StP: "So you think that Clinton was accurate and truthful when he attacked Iraq (Clinton, of aspirin factory destruction fame), but Bush was inaccurate and deceitful when he attacked Iraq."Yes. For one thing, there were over 200 inspections, most of them unnanounced, which were completed in the fall of 2002 and which were reported by El Baradei in January and March of 2003 which demonstrated that they were no threat, followed by moves to get him removed for telling the truth, and the admissions by Scott Ritter that there was no threat, all of which occured long after the Clinton prsidency.For another, there were the reports by MI6 that came out after the invasion where they reported that Bush was "sexing up the Intelligence" in a drive to war in July of 2002 and that the "decision was already made".And there was the CIA report where they deleted the "highly dubious" phrase from the yellow cake uranium report before it was submitted to Congress, evidence of which came out after the invasion.So, yes, Bush was lying. Demonstrably so. And the evidence of this, far more detailed than my summary here, has been repeatedly replayed here in the past. Which means you know that Bush was lying and you don't care becaus it would require you to admit that you were wrong.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M