From: "Robert Comer" 

>If Bush "lied" so did Clinton.

If Clinton "lied" so did Bush. 

Frankly it doesn't bother me a bit to say Clinton lied, we know he lied
about other "things".  What bothers me is that some think it's
okay for Bush to lie if Clinton did it first.

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
news:op.szde6vqyeipai0{at}news.barkto.com...
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:07:10 -0400, Monte Davis 
> wrote:
>
>> "Gary Wiltshire"  wrote:
>>
>>> Working prototypes for the production of more in the future.
>>
>> I have no doubt. And of about as much value and significance as his
>> scattered, corroded gas shells.
>>
>> Try to understand, Gary. I don't deny, I have never denied, no one
>> with half a brain denies, that Saddam Hussein had had and used
>> chemical weapons, or that he would have liked all the WMDs he could
>> get. So would thirty or sixty other despots around the world. But that
>> "Saddam Hussein has nasty ambitions" (which was true)
was *not* the
>> salient argument advanced for the invasion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I don't give a damn.  I know why *I'm* happy the man with nasty ambitions
> is out.  As to the "argument advanced" Clinton made all the
same claims
> about Hussein and WMDs during HIS administration.  That is a FACT readily
> verifiable.  If Bush "lied" so did Clinton.
>
>
> --
> Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5