Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Clinton would get more of the benefit of the doubt, because he wouldn't have a pre-existing reason or desire to attack Iraq.
|
There ya go! You're already telling us you would have supported Clinton. So, you're telling us that Clinton's concerns about wmd would have been more believable that George W. Bush's??
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
But if he had tried to scare and mislead us, using cherry-picked intelligence, to justify the war, I'd be just as opposed to him.
|
No, you wouldn't. You would have just said he wasn't doing any of that. When I went to the Ohio State University to hear Allbright, Cohen and Berger present Clinton's case for bombing Iraq in 1998, not ONCE did I hear them give ANY reasons why not to; only reasons why we should. So, was that "cherry-picking?" You would say YES if done by the Bush administration and you would say NO if done by the Clinton administration.
And I can pull you up many, many words of Bill Clinton's that were quite scary about the dangers and threat of Saddam Hussein. Guess you missed all that, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
I don't think Clinton would have done that, though. If he wanted to invade Iraq, he'd have just laid out his case and told us why. Plus, he would have done far better post-war planning.
|
YES. He would have made the exact same case the Bush administation did....as his administration had done before. I actually heard them do so with my own ears.....at the Feb 1998 town hall meeting I attended.
I think you've pretty much summed up the Democrats views though. They were not
really against going into Iraq. They were only against George W. Bush taking us into Iraq. And they sure didn't want George W. Bush to get any credit for freeing 50 million people. That's something they would like ONLY Dems to be able to do. Oh darn!