Yes, you and Bush have said that before but they are no where to be found.
Doesn't matter. They had them, it has not been proven they were destroyed, therefore they continued to be a threat.
No, it doesn't because they are non existent.
No, they aren't "nonexistent". They're missing in action. They cold be in the hands of Al Qaeda, they could be in Syria, or they could have been destroyed. But we knew they existed, and to that extent they continue to be a potential threat.
Why do you continue to ignore that at best they manipulated the info and at worst outright lied?
I don't think there is evidence anyone "lied". I have no problem, if as a strong leader, Bush needed to spin the available information a particular way to accomplish his objectives, that's fine. Because the objectives were totally sensible.
This is the thing. If Bill Clinton had done this, I would likely have been complaining just as you are. Why? Because Clinton was known to be an incompetent leader and had no backbone to take on the total reorganization of the Middle East. But Bush obviously knows what he is doing, has a great staff, and is a strong leader.
Bottom line: I find it acceptable for Bush to spin this information to bring the public along, even though I would have objected had Clinton done the same thing. Not for political reasons, but for the reasons I've mentioned.
I have a feeling a lot of people see it the same way. |
