On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:17 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

The point was that Clinton shot cruise missles at an asprin factory to move
the attention of the public from the "yucky stained dress." Last time I
checked shooting cruise missles at someone was an act of war.

Oh. Ok I did not see how you were connecting things. I doubt that
Clinton thought up attacking the terrorist targets all by himself.
I'll bet he discussed things with his security advisors and the JCS
and asked them for some options to consider. This was in response to
the information that terrorist cells were discovered, right? One was
a direct attack on Bin Laden?

Have you noticed the number of revelatory books written by people who
worked for Bush and left that employment that have come out during
Bush's first term? Revelations like the Bush White House ignored
repeated warnings about El Qaida and that they were focused on
attacking Iraq long before the attacks of 9/11, and that after the
attack Bush specifically asked for evidence linking Iraq to the
attacks? That's what happens in a free society, news like that leaks
out.

But I don't recall anyone in the Clinton administration, or any
journalist coming up with hard facts confirming the missile attacks as
mere diversions from Clinton's infidelity in the Oval Office. I do
recall a lot of smirking "wag the dog" allegations from journalists,
but no confirmation, just speculation, and a movie that got people
thinking.

Can you point to hard evidence that Clinton lobbed missiles as a
diversion?

Thanks, Corky Scott