24th January 2004, 12:57 AM
You may recall that the reason Clinton's lie caused him so much trouble was that he did it in under oath in front of a grand jury. Thus, he committed a crime.
As far as it's relevance? Well, whatever. So Saddam had none. So why in the bleeding fuck did he not just prove it?
Saddam acted very suspiciously for not having any. Why throw inspectors out? Why show no proof of their destruction? He could have prevented the damn war. He didn't want to, for whatever reason. And since he cast suspicion upon himself, I do not think the war is any less justified for it. I was in favor of pasting Saddam, WMD or no WMD, before it was even an issue. We're safer without him around.
As far as it's relevance? Well, whatever. So Saddam had none. So why in the bleeding fuck did he not just prove it?
Saddam acted very suspiciously for not having any. Why throw inspectors out? Why show no proof of their destruction? He could have prevented the damn war. He didn't want to, for whatever reason. And since he cast suspicion upon himself, I do not think the war is any less justified for it. I was in favor of pasting Saddam, WMD or no WMD, before it was even an issue. We're safer without him around.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR