What's the difference?
That is what fearless leader says.
:-)
Of course the fact that they said "there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" should be politely forgotten now since it was a mere "mistake" a faux pas...
The problem isn't that a lot of people got hoodwinked by Saddam into believing in WMD's- the problem is going to war unilaterally (don't tell me about the coalition of the small and irrelevant) and preemptively. When going to war without the UN (something I do not approve of in general- and did not approve of when Clinton did it, and do not approve of now) one should be absolutely certain about one's cause. That is the problem with Bush and his minions. If Clinton had done this, and been wrong, he would be equally culpable- for the invasion, and for the aftermath.
I'm glad he didn't do it. I'm sorry a republican did.
And don't bash your head against a brick wall with people who don't get the picture about how important the WMD are. It is clearly important- and it was clearly important to the administration, when they were using WMDs to sell the war to the US people as THE causus belli (And they would not have spent so much time hunting them, and done so much stentorian announcing of WMD finds that were not WMD finds, if they were not important). Now, of course, the true believers say and pray it is not important; they'll bring up red herrings until the cows come home. Ignore them. There is nothing you can say to a true believer- and I don't know why you bother with them. Not only are they wrong, and frequently nasty, but they are boring. Don't waste your life units. |
