Lizzie, tell me when I've ever said anything about Clinton's sex scandals other than to poke fun at the stupidity of it all? Was he an embarrassment of a president? Yes. Did he leave any significant positive legacy from his presidency? No. Was it worthy of a huge expenditure of time, energy and money to impeach him? No, it was a total waste. Now, will you please stop trying to associate me with those you think are obsessing over Clinton's sex life? I really don't give a damn about it.
McKinley, OTOH, is perfectly relevant if you know anything at all about US history, Liz. You do know, don't you, that we launched a global war against the Spanish empire, which was not threatening us in any way, solely on a pretext that was false? I simply asked GST if he considered McKinley's pretext for war a lie as well.
As for Bush, you miss the point entirely. No one has demonstrated that Bush lied about WMDs. In fact, much of the world (and even most democrats here) believed Saddam did have WMDs, and not just because Bush or Cheney said so either. Even most of those opposed to the war thought he had them (or at least were uncertain enough about it that they didn't bother using that as an argument against the war) - they argued instead that having them didn't make him an imminent threat. Furthermore, while our forces have not YET found stockpiles of weapons, they have found evidence of exactly what you previously accused Powell of lying about. Finally, too little time has passed, too little territory has been searched, and there are too many things that Saddam could have done with weapons, equipment for making them, or stocks of the agents to convince any serious, objective observer that all the "inconclusive" intelligence was actually wrong.
BTW, you do know that the real accusation is that the administration used intelligence that supported the case that Saddam had WMDs, but was not conclusive in the eyes of some analysts, don't you? Since the UN inspectors had stated as fact that Saddam had thousands of liters of anthrax and tons of other agents that they refused to account for, it seems perfectly reasonable to me, when presented with further new evidence of WMD programs (even if that new evidence is not absolutely "conclusive" on its own), to believe he had programs and weapons as late as the eve of the war. There are no lies in professing one's reasonable beliefs.
As for your repeated claim that Iraq was "an unarmed country," who's lying now? |
