Or do you mean the Balkans? Yes, your keen knowledge of European geography, history and politics does this site credit.

Still not sure what you might mean by Clinton manufacturing the Balkans, either. That was a NATO gig, remember? Also, the intervention was to stop well-documented ethnic cleansing and mass murder, not to eradicate a non-existent WMD program.

So far as the factory in the Sudan hit with Tomahawk missiles in 1998, that was an error both of intelligence and executive decision-making. Of course, there were also missiles launched against camps where bin Laden was possibly hiding out. Republican hysterics desperately seeking to deflect blame for their own catastrophic errors have frantically pointed a finger at Clinton for not doing more to get bin Laden before 9/11. So you can’t have it both ways–you can’t rip Clinton for launching the strike AND rip him for not launching the strike.

And of course there is the not insignificant point that no U.S. troops were killed in the strikes against the Sudanese factory, it didn’t cost tens of thousands of Sudanese lives, it didn’t cost the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, we didn’t hear the same lies (and countless new ones) repeated for four years, and we’re not still trapped in a bloody quagmire there.

Other than those teeny, tiny errors, what I generously call your “logic” is impeccable.

Hasn’t Al Gore been a private citizen since 2000?

Didn’t the Iraq War start in 2003?

Didn’t President Bush and Vice President Cheney spread fabrications about Iraq’s WMDs in order to convince the Congress to authorize their war?

The answers to those questions are “Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes”.

So far as your statement that “Every statement out of the Whitehouse (sic) talked about Regime Change - not WMDs”, that is blatantly false. You forget Colin Powell ruining his reputation at the UN? Cheney’s statement about mushroom clouds rising over American cities? I doubt you forgot–you just lied. To cover up other lies. Pathetic.

Bush and Cheney knew the public wouldn’t support a war merely to remove Saddam from power. Without the bogeyman of WMDs, why would we be afraid of Saddam? What was he gonna do to us? Squat, that’s what. So they lied and lied and lied and led us into this catastrophe of their own making. Bad enough that they’re liars. Worse that they’re grossly incompetent liars. For the good of our democracy, they should both be impeached.

Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam by force when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear violation of the Gulf truce. This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.

Contrary to everything that Al Gore and the democrats have said for the last - I don’t know how long - Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements that made up the Gulf war Truce - and not the existence of Iraqi WMDs - was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops into Iraq.

Every statement out of the Whitehouse talked about Regime Change - not WMDs.

But go ahead and stick with Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson’s lies on the Niger thing - and the president’s 16 words if it makes you feel any better.

I think he needs o look up the definition of a war crime.

www.jcardsworld.blogspot.com

- The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11
Show us your proof!-

The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars
Huh?

- A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror
Your biased opinion only.

- Regular, politically timed terror alerts
Conspiracy theorist.

- Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11
Huh?

- The ‘junk science’ of Global Warming and its effects around the globe
Huh? What does this have to do with Bin Laden?

- WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General
Does not even make sense.

- Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11
Go spend time in the military brainiac…….we have plans…multiple plans…for all kinds of wars that could happen anywhere in the world, standard procedure….its called being proactive…..

- Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD
You lost me here with Bin Laden.

- Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda
Supporter.

- Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11
Evil tyrant.

- Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors
Which part of the first Gulf war was NOT a threat to his neighbors?

Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace
Where is this a Bin Laden connection.

- Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform
False.

- Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time
Have we been attacked here? Progress made.

- Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq
I agree, Al Jazeera does report numbers much higher than reality.

- The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue
Conspiracy theorist.

- The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch
Yea, shoulda left her there…….

- The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire
And the Bin Laden connection is……?

- Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens
Huh?

- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan
Yes of course…Bush himself held the camera…….(you are fast becoming an idiot)

- Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture
Wait! You just said WE torture them. Why would we need to send them elsewhere for torture?

- Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative
Case closed. Nothing to do with Bin Laden (now you are officially and idiot)

- White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors…
Name a President who has not….Clinton did it too.

There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea.
Oh yea! We get the idea….thanks for proving our point.

I think he needs o look up the definition of a war crime.

www.jcardsworld.blogspot.com