SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (294392)9/8/2002 5:25:13 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) of 769667
 
Clinton '98: We Have To Get Saddam

September 6, 2002
rushlimbaugh.com

On Friday, I read to you from an advance copy of a Stephen Hayes story. The block-buster article is set to appear in next week's Weekly Standard, but you can hear me read from it using the audio links below. This is a red-flag story, and it bears the title, "Democrats for Regime Change." It opens with a list of things: the president planning a strike against Iraq, an outlaw nation allied with terrorists, and world leaders whining about diplomacy.



Hayes then quotes the president saying, "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes, he said, couldn't be higher. Some day, some way, I guarantee you he will use that arsenal." Those are not the words of President George W. Bush in 2002. They are the words of President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1998 – and you didn't hear Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Powell or Jimmy Carter disagree with him. Saddam is close to a nuke, and Tom Daschle is still not convinced!

Congressional Democrats and Republicans supported Clinton in this tough stance in 1998. In fact, Republicans were annoyed that Clinton caved on arms inspectors. But it now seems that this support had nothing to do with making us safe from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. No, in 1998 Clinton was trying to deflect attention from Monica Lewinsky and his obstruction of justice and perjury.

The Democrats would have supported Clinton in the use of nuclear weapons back then, because they knew that if Clinton was impeached, their entire party would implode. Now, how can Bill Clinton be treated seriously when he says we shouldn't hit Iraq now, when over four years ago he said Saddam needed to be taken out without losing a minute?

How can this mishmash peanut farmer Jimmy Carter's Washington Post op-ed criticizing Bush for wanting to get Hussein have credibility, given what his own president said? If we back down now in the face of what Hussein might do, as I say in my Final Open Line Friday Thought, it's an recipe to neuter the U.S. Again: if Saddam Hussein was a major threat back in 1998, he's a greater threat today – but not to Democrats like Tom Daschle, John F. Kerry and waffling Republicans like Chuck Hagel. To them, it's all politics.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext