Morning Joe failed to note Bill Clinton's statement against March 2003 invasion of Iraq
The November 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe featured a discussion of former President Bill Clinton's November 27 comment that he "opposed [the war in] Iraq from the beginning," which contributor Willie Geist called "revisionist history." Similarly, in a November 28 "On Deadline" column discussing Clinton's comments, Associated Press writer Ron Fournier asserted: "In truth, Clinton did not oppose the Iraq war from the start -- at least not publicly." Fournier continued: "If the former president secretly opposed the war but did not want to speak against a sitting president (as some of his aides now claim), what moral authority does he have now?" But absent from either the Morning Joe discussion or Fournier's column was any mention of Clinton's comments on March 14, 2003, just days prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- which the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) posted on its website the evening of November 27 -- opposing war at that time. In those remarks, he said "let's give him [Saddam Hussein] a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we'll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we'll go on without a conflict."
Clinton's March 14, 2003, comments were posted on The Fact Hub -- a fact-check website produced by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- on November 27. From Clinton's March 14, 2003, remarks:
Do you believe this matters? If you believe it matters -- as I do -- then you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don't think it matters, then you're with a lot of the people in the current administration who think that we'll just go over there and this will take a few days, after we win -- victors always get to write history -- everybody will get over this and we'll get everybody back together and they'll be glad he's gone because he's a thug and a murderer. That's what they think. If you believe it matters to keep them together, then you've got to support some version of what Prime Minister Blair's doing now, which is to say, okay, he's finally destroying his missiles. And the administration, to be fair, is nominally in favor of what Blair's trying to do.
He's finally destroying his missiles, so let's give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we'll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we'll go on without a conflict. Now if that passes, however, then you have to be willing to take yes for an answer. You see what I mean? I'm for regime change too, but there's more than one way to do it. We don't invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There's more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.
From the November 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
JOE SCARBOROUGH (host): And then Bill Clinton, he's at it again. He's out there, and what's Bill Clinton saying?
GEIST: He's saying he's been against the war from the very beginning.
SCARBOROUGH: What? Huh?
GEIST: Yeah. And he's flabbergasted that they went to war. And he says -- during his campaigning for his wife --
MIKA BREZINZSKI (co-anchor): Yeah?
GEIST: -- he said, quote, "I was against the Iraq war from the beginning. Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."
Now, that's some more revisionist history, obviously. But I would submit to you, Joe Scarborough, that Karl Rove's rewriting of history is a little more consequential --
BREZINZSKI: Yeah.
GEIST: -- than Bill Clinton's because Bill Clinton was --
BREZINZSKI: But it's an interesting --
GEIST: -- sitting in the La-Z-Boy at that point.
BREZINZSKI: It's an interesting example of the way things are spun as you look back.
GEIST: It is interesting, isn't it?
BREZINZSKI: Fascinating, actually.
GEIST: And unfortunately, we're in the middle of a giant spin machine, and it's very difficult to remember what actually happened --
BREZINZSKI: Well, we should watch.
GEIST: -- but it's incumbent upon us to remind people.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, I can tell you what happened. Bill Clinton, in April of 2003, praised the president and his handling of the war in Iraq. And Bill Clinton praised the president in his handling of the war, and also said that the Senate should give the president the authority -- that, in fact, his wife did give the president -- to go to war with Iraq.
BREZINZSKI: Oh. OK.
GEIST: That is --
SCARBOROUGH: The president [Clinton] also said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, as did Al Gore in 2002, as did Ted Kennedy, as did John Edwards, as did Hillary Clinton, as did every single Democrat who is now kicking and screaming, saying, "George Bush lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction." Even Saddam Hussein said, "I have weapons of mass destruction," so there is a rewriting of history. And Mika, I like your idea about a new board game.
BREZINZSKI: I think it would be fun. We could have it right here. Revisionist History. And we could have a little Karl Rove.
GEIST: Everything you said about Bill Clinton is true. But don't you find it a little more outrageous that the man who was actually one of the architects of the war would change the story of the war?
SCARBOROUGH: Well, sure. It affects us more now. But I'm saying that the Bush administration just didn't wake up one day and say, "Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." When I was in Congress, and we heard the Clinton administration in '97, in '98, in '99, in 2000, saying Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Then it was the Democratic Party that was pushing us to take military action against Iraq, to scramble jets, to send missiles in there. So you have two administrations that had been pushing war in Iraq, that had been talking about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, who I guess last night just decided maybe if we just tell the people of Iowa and the country and the world that we were against the war, maybe they'll believe us.
GEIST: It's amazing. This was no one's idea. Everyone was railroaded into the war with Iraq.
BREZINZSKI: Right. Well --
GEIST: Where did it come from, then?
BREZINZSKI: It's going to be important during this election for voters to really look at everybody, because depending on what candidate wins could change the direction of this country completely.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, and, you know, Bill Clinton going out to Iowa and saying such things insults the people of Iowa. They are smart voters. They pay close attention.
You know, when Bill Clinton said a couple of weeks ago -- we had Tim Russert on telling us this -- that when Bill Clinton said a couple of weeks ago that he thought the men were ganging up on his poor old wife. Well, then we had polls showing that a lot of men hated him playing the gender card, and Hillary Clinton lost support.
Now when he says that he was against this war from the beginning, when everybody knows that's just not the truth. He undervalues the intelligence of the Iowa voter, and again, I think we may have a situation where he's being too clever by half, which was always Bill Clinton's problem. He's always too cute.
Yeah, he smoked pot, but he didn't inhale. And, yes, I did this, I did that, and now he's doing it again with the war. And it's just -- again, I don't think he does his wife favors. Just for once admit, "I supported the war. I said he had weapons of mass destruction. I supported the president's handling of the war at the beginning." Admit it. We're not dumb.
BREZINZSKI: Well, and Hillary Clinton does. I mean, she says, "I believed what I was told."
GEIST: She has to. She voted for it. She can't help but admit to that.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, yeah, but Bill Clinton -- there are a thousand quotes in newspapers of Bill Clinton saying the he supported the president's handling of the war. And now he thinks that nobody is going to hold him accountable to it. it's just --
BREZINZSKI: Very interesting. And that Karl Rove clip is very enlightening as well.
Poor Mika and Willie. I hope they are paid well since every morning they have to put up with Joe's crap. Joe obviously didn't want to talk about Karl Rove and in typical fashion Joe usurped the report and made it all about Bill Clinton. I guess since it's his show he can do that, and make Mika and Willie sit back and by the looks on their faces painfully listen to this rant.
I'm hearing all the media heads like JOE, Hannity and Rush...just all the GOP jabberheads...running 100% against Hillary now. That includes attacking Bill, who rolled them up and smoked them when he was in office, and making up rumors about her, ie DRUDGE.
They are scared to death that she can win, and I think that is a reflection of how weak ppl like RUDY or MITT would run. i anticipate that this type of material will find its way into the press like we've never seen it before. And I thought the "black love child" story was off the chart.
Hillary should turn the guns ON THESE GUYS, and I suspect she will, if/when she gets nominated. That's the real threat for Democrats anymore. It's not the GOP, its their domination of narrations in the media. They just keep trying new things. SO what if its baldly inaccurate...they can move on to something else the next day.
Mika and Willie are both smart and know that they can't embarras Joe "I'm a congressman" Scarborough without being punished. I recall Anna Marie Cox serving as a co-host one week and she wasn't too nice to him. She challenged him twice and he complained on the air that she contradicted him. She commented that "Nobody told me I couldn't." I've not seen her on that program since then.
Who cares whether former President Bill Clinton supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq initially? He isn't running for anything. The fact is his wife is, and she voted for authorization of the invasion.
I agree.
But who does care?
That darn liberal media, that's who:
ABCNews
WaPost
CBSNews
NYT
Hillary, in a speech made when the vote to authorize Bush was before the Senateclearly stated her position to wait until the UN inspectors finished their job.
Read it for yourself:
Hillary Clinton" speech on the Senate floor before the Iraq invasion.http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.”
In true Clintonian fashion she makes a speech without taking any kind of stand. She knows that’s what you leftist pansies want. She’s just making sure she that covers all the bases for future wiggle room.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.” “In true Clintonian fashion she makes a speech without taking any kind of stand. She knows that’s what you leftist pansies want. She’s just making sure she that covers all the bases for future wiggle room.”
Perhaps if you possessed some level of reading comprehension then you would understand that the last paragraph possessed a suggested plan or dealing with Iraq. As for the leftist pansies remark, the only pansies in this country are the ones who have been cowering in the fetal position since September 12th 2001. They are the same pansies who would succumb to the utterly stupid notion that occupying Iraq keeps AQ affiliates in the 59 other contries from boarding a plan tomorrow, landing in the BWI on Saturday, Filling a van with common flammable gas containers on Sunday, then driving to the Mall on Washing and blowing it up in the intersection during Monday morning rush hour. Nothing we do in Iraq keep AQ Germany, Britain, Malaysia etc. from executing this simple scenario. Coordination intelligence with these countries and other convert international efforts are the best way to counter international terror.
But don’t expect a macho person such as yourself to be bothered with such a sissified pansied approach, you probably think we should make a glass crater out of the whole place.
A typical Clintonian speech full of wiggle room. If Bush had done nothing and Sadaam used WMD again she would have said "I warned the president of the danger". If the war had more support at home she could say "I supported the effort from the beginning." If the leftist wackos who support her started protesting too loudly she could say "I tried to get the president use the U.N."
In typical leftist pansy fashion she took no stand.
“If Bush had done nothing and Sadaam used WMD again” Saddam couldn't stop US jets from flogging sites all over his country’s during the Clinton years. He could even muster a defense. The NOTION is beyond base that Saddam could use WMD against us. Pull your head out of your ass, uncurl from the fetal position, turn your TV/ Radio off and explore the wonderful world of PERSONAL thought and opinion. The rest of your post… just incoherent babbling with a side of cliché partisan insult.
Where in my post did I say anything about him using WMDs against us? I just said "if he had used them AGAIN."
You highlighted Bosnia above. What threat was Milosevic to US if that's the criteria you want to use? Try coming up with some of your own thoughts My Thoughts instead just spewing the same old mindless rhetoric.
Where in my post did I say anything about him using WMDs against us? I just said "if he had used them AGAIN."
You didn’t, specifically. I But the debate in 2002-2003 wasn’t about whether he would use WMD against the Kurds or Iran. It was about mushroom clouds over Washington DC and "mass death" in the US. So, unless you aren't a US Citizen I am highly skeptical that your misplaced concern about Iraq was about anything another than WMDs blowing up over your house. With that context I was compelled to dispel that notionYou highlighted Bosnia above. What threat was Milosevic to US if that's the criteria you want to use The same threat Saddam had NONE. The answer gos back to the Clinton quote. But you have to put some depth into your thought process and not just skimWhere in my post did I say anything about him using WMDs against us? I just said "if he had used them AGAIN."
You didn’t, specifically. I But the debate in 2002-2003 wasn’t about whether he would use WMD against the Kurds or Iran. It was about mushroom clouds over Washington DC and "mass death" in the US. So, unless you aren't a US Citizen I am highly skeptical that your misplaced concern about Iraq was about anything another than WMDs blowing up over your house. With that context I was compelled to dispel that notionYou highlighted Bosnia above.
What threat was Milosevic to US if that's the criteria you want to use
The same threat Saddam had NONE. The answer gos back to the Clinton quote.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.”
back to square one
Still getting stupider by the post I see brutallyignorant. Any nuance is always lost on hiveminders as ignorant as you are. Way too stupid to understand anything, well pretty much at all, you cant wait to parade your stupidity. Good luck with that.
I am pained to see Media Matters defending Bill Clinton's statement that he opposed the invasion of Iraq. You cite a statement he made on March 13 suggesting more time for UN Inspectors. However, five days later, right after the US and Britain withdrew their Security Council resolution on March 17, when it was certain that an invasion was imminent, he wrote an op-ed for the (British) Guardian that did not express any opposition. Published the same day as Blair's Parliamentary resolution for an invasion, it expressed total support for Blair; he was clearly using his good will to build support for Blair's unpopular policy of invading Iraq. Fortunately, the Guardian still has the article online:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,916233,00.html
[excerpt]
Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and depose him.As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties.
[conclusion]
Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.
I cannot believe that anyone would be surprised that President Clinton alters history. He would be the first to admit that he's the greatest president of all time.
well he was the greatest President since WWII.
WWII was a president?
stop being dense
No. What would really be surprising is if you had anything at all to backup your rabid speculation.
I can believe a wingnut will post before reading. It happens often here. I've never seen or heard him acting the way you predict. I've heard many neocons say how good they are. I've seen nothing them to back up. Loud and vice ridden is my opinion of the lot of them.
"For the war?"
He's finally destroying his missiles, so let's give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles.... If you do that, then we'll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we'll go on without a conflict.
Scarborough is a corperate media stooge. All those people behind computers at these big media outlets are nothing more than props.
All the media is reporting the same way Scarborough did without any regard for the facts.
Sickening!
That's what enabled Bush to steal both elections.
That's what enabled Bush to steal both elections...
and the only reason why he is not facing impeachment, federal court for violating federal law and an international court for war crimes and crimes against humanity...
Are you freaks still trying to say Bush stole the elections? I know how mad you are that he won Florida the first time, but how did he steal the one from Kerry?
To take up so much space trying to explain this to you would be a complete waste of time. You'd need intelligence and an open mind. You have neither.
Oh, I see Iowadem, it would just be too hard to explain the whole conspiracy theory that you kooks have come up with.
He only won Florida 5-4 in the Supreme Court. When the votes were counted if all valid votes were included Gore won by ANY COUNTING SCENARIO. I see you still prefer to avoid reality like a gazelle avoids a cheetah
You're a lying idiot, Solon. Gore lost the first count and every other count regardless of the Supreme Court's interference.
Of course if the LOSER had only won his home state of Tennessee he would have won the election - but they knew him too well.
No, ButtMaximus, Gore lost Tennessee because Tennessee is overrun with Troglodytes. I know...I live in Tennessee.
It's a good thing Troglodytes are smarter than the leftist losers who supported Algore.
Haaawwwww! That's good! Kin I borry that?
You really are from Tennessee. Sure, you can borrow it.
They arent they are WAY stupider, you are just so stupid you THINK you are smarter. Its ok, we understand, go play nice with the other challenged children the adults are talking
am right and you are very stupid. This was a well covered story. When undervotes and overvotes were counted by NORC the totals were that GORE got more votes by any counting standard. Its that simple. I mean it may not be simple enough for someone as incredibly ignorant as you but those of us with normal IQs undestand it very well.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:wmeb3nqNWdIJ:www.rci.rutgers.edu/~gpomper/FloridaRecount.doc+NORC+Florida+Gore+by+any+counting+standard&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us
The Recount Tally. The final tally of December 2000 did not actually recount all of the state's ballots. There were the now-famous disputes over chads, hanging chads, and dimples, with different judgments among counties and counters. If these disputes had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the NORC study show, the electoral result would have been reversed, but by the thinnest of margins. If there had been a constant statewide recount, Gore would have won, but by merely one hundred votes, approximately. For example, if ballots were counted only if holes went completely through punch cards, Gore would win by 115. If even "dimples" were permitted, Gore would have won by 107: 4
If Bush's lawyers had won their demand for a state-wide recount, they would have lost the election. The
http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2001/11/12/News/Recount.Of.Fla.Ballots.Favors.Bush-1406178.shtml
Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, however, Gore erased Bush"s advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010001
The St. Petersburg Times review included a computer analysis of five other recount scenarios using a statewide standard for counting votes. Bush wins every time a strict standard for counting votes is employed; Gore wins whenever overvotes also are included.
Here are the raw numbers when overvotes are included, that is as I said when ALL valid votes are counted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171 votes
Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or amore restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.
I could do this all day it was widely reported just not by hivemind bloviators where you seem to get all your brainwashing. You are very stupid. We all know that, you dont have to make it so clear in every post you make. I have never seen anyone so proud to be so ignorant. Try pounding sand into your ears in your case it would probably increase your IQ
Get over it, dimwit. Gore lost the vote, the recounts and the election under Florida law. Let it go loser boy. Put your pea-brain to work on another conspiracy theory.
Whats wrong Brutallymoronic. Cant read well enough to see that once again you prove you NEVER know what you are talking about. Yeah, Gore lost, he won the popular vote, he got more votes in Florida. The Supreme Court decided that counting ALL VALID votes, or what I like to call DEMOCRACY, wasnt going to put President Gump in and so Bush won the vote that counted 5-4 just like I said. You better get lots of satisfaction out of that because it will be a LOOOOONG time before the American people give you ignorant fascists another shot at power. You are stupid Brutal. Very stupid. I just love the way you are so proud of it, it is fascinating to me how you love to PARADE your ignorance. Its fun and easy to swat your stupidity filled posts away and spank you like the moronic little kid you are. The real question is what is in it for you? Do you get off on being humiliated over and over? Is there some pervered and depraved kick you get out of making it crystal clear how much stupider you are then dryer lint? I know I enjoy the way you constantly embarass yourself. I guess when you are afraid of the other special kids and the sun, have nothing to look forward to but a ride on the shortbus, squating sadly in your mommys basement, even being made a fool out of seems fun to you.
Spewing the same ignorant lies over and over doesn't make them true, solon you idiot.
Elections in the United States are conducted by local governments - county, city and state. It doesn't matter what the popular vote in the whole country was, the electoral vote is what counts.
Under FLORIDA LAW Bush won the electoral votes of the state.
This is always good for a laugh, though. You morons just can't get over it.
Give it up, loser boy!
Its time for YOU to give it up you incredibly ignorant moron. I neve claimed that Gore won the election. The law is what the SC says it is. What I claimed then PROVED was you are ignorant as always and had we counted the votes, which is pretty much democracy, Gore got more of them if all valid votes are counted BY ANY COUNTING STANDARDS. You being so stupid you think bringing up different standards county by county means something when as I PROVED Gore got more votes in Florida by ANY COUNTING STANDARDS. ONLY by stopping the statewide counting of the votes got Bush the win in Florida. I am not claiming it was illegal. Just pointing out Bush won by a fluke. YOU are the loser because you are so ignorant. I didnt vote for Gore. You LOST this argument. Just like you lose them all. Through stupidity and never knowing what you are talking about. You CLAIMED I was lying when I said if all valid votes were counted Gore got more in Florida. I PROVED I was right and you were WRONG as you virtually ALWAYS are. You are ignorant. You are BRUTALLY IGNORANT. Your stupidity shines with an intensity that rivals the Sun. What amazes me is why you are so PROUD of being so stupid.
Former President Clinton is doing a dis-service to his wife by lying again. He did do everything Joe Scarborough said. He just conveniently forgot. It is not revisionist history. It is blind ambition that clouds his memory. Frankly Hillary doesn't need his help.
A wise person once told me if your going to help me, just don't hurt me. That is what W. J. Clinton is doing to his H.R. Clinton wife. But it doesn't matter anyway.
BVDs, you sound despondent. Maybe helping GluteusMaximus catch up will help to lift your spirits.Give him a hint to start with; High in the middle, round on both ends.
HBL,
He and many other wingnuts are near suicidal. They see the writing on the wall and the thing they fear most in this world, President Hillary, is becoming more and more likely with every passing day and every lie that issues from Bush and Co. It must be like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
Has anyone sent this MMFA article to Mika ? She should really see it, she alluded to wanting to know what Clinton actually said.
That period right after 9/11 was very confusing. Everyone was falling all over each other, to show their patiotism, to get al Qaida and the President could do no wrong in most people's eyes. The few voices that expressed doubt re: Iraq's involvement and their possession of WMD, let alone nukes, were almost totally drowned out. So we did a half-assed job in Afghanistan and then for reasons I have yet to understand, threw all most of our resources into Iraq. George Bush wanted to go to Iraq all along, apparently even before he was President, and the only reason that makes sense is Iraq's oil. He took advantage of the world's sympathy, including Iran's, and of our confusion, and a press that dared not question the "patriotism" of what Bush/Cheney et.al. were doing. Rove is an out and out liar, proclaiming that Congress rushed us into Iraq: too many Congresspeople have admitted they never read Georgie's request for authorization, a lot of the reason being that they did not have the time. I honestly don't remember what President Clinton was saying about it all- the whole business seemed to be so urgent, and made so by Bush/Cheney, and the "smoking gun coming in the form of a mushroom cloud". Remember how ominous Bush sounded when he talked about Saddam acquiring large quantities of uranium from Africa? It was a fear campaign from the beginning. The press went along and an awful lot of us fell for it. I remember the day Saddam's statue was brought down (all staged as it turned out. Ever wonder why there wasn't a huge crowd there? I told my husband"now comes the hard part", and he scoffed. I knew we had a really bad leader: all that blow hard oratory kind of gave it away, among other things. But he exceeded my worst fears and people like Scarborough and company continue Bush's version of "history". Shameful!