Faux news On Bill Clinton

[brettdale]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175957,00.html

Clinton had eight years to get rid of Saddam without a war. It didn't work. It would never have worked.

Saddam was busy buying off the U.N. and France. He was busy killing his opponents and CIA spies. He was busy convincing his neighbors and the rest of the world that he had WMDs, because if they thought he didn't the U.S. wouldn't have had time to invade. Iran would have done it first.

Clinton has defined the Democrat position on Saddam: We are glad he's gone, now let's stone the guy who ran him out.

The beauty of this is that they say it with a straight face.

[ananda]

1. My reply.

Is it not true that Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is now under USA occupation and the rule of our puppets?

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Is this a paraphrase, or a statement of your beliefs?

:wtf:

--p!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. Did you bother to read the article? That will answer your question.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Yes I did. And it wasn't a bother at all.

The post made it seem like the OP agreed with Gibson. I doubt that it was true, but it was startling anyway.

--p!

[CatWoman]

3. John Gibson is one ugly motherfucker

:puke:

[bunkerbuster1]

4. The phrase "five in the noggin" comes to mind

when I think of John Gibson.

And I'll just leave it at that.

[LSK]

6. thats a very tempting thought

[dkofos]

12. I would only give him 2

[LSK]

5. now Saddam has killed CIA spies?? WTF

[robbedvoter]

8. Why was so vital to get rid of Saddam? How is this US business at all?

What was wrong with NOT getting rid of Saddam?

[Beaverhausen]

9. What about when Bush the First had the chance to get him?

[dkofos]

13. Irrelevant

he's not clenis

[LondonReign2]

10. John Gibson is puss

n/t