In a recent interview with President Clinton, CBS
anchor Dan Rather asked the former head of state why
he risked everything to have an inappropriate
relationship with a White House intern. Why would he
provide his political enemies with what turns out to
be almost enough legal ammunition to impeach him from
office? His answer? “Because I could.”

During the 2000 campaign, President Bush sold himself
as the "anti-Clinton". Whether he realizes it or not,
over the past four years Dubya has turned out to be
much more like President Clinton then he portrayed,
especially when it comes to abusing power. If
President Bush was watching the interview, I hope he
paid very close attention to what President Clinton
said. I say this not out of any concern for protecting
President Bush from his political enemies. He is good
enough (as is Mr. Rove) to do that on his own. No, I
think he ought to take note of Mr. Clinton’s answer
because of the inevitable question he will face when
he finally leaves office – why did we invade iraq?

Of all the reasons given by the Bush Administration
for killing tens of thousands of people, sending over
a hundred thousand Americans to occupy Iraq, and
spending hundreds of billions of dollars, none have
been even close to the truth. Weapons of mass
destruction, bringing democracy to the Middle East,
freeing the Iraqi people from a horrible dictator, all
of these explanations ring hollow in the eyes of the
world. No my fellow Americans, the Bush Administration
never truthfully explained why we invaded Iraq. That
was done by Senator Kerry (then Presidential candidate
Kerry) in an interview with Chris Matthews. “Why did
we invade Iraq?” Matthews asked. “Because we could.” said Kerry. Ironic eh?

I ask you now: what kind of a reason to start a war is
“Because we could”?

There were and are a number of valid reasons to invade Iraq and rid the world of the dictator Saddam.

The left has no clue and is without a shred of honor.

- Saddam repeatedly violated his agreements to abide by UN sanctions. The oil for food program is just one prime example.

- Saddam tried to shoot down our planes in the no fly zone which as a violation.

- Saddam provided sanctuary for known terrorists like Abu Nidal and others.

The bottom line is that George H Bush screwed up when he failed to send our troops into Bagdad during Desert Storm. That would have been the better time to rid the world of Saddam.

When George W. Bush came into office he found that the most terror supportive and provoking governments in power in the world were Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and North Korea. It's two down, three to go.

The differences between Clinton and Bush are rather basic. Clinton is a liar and a big talker who achieved nothing during eight long and miserable years in office. Bush is a straight shooter and a high achiever who will go down in history as one of America's best Presidents.The bottom line is that Bush is getting the job done and Clinton did nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

There were and are a number of valid reasons to invade Iraq and rid the world of the dictator Saddam.
* True, but spending hundreds of billions of dollars and destroying American credibility wasn't worth it.

The left has no clue and is without a shred of honor.
* Who does? The right? Please. How old are you anyway?

- Saddam repeatedly violated his agreements to abide by UN sanctions. The oil for food program is just one prime example.
* You cannot be seriously invoking international law as a reason to invade are you? The United States kneecapped the United Nations by invading Iraq and disregarded any semblance of international law. The concern for violations of U.N. sanctions is laughable given our lack of respect for the Geneva Convention.

- Saddam tried to shoot down our planes in the no fly zone which as a violation.
* What do you expect him to do? We consistently bombed him throughout the 90's. Would you expect the U.S. to allow itself to be bombed?

- Saddam provided sanctuary for known terrorists like Abu Nidal and others.
* This is true, but these terrorist organizations primarily targeted Israel. Al Qaeda did not have a home in Iraq and in most experts opinions rejoiced at (a) the overthrow of Saddam and (b) the entrance of the United States into Iraq

The bottom line is that George H Bush screwed up when he failed to send our troops into Bagdad during Desert Storm. That would have been the better time to rid the world of Saddam.
* The bottom line is George W. Bush screwed up when he sent troops into Baghdad during Desert Storm 2. Containment was only costing us 2 to 5 billion per year. We are spending that now every two weeks.

When George W. Bush came into office he found that the most terror supportive and provoking governments in power in the world were Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and North Korea. It's two down, three to go.
* When George W. Bush came into office he ignored the threat from Al Qaeda and took a four week vacation at a time when our country was very much in danger. He then launched an illegal invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

The differences between Clinton and Bush are rather basic. Clinton is a liar and a big talker who achieved nothing during eight long and miserable years in office. Bush is a straight shooter and a high achiever who will go down in history as one of America's best Presidents.The bottom line is that Bush is getting the job done and Clinton did nothing, nada, zilch, zip.
* Wow I wish I had a little bit of what you are smoking. Both Presidents were liars, the difference being that one lied about an affair while the other lied about war and peace. Your comment about Bush being one of "America's best Presidents" makes me think you are not being serious. That kind of statement normally means you are on the Bush admin payroll. Is this Armstrong Williams I am speaking with?

Look at the joy on their face as they revel in the celebration of democratic rule.

It's great how you include only people who oppose you ideologically into your group of "leftys". You forgot CentCom General Commander Anthony Zinni (a real lefty if I ever saw one), Richard Clarke, Brent Scowcroft, Tom Clancy (another raving lefty), George Bush's father, the Pope, etc.

But I guess it's easy to hide behind a computer and spout off about who's next in the war on terror. It's easy to use a moniker and advocate the killing of thousands of innocent people who would die in a war with Iran or Syria.

Look at it this way Chris

Two of the world's most despotic governments have been replaced by freely elected democratic governments (Iraq and Afghanistan).

One of the remaining most despotic governments (Iran) sees US troops on two of her borders. Another (Syria) sees US troops on one of her borders. Those two governments have see close up and first hand what can happen if they promote and support terrorists.

Libya saw what was happening in Iraq and Ghadafy did a reverse preemptive strike. He coughed up his WMD's voluntarily rather than risk becoming another Iraq.

Palestine even shows promise now that the terrorist Arafat is dead.

The whole world depends on stability in the middle eastern region because so many countries are dependent on oil for energy. This includes Europe, China, African nations, etc. It isn't just the USA.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair are building quite a positive legacy for themselves having introduced Democracy and stability to the Middle East. This is a very good thing for the people in those countries and for the world at large.

Perhaps we can now turn our attention toward the oppressive governments in N. Korea and Venezuela

BA hits the nail right on the head. If the world wants to see peace then the world must seek to shrink the non-functioning gap of nations whose governments have chosen for so long not to participate in the global economic system. These nations are overwhelmingly governed by dictocrats, isocrats, and socialist regimes. The Bush Doctrine is the stepping stone to dragging these nations into the twenty-first century. A century from now, our great, great grandchildren will be learning about the brilliance of President Bush in their history lessons...

Isn't it interesting that the only free elections in the Arab world since, well, since ever have occurred in US occupied Afganistan, US occupied Iraq and Israeli occupied "Palestine".


Hmmm.

Funny, isn't it. An uncanny coincidence, considering those nations are "fascist" and tyrannical "empires" (so sayeth the left anyway). Next thing you know, Satan will be instituting open dialogue and free speech in the pit of hell.....

Sock Puppets Re-elected in Glorious Climax of Neodemocracy!

Well, I think I need a smoke after that work out. Let me catch my breath and wash my hand. And I'm certain my new good friends, Tush Admirer, Jackhoffer and Frescum all concur. How sweet.
ha ha ha ha ( thanks)

that you, Mr. Green Jeans, need to seek psychological help. Given the nature of you affliction (certifiable brain damage) I am not certain that it will do you much good though. You have obviously sipped of the chalice of poison leftist koolade and it has turned your brain to mush. You are seeing demons everywhere you look. Anyone that refers to free and open elections as "neo-democracy" obviously has mental problems. Tell us all what you'd like to replace our system with? Perhaps instituting your own communist agenda at gunpoint? We only wish you and your lil revolutionaries would try it!

Ha ha ha ha ha .......

Sweet dreams, lil precious....

Do you think that you, me, Frescum and Butt Admirer all ; well. you know, had to reach for the klenex at the same time? Did you have that VCR out to rerord the moment?

Those free and open democratic elections yesterday really bother you, don't they? That's really quite sad. Leftists want nothing more than to supress the vote, because, given a choice, the people will choose freedom over socialism and tyranny every single time.

So you didn't like show? Damn. We can have more balloons next time. Helium always sparks up a good election running unopposed and secret and all. With massive military presence just like the model we could enjoy right here at homeland. I for one, say let's roll it.

That's an awefully bold assertion since no one of any consequence on the world platform are making such ludicrous claims right now. Perhaps you'd care to back that smack up with something of substance? Well, I highly doubt it actually.

The people in Iraq voted and there is absolutely no evidence of foul play. Just like here in the states. The people get to speak their minds, peacefully. That's the purpose of elections. Resolving differences in a peaceful manner. Perhaps you should suggest as much to your hero Al Zarqawi? Nah, you'd rather watch him blow up more innocent Iraqi citizens, wouldn't you?

Don't you know: if you don't vote, you might not get your ration card.

"Vote or starve" is strong motivation to vote. You'd think it'd be a 100% turnout!

Elections are just one aspect of democracy.

You can have democratic authoritarianism, wherein elections are just mere show. The democracies of Japan and Mexico had, until the 1980s, a single party democracies (with the PRI and LDP), with free elections, that added up to nothing.

Is Hamid Karzai a real politician, or an American puppet? Do people in Afghanistan feel free to exercise some "mob rule" to pressure the government to do the will of the people... without fear of being mowed down by the local police?

I don't know the answers, but, until the politicans stop being puppets, and the mobs feel like their will is being done, or might be done in the future via the vote, it isn't real democracy.

People voted in fascist Italy and Germany too. Remember that.

Another unsubstantiated allegation by an angry leftist. Not surprising. They're all angry and they all have nothing but unsubstantiated allegations.

Perhaps more rational would care to provide even one single solitary report from anyone in Iraq claiming that he (or she) voted under American instigated duress.

But I won't hold my breath.

Another unsubstantiated allegation by an angry leftist. Not surprising. They're all angry and they all have nothing but unsubstantiated allegations.

Perhaps more rational would care to provide even one single solitary report from anyone in Iraq claiming that he (or she) voted under American instigated duress.

But I won't hold my breath.

And funny that he mentions: "You'd think it'd be a 100% turnout!" If memory serves, I think that's what the elections looked like under Hussein. I suppose Saddam was just well liked and ran a more legit campaign...

don't worry.
The truth about this 'election', this show case of democracy, will surface after the perception control floor polishers have finished their initial beat.
I haven't read Robert Fisk's report yet. He is always good at the on the ground stuff.

"I haven't read Robert Fisk's report yet."

You didn't actually just post this did you?

What an unmitigated jackass fisk is.

Funny, but a fool nonetheless.

Repeat: antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo. He's a conservative... at least he says he is. I also heard it on NPR. Lately, all the election news I get is from NPR and Reuters, because I haven't had time to get to the liberal press sites.

Overall, people are spinning the elections positively, but, elections are not the essence of democracy -- they are the official tool to elect representatives. The essence of democracy are the ideals.

This election has some of the spirit of democracy, like the idea that everyone can vote regardless of religion, race, or gender. On the other hand, if the different parties, present and future, aren't willing to work together, it ain't gonna happen.

One important idea that hasn't really been raised during these elections is "equality". That's a pretty powerful idea.

I think if people strive to make society more equal, conflicts between groups won't tear society apart. In fact, conflicts will tend to create a greater whole.

On the other hand, if people don't strive for equality, or strive to increase differences, particularly differences in incomes, property ownership, rights, and access to power, conflicts will arise and tend to split society apart.

If the elections end up putting people into power who create inequality, and use their power to enforce it, there will be conflicts. Or, there *should* be conflicts.

You and he have a lot in common. He likes blather. You like blather. Peas in a pod.

You made the allegation that the Iraqis were being forced to vote under duress. Then when challenged, failed to back it up.

I just felt the need to point that out to you.

Look it up yourself. You can google it:

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2005/01/vote-for-food.html

Here's the official statement:

http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20050106-15.html

Figure it out. They may or may not have coerced the vote, but having it in the same process as getting rations was going to increase registrations and votes.

Kind of like registering for the draft when you want to get financial aid from the fed.