View Single Post
Old 02-25-2013, 08:19 AM   #63
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
That's the bottom line,it blows beavis argument apart. He can say all he wants about Clinton,but Clinton wasn't president on 9/11 nor was he in control of the intelligence apparatus in 2003. At the end of the day it was the GWB/Cheney admin that lead us into iraq & dropped the ball on 9/11. Beavis can't defend bush so he wants to deflect blame away from bush.
I'm not defending Bush from his decision. But so long as people are willing to entertain whatif games on a hypothetical President Gore, you can't suddenly hide behind who was and wasn't President.

Fact: The Clinton Administration believed Iraq possessed illegal chemical and biological weapons.

Fact: The Clinton Administration made regime change in Iraq formal United States policy.

Fact: The Clinton Administration both threatened and used force in response to perceived noncompliance on the issue of illegal WMDs.

Fact: President Gore, supported the first Iraq invasion, and even went so far as to later criticize Bush Sr for disengaging in the Gulf War as quickly as he did.

It's an argument that's been had over and over again.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/gore_president_iraq/

It's ok for you to make the argument that we MIGHT not have gone to war in Iraq under President Gore. But to pretend that that was a certainty is just the partisan kool aid talking again. It's easy to look back in hindsight now with the assumption the weapons weren't there. But nobody believed that at the time. Not Bush. Not Clinton. Not Gore. Nobody.

And the idea that during the post-9/11 frenzy, people were going to stand by for another decade of impotent "You Stop That Saddam!" condemnations is pretty comically unrealistic. Try to put yourself back in that place in time. Not knowing anything you know now. Different ball game.
  Reply With Quote