Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 18 2004, 08:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 18 2004, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 03:17 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction
|
Quote:
@Oct 19 2004, 03:15 AM
And at the time, Republicans were frowning on Clinton for attacking at all.
Funny how these things work.
|
Let's see some proof of that...because I don't remember it that way AT ALL....and I was here.
|
You must have a terrible memory then, because it was impossible to turn on the news back then and not hear Clinton's Republican adversaries chastise Clinton for the missile attacks by saying he was doing it to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Since that era pre-dates most websites, it's hard to find a web link. I honestly can't believe you don't recall it. The best I can do is this Snopes article that briefly mentions it:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm [/b][/quote]
Chastise him for diverting attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandel? Is that opposing the strikes on the camps?
IMO i remember the scandel and i remember the attacks, and he did do it to divert attention away.
Clinton had five previous attacks on America before he decided to strike back, why not strike back after the first one?
As the article says, if he would have kept his promises, 7,000 people would be alive today.