Three scenarios are possible:
Clinton was right in 98 and so is Bush now.
Clinton was wrong in 98 and so is Bush now.
Clinton was right in 98 and Bush is wrong now.
In all 3 scenarios what Clinton said is completely irrelevant to whether there was a need to invade Iraq now.*
The onus is and was on Bush, the decision was on Bush and the latest intelligence was with Bush.
Clinton had diddly squat to do with it and unless you want to make a case for blaming Clinton for not invading Iraq when he was Prez there is precious little reason for bringing him in to the argument.
Is this the right's equivalent of the 16 words? Did you, Scott and Marcia all get your talking points together?
*Davin failed before to get this through the blinkers many times before, and I dont suppose I'll do much better.
Sidewalk, furrows, fingers, blah, blah, blah.
Current Events » in reply to re: NEWSFLASH!
Lame ducking?
The whole thread (22 posts)
- Why it might be harder than you think to find WMD in Iraq
- Because they don't exist
- re: Why are nuke weapons program papers being found buried in scientist's backyard with instructions to 'reincorporate them' once UN sanctions were finally lifted . . . ?
- You are refering to the Clinton White House aren't you?
- Clinton on nuclear weapons in Iraq
- re: You are refering to the Clinton White House aren't you?
- NEWSFLASH!
- re: NEWSFLASH!
- Lame ducking?
- P.S.
- re: Lame ducking?
- Tom Brosz Patented 'Proof by endless and ad nauseum iteration' (aka Linguistic self-stimulation)
- Lame ducking?
- re: 'It is nice to see ol' Bill being quoted in a positive light for once . . .'
- re: NEWSFLASH!
- NEWSFLASH!
- Because they don't exist
