If they were sooooo bad, why didn't Clinton stop them.

Because Clinton is not the embodiment of all that is Good.

Okay, for everyone who STILL has a problem with this concept......

It is POSSIBLE to oppose Bush's actions WITHOUT believing that Clinton was flawless.

I mean he had 8 years to stop them.

See above.

I mean Clinton and Bush are about 180 degrees apart on the political spectrum.

Really? The Defense of Marriage Act. Have I made that clear enough?

If what I classify the main stream on both sides AGREE on something, shouldn't that give you a hint?

Yes, it means that your definitions are wrong.

Clinton was "right" of "center". Bush is FURTHER "right".

It's like arguing over which is less Democratic, Fascism or Soviet Communism.

Well, since the Russians opposed Hitler and supported us in WWII, that means that they're Democratic like us.

Before you go claiming I'm supporting one side or the other, let me say this. Both sides are wrong!

Cool. You say that others are either for or against one or the other but you can see a third option.

We should have done something about this guy a long time ago!

Why? What threat is he to us? Why do >WE< have to do something about him?

We are all caught up in this idea of a proportional responce. It's nuts!

Ummm, he hasn't even attacked us yet. How can any "responce" be "proportional"?

Oh, when someone does NOT attack you, you can attack him because you think that he might, in the future, possibly get a weapon and then he MIGHT attack you?

"Proportional"? No.

What is "proportional" to zero?

We established the no-fly zones and he respected them for about 16 months. Then he started firing on our people. We should have wiped his ass up then!

Okay, I'm guessing that you don't understand what "no-fly zone" means. It means that if Iraqi aircraft fly in Iraqi airspace, we can shoot them down.

We know he tried to have one of our presidents killed! Where's the outrage!

Perhaps you missed my posts where members of our current regime are going on the airwaves advocating that we have Saddam assassinated.

So, we can assassinate, but they can't. Love that "logic".

Both sides have avoided dealing with this issue for far too long.

What issue? Someone who hasn't attacked us is a "bad man"? So what? What makes Saddam any different from Yasser or Castro? Why aren't we going after Yasser or Castro?

Answer: It's the oil.

9-11 has given the American people the will to do what needs to be done.

No. It's given the current regime an excuse to establish a US military presence on a prime oil site. The US will establish control of the oil in that region.

I don't get a chance to post around here too often, so I expect the normal crowd to talk about how evil we are.

Whatever. You post tripe that's been refuted before, with specific examples and you make the same old allegations (if you aren't for Bush's war, then you're for Clinton).

Rather than a drive-by posting of old, refuted arguments, why don't you focus on refuting the refutations of those arguments?

Naw. Strangely enough, the people FOR the war seem to lack facts but not "patriotism" nor "bravery".

The simple fact is that Saddam is TODAY, less of a threat to the US and its allies than the PLO is. Yet we aren't going after the PLO.

Nor are we going after Castro who is right next door to us. And who has a history of abusing his people.

In fact, the list of people we are NOT going after is rather long.

There is one key difference between them and Saddam.

Saddam has oil.