No, I thought you thought Bush never believed in WMDs and lied about it like so many Democrats. Bringing up Clinton is not a sign of a Bush apologist. It is a sign of people fed up with weak kneed responses to terror and tyrants. Believe otherwise if you want. That attitude cost the Democrats one election and will likely cost more in the future.
Your attempted explanation is weak because you fail to take into account there is a difference between a political and an intelligence case. I'm really not following your argument at all well so I'm not sure that is the problem, but think about it. Clinton's responses were weak because he thought the political risks were too high to do more than he did despite believing Saddam had WMD. Explain your excuse for Clinton's inaction in the face of his stated belief in WMD before you try to follow this line of attack on Bush.
Regards,
Mark
Current Events » in reply to Okay, we are officially disconnected
Yes You Are
The whole thread (47 posts)
- The 'I' word
- Sounds like Kerry's on board...
- That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I hope they can get the DNC on board. (n/t)
- Yeah, who could conceive of impeaching a president for telling a lie? (n/t)
- if you are refering to the Impeachment of President Clinton.
- What price? (n/t)
- Not under oath. There is one key.
- re: "Another is that Bush actually BELIEVED that the WMD were there"
- Right He Should Have Known Better Since He's Smarter Than Clinton
- re: "Another is that Bush actually BELIEVED that the WMD were there"
- if you are refering to the Impeachment of President Clinton.
- Yeah, who could conceive of impeaching a president for telling a lie? (n/t)
- The one reason this won't happen
- Do you think Bush should be impeached?
- re: Do you think Bush should be impeached?
- Gee, more 'alternate history'...
- Do you think Bush should be impeached?
- Caught up in the Watergate nostalgia, are we?
- Idiocy.