Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dissention
It's hard for you to understand that Bill Clinton had no influence in the invasion of Iraq or its policies. He didn't vote on it, he had nothing to do with it and you know it. But, of course, you'll bring up his Iraq regime change policy, which I've already told you you've interpreted the wrong way.
|
Sighes - revisionist historian is what you are
Do I have to haul out that Larry King interview where Pres. Clinton said invading Iraq to remove SH was the right thing to do
Seriously, I am not saying W only did it because Clinton said it was okay or that, unlike Kerry who voted for it (before he voted against it
), Clinton had any say in it or significant effect over W's decision at all. I was responding to Vianna's (who I like and respect
) allegation that W went to war solely solely for oil. I pointed out that if that is true, then Clinton and Kerry (even more so) fully supported invading Iraq solely for oil. I mean Vianna's point was the whole WMD thing was a charade and patently false on its face. So, that means that Clinton and Kerry and Bush all lied and went in solely for oil. I was making this conclusion to point out that oil clearly was not the only reason we went. Once again, we went because for 11 or more years, the world thought SH had WMD, etc., and the world ordered him to disarm or prove he had disarmed, which he never did. So, I conclude this whole W went to war on a false pretense so we should elect a D because they WOULD NEVER EVER have done THAT - just BS, esp. considering in 98 Kerry, the presumptive D candidate, called for military action in 98 and gave W carte blanche to do so. Any questions?