peace process in the Middle East, the
> > conflict between India and Pakistan and their ties to the Taliban, and
> > North Korea and its nuclear program all posed greater threats than
> > Iraq.
> >
> > Written by CBC News Online staff
> >
> > Copyright � 2004 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights
Reserved
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
