Darkness and Light

I still say that Maureen Dowd missed her calling.

She's wasting her talent on political commentary. She should write romance novels, heavy on the drama. She would also be good at pop psychology, a cross between Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura.

In her column, "Darkness and Light," she tackles the Clintons' collective psyche, finding similarities with (GASP!) Dick Cheney.

That comparison is about low as one can go in the world view of liberals.

She writes:

Hillary Clinton denounced Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, but she did not absorb the ultimate lesson of the destructive vice president:

Don’t become so paranoid that you let yourself be overwhelmed by a dark vision.

I think Hillary truly believes that she and Bill are the only ones tough enough to get to the White House. Jack Nicholson endorsed her as “the best man for the job,” and she told David Letterman that “in my White House, we’ll know who wears the pantsuits.” But her pitch is the color of pitch: Because she has absorbed all the hate and body blows from nasty Republicans over the years, she is the best person to absorb more hate and body blows from nasty Republicans.

Darkness seeking darkness. It’s an exhausting specter, and the reason that Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Claire McCaskill and so many other Democrats are dashing for daylight and trying to break away from the pathological Clinton path.

“I think we should never be derisive about somebody who has the ability to inspire,” Senator McCaskill told David Gregory on MSNBC on Tuesday. “You know, we’ve had some dark days in this democracy over the last seven years, and today the sun is out. It is shining brightly. I watch these kids, these old and young, these black and white, 20,000 of them, pour into our dome in St. Louis Saturday night, and they feel good about being an American right now. And I think that’s something that we have to capture.”

Tuesday’s voting showed only that the voters, like moviegoers, don’t want a pat ending. Even though Hillary reasserted her strength, corraling New York, California and Kennedy country Massachusetts, she and Obama will battle on in chiaroscuro. Her argument to the Democratic base has gone from a subtext of “You owe me,” or more precisely, “Bill owes me and you owe him,” to a subtext of “Obambi will fold at the first punch from the right.”

...As she talked Sunday to George Stephanopoulos, a former director of the formidable Clinton war room, Hillary’s case boiled down to the fact that she can be Trouble, as they say about hard-boiled dames in film noir, when Republicans make trouble.

“I have been through these Republican attacks over and over and over again, and I believe that I’ve demonstrated that much to the dismay of the Republicans, I not only can survive, but thrive,” she said.

And on Tuesday night she told supporters, “Let me be clear: I won’t let anyone Swift-boat this country’s future.”

Better the devil you know than the diffident debutante you don’t. Better to go with the Clintons, with all their dysfunction and chaos — the same kind that fueled the Republican hate machine — than to risk the chance that Obama would be mauled like a chew toy in the general election. Better to blow off all the inspiration and the young voters, the independents and the Republicans that Obama is attracting than to take a chance on something as ephemeral as hope. Now that’s Cheney-level paranoia.

Dark, light, the devil, the dragon, hard-boiled dames, film noir.

It's hard to believe that she is talking about Super Tuesday and the Democrat candidates, with a nod to her favorite piñata, evil personified -- Dick Cheney.

I guess that's what it takes to be a Pulitzer Prize winning writer.

Dowd concludes:

[I]f [Obama] wants to be president, he will still have to slay the dragon. And his dragon is the Clinton attack machine, which emerged Tuesday night, not invincible but breathing fire.

After wading through Dowd's drama, I think it's fair to say that she hasn't lost any of her intensity when it comes to slamming the Clintons.

Obama is the light, goodness.

Hillary and Bill are darkness and fire.

It's interesting that Dowd so frequently mocks President Bush as having a simple-minded, black and white view of everything.

I think this column exhibits the same qualities that she so frequently identifies with our 43rd president.

Delusional Daschle

Three things are certain in life -- death, taxes, and Tom Daschle will not be the 2008 Dem nominee for president.

Whenever I read a report about Tom Daschle flirting with the thought of making a run for the presidency in 2008, I think that he must suffering from some sort of disorder.

It is irrational for him to think that he has even a snowball's chance in hell of being successful in any primary, including South Dakota.

It's not going to happen. No way. Anyone believing otherwise is disconnected from reality, and possibly clinically delusional.

ABERDEEN, S.D. (AP) -- Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, accusing the GOP of spreading a message of fear, says he is considering a 2008 presidential bid.

"I haven't ruled anything out or anything in at this point," Daschle said in an interview Saturday night after a hometown dinner in his honor.

"I'm encouraged by the strong support many people have voiced for my candidacy around the country and in South Dakota. I'll make a decision at some point later on this year," he said.

I find it very hard to believe that "many" people are encouraging Daschle to run.

Daschle said President Bush and Republicans have overemphasized the importance of the war on terror, and he said the U.S. is no safer now than it was before the Iraq invasion.

Is that supposed to mean that Daschle wouldn't give priority to the war on terror?

It's importance cannot be overemphasized.

Does Daschle have short term memory problems?

At the time of the 9/11 attacks, he was still a senator. He hadn't been booted out of office yet. Daschle should know better than to diminish the seriousness of the war on terror.

"This country is not more secure when a president infers that he is above the law and can wiretap and eavesdrop on average citizens," he said. "We're not more secure when we turn ports over to foreign countries."

He's echoing the tired talking points that the other Dems have been using -- just the same old negativity and fear mongering. In those two sentences, Daschle managed to spell out the Dems' entire message. Actually, it's a good summation. The Dems have no solutions, only criticism. They are the party of retreat and defeat.

It's not as if Daschle has anything fresh to bring to the party. He has nothing positive to offer, no vision, no ideas.

What would cause any Dem to look to Daschle to lead the party to victory in 2008?

Battlefield South Dakota

Red state South Dakota, home of pro-abortion FORMER Dem Senator Tom Daschle, has initiated a battle that may be not be settled until it gets to the Supreme Court.

From the Los Angeles Times:

South Dakota legislators today gave final approval for a ban on almost all abortions, firing a burst in the battle over one of the nation's most contentious political issues and a shot that backers hope will be heard by a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

The state House today passed the latest version of the bill 50 to 18, sending it on to Gov. Mike Rounds, who indicated that he would likely sign the bill.

Under the law, which would go into effect July 1, most abortions would be illegal and doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.


When you break a law, there is a penalty. If abortion is illegal in South Dakota, someone performing the procedure would deserve a punishment.

Are we supposed to be horrified at the thought of a doctor going to prison?

"I've indicated I'm pro life and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Rounds told the Associated Press. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

By signing the bill, the governor would be doing what his constituents expect him to do. He's not an out of the mainstream nutcase.

Rounds is South Dakota mainstream, whether the liberal elite like it or not.


The South Dakota law is an attack on Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision by the Supreme Court that established a women's right to an abortion.

I love the way the reporter, Michael Muskal, says that the Supreme Court "established a women's right to an abortion."

That's also known as creating law, legislating from the bench.

Something that really bugs me is the libs' hypocrisy about this.

I have never heard a single lib accuse the judicial branch of destroying the checks and balances in American government. Why don't the libs claim that the judiciary is engaged in an abuse of power?

One of the Dems' favorite talking points is that the Bush Administration has shredded the Constitution, and King George has usurped power.

Since the judicial branch has been the Dems' only hope of realizing their agenda, I'm sure it's troublsome for them to accept eight years of Bush appointments and nominees. Too bad.

No doubt the Dems will be beside themselves if the new Supreme Court does proceed to actually interpret the Constitution and base its decisions on the law, rather than making law and acting as legislators.

...Passage of the South Dakota bill, which had been widely expected, was attacked by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights groups.

"This bill contains an inadequate exception to protect a woman's life and no other exceptions — not for rape, not for incest, not even to protect the woman's health," President Nancy Keenan said in a statement on the group's website. "Clearly emboldened by President Bush's judicial appointments, South Dakota has passed dangerous and unconstitutional legislation that its supporters admit is a direct attack on Roe v. Wade."

Keenan lies.

The bill CLEARLY allows for the protection of the mother's life.

Text

Section 4. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.

Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

Of course, the South Dakota legislature was emboldened to challenge the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. The state's right to pass its own laws regarding abortion has been blocked since 1973, and now there are constructionists on the Court.

For the first time since Roe v. Wade served to overturn abortion laws that states had in place, there's a chance that the Court may actually look at the legality of that ruling.

The libs have said that Bush is abusing his powers, packing the court with ideologues. Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy both specifically accused him of "packing the court."

That was and is so lame.

The American people elected Bush with the expectation that he would appoint constructionists. He kept his campaign promise. That's not a power grab; that's a president carrying out the will of the people.

When libs and unrestricted abortion on demand proponents whine about the current Court, they fail to recognize that the people elected Bush. He has exercised the authority granted to him by the Constitution.

There's nothing corrupt about that. It's democracy.

According to the state motto of South Dakota, "Under God the people rule."

Yes, they do.

Tom Daschle???

Time away from Washington obviously hasn't helped to clear Daschle's mind.

He's loonier than ever.

From the Argus Leader:


Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle is weighing the possibility of running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

"I have received a lot of encouragement," Daschle said in an email today to the Argus Leader.

Daschle didn't rule out the possibility of an official announcement in the near future. But for now, he said, he has no plans to run for national office.

In his email, Daschle said the primary factors in his decision "would be my family and our mutual decision to consider the rigors of a campaign and reentry into public life."

Daschle made similar comments over the weekend to another publication. In a Saturday story in the National Journal, Daschle said he was "taking a look at" entering the race.

Analysts see the 2008 race beginning to take shape, with candidates and possible candidates from both parties hinting more openly about their plans.

Larry Sabato, a political expert at the University of Virginia, said Daschle was not in his latest rankings of likely Democratic candidates because he wasn't convinced Daschle would run.

"I wouldn’t call him the favorite, or even second or third. But it’s early," Sabato said.


What? What is Sabato talking about? He's a political expert?

No kidding Daschle isn't the favorite. The chances of Daschle being the Dem nominee are probably the same as me sweeping the Dem primaries and winning the 2008 election.

Supposedly, Daschle's getting a lot of encouragement to run for president. He must be confused.

Perhaps he's being encouraged to seek the presidency of his Neighborhood Watch group. No one could seriously be urging him to run to be the President of the United States. I find that beyond belief.

The past few days certainly have held their share of disturbing flashbacks. You think Gore and Daschle are gone, and then they come crawling back up to the surface again.

It's creepy.

The Unbearable Relativity of Eleanor Clift's Rage

Eleanor Clift has lost her mind.

If she hasn't, she is being incredibly disingenuous in her statements about the intelligence that the WORLD had about Saddam Hussein's regime.

On The McLaughlin Group, Clift was screeching about the Bush administration lying us into war.

Clift and all those reiterating that claim are truly embarrassing themselves. They've done so from the first time they began chanting that mantra and it appears that they intend to continue, with no end in sight.

The reality is Clift and her fellow libs cannot insist that Bush lied the U.S. into war without insisting that Clinton and the Dems lied about Iraq as well.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Clift fell back on that tired old Dem talking point about the administration cherry-picking intelligence to build a case for war.

Apparently, Clift is content to do some cherry-picking of her own.

FACT:

WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAID ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME WAS NOT QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATS SAID.

LIES! ALL LIES!

Saturday in Crawford, there was an ideological showdown between supporters of our troops and their mission in Iraq and the anti-Bush, anti-war Cindy Sheehan crowd.

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- Several thousand people descended on President Bush's adopted hometown Saturday, most in a cross-country caravan for a pro-Bush rally and others to support an anti-war demonstration led by grieving mother Cindy Sheehan.

Bush supporters gathered for an event marking the culmination of the "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" tour, which started last week in California. The crowd of about 1,500 chanted, "Cindy, go home!"

"You are giving hope and encouragement to the enemies of America," said former California Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, a Republican who co-founded the group that coordinated the rally.

Meanwhile, busloads of war protesters gathered several miles away at "Camp Casey," named for Sheehan's 24-year-old son who died in Iraq last year. Several hundred people attended a bell-ringing ceremony honored soldiers serving in Iraq.

"I know that the Camp Casey movement is going to end the war in Iraq," Sheehan said, adding that no other families should have to suffer the loss of a relative. She led the crowd in chanting "Not one more!"

A few Bush supporters went to the edge of the anti-war camp on Saturday, trying to remove some of the hundreds of white crosses bearing fallen soldiers' names. They had a list from families who did not want their sons' or daughters' names associated with Sheehan's group.

Sheriff's deputies said they could remove the name tags but not the crosses, so the group removed a few tags and left without incident.


The New York Times gives its usual anti-Bush slant on its coverage of Saturday's Crawford protests.

One portion of the article jumped out at me. It was a comment made by Lawrence Tremblay of New Windsor, New York. Tremblay, whose son, Joseph, was killed by a roadside bomb in April, was among the Sheehan supporters.

He said, "The quiet Americans, and there are a lot of us, need to start standing up and tell our government, 'Do this thing right.' "

Mr. Tremblay said that he began seeing a therapist after his son's death, and that the therapist had asked, "Who are you mad at?"

"A lot of people get mad at the military," he said. "A lot of people get mad at God. A lot of people get mad at everybody. I looked at her and said, 'I am not really mad at anybody.' Then a minute went by and I said, 'You know something, I am mad at somebody: George Bush. Because he lied. That's why I am mad.' "

That has to be the most repeated line by those among the radical far Left--"Bush lied."

Cindy Sheehan uses it in her controversial ad.

She says, "You (Bush) were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction-you were wrong about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda—you lied to us and because of your lies my son died."

Code Pink stages despicable protests outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including signs that read, "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The liberal Democrats in the House and Senate also love to say that Bush lied.

In Senate floor remarks on October 16, 2003, Ted Kennedy said, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie."

A litany of similar remarks have been reiterated by Leftists for years now.

They all boil down to one theme--Bush lied.

Jonah Goldberg addressed this over a year and a half ago.

He wrote:

For Bush to have lied, he had to have known that there were no WMDs, right? It's not a lie unless you know the truth. If you say something you think is true that later turns out to be false, we don't call that a "lie," we call that a "mistake."

You could look it up.

This vital distinction seems to be lost on many smart people.

...Unfortunately, there are too many anti-Bush slanders out there to count, let alone debunk, but they are all premised on the "fact" that Bush lied.

But nobody has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. The German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German assessment was even more dire than our own. They were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005.

Bill Clinton and his entire administration believed Saddam had WMDs. In 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's point man on WMDs, testified to Congress, "Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors" including our 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.

The threat - chemical, biological and nuclear - against U.S. territory proper was only a few years away, according to Einhorn. Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder: all of these people believed Iraq had major stockpiles of WMDs.

Were they all "liars" like President Bush? No? Why not?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say Bush lied while others who said the same thing were being honest. The White House was operating with fundamentally identical information to that of Clinton, Pollack and Einhorn. What was different was that this White House needed to deal with the post-9/11 world.

Maybe that clouded Bush's judgment - or opened his eyes. Let's have that argument. I certainly believe mistakes were made (though I still believe the war was right and just). But if you start from Kennedy's premise that the WMD thing was made up, I can't take you seriously.

Goldberg sums it up so well.

I agree with him. When discussing the war, if you start from the "Bush lied" premise, I cannot take you seriously.

What makes this "Bush lied" stance so ridiculous is that SO many Dems are on the record telling the same "lies."


"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily."

--Tom Daschle, Feb. 11, 1998.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

--Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

--Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

--Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, November 10, 1999

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

--Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

--Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

--John F. Kerry, October 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

--Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

--Henry Waxman, October 10, 2002

"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."

--Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

--Bob Graham, December 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

--John F. Kerry, January 23, 2003

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

--From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."

--Madeleine Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."

--Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

--Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

--Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

--Bill Clinton, 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

--Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, April 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."

--Tom Daschle, 1998

Source: The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy

Remember, back in October of 2002, the Senate voted 77 to 23 in favor of the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq.

In the House, the vote was 296 to 133.

Kerry, Rockefeller, Lieberman, and Daschle all voted for the resolution.

Prior to Bush's election, when Clinton was in office, the Dems were hawks, pushing for military action in Iraq.

You can't say that they were fooled by the Bush administration's supposedly fabricated claims about WMD.

If Bush lied, then so did Clinton when he signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."

Clinton said: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

CLINTON AND HIS ADMINISTRATION BELIEVED IRAQ POSSESSED WMD AND WOULD USE THEM OR SUPPLY THEM TO TERRORISTS.

We know Clinton is a liar.

The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court. This came as a result of Clinton's Arkansas law license being suspended for five years and being issued a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.

Let's put all that aside and stick to Iraq.

Did Clinton lie about the danger that Saddam Hussein's regime posed to the U.S.?

If he didn't, neither did Bush.

In the final analysis, Bush didn't "lie."

The ones calling him a liar are lying.