Sorry Allen, but in fact the statements quoted from 1998 and 2002 are frankly very long, very much in context, and are certainly very much proof that what you claim was a pattern of deception and distortion by Bush was in fact simply terribly consistent with what Clinton and his administration and Democrats in general had been saying long before 911. You may not want to admit that your case is terribly weak in light of the truth, but most can see that it is obliterated in fact. Truly, considering what had been going down and had been being said far before Bush took office, I might make a better case that the fledgling Bush administration was deceived by Clinton, than you can make that Bush deceived anyone into speaking out falsely in 2002.
As for statements from UN inspectors on the ground in 2002, they in fact were heard at the time. Some of those statements may help make your case against going to war, or at least not refute it, and Jake didn't include them, indeed. So what? You and others already have. That's why Jake responds. The rest of the reality he reports DOES refute your case, and perhaps the case of Scott Ritter for instance, too. Can we recall Scott Ritter on Fox News? You bet! Huh. Some conspiracy!
Truly, painting Democrats who spoke out in 2002 as deceived by Bush is just laughable given all we know had been going down at the UN and the Clinton administration for years concerning Saddam. You simply do need to back up one big tad there ant think hard, for your argument is never going to win the day when it is so at odds with known reality. Stick with that pap, and you'll remain less than a 10%er on these issues you've taken up, for ever and ever, IMHO.
Dan B. |
