If Dan truly believes Iraq is a threat to America and the world worthy of immediate military action he would back any leader who would be doing exactly what Bush is doing now. That was the original question, remember? So, since he made it crystal clear he would in no way support Clinton were he doing the exact same thing Bush is doing right now, one can logically conclude one of two things: he must believe Clinton to be worse than Saddam Hussein, or he does not really believe Saddam is a current threat worthy of going to war over. Either way if he states support for Bush's Iraq policy it now rings hollow.
I might add your own hedging on the question leaves your often stated pro war arguments sounding somewhat disengenuous.
Intellectual honesty can be brutal.
Current Events » in reply to Just so you remember...
You missed the point
The whole thread (36 posts)
- Conservative Intellectual Honesty Test
- I supported him 1998 when he said he was serious about saddam.
- I'd be saying the same thing I am now...
- Conservative Intellectual Honesty...Is that like compassionate conservatism?........n/t (n/t)
- Yes, I would support Clinton
- A better test would be your liberal Intellectual Honesty Test
- Conservatives are pro-military...
- Using Serbia as a measure...
- You want Conservative honesty, here it is
- You're right
- Re: Conservative Intellectual Honesty Test
- Re: Conservative Intellectual Honesty Test
- Nice dodge, No grade n/t (n/t)