Quote:
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
No, I do not. What I said then and I say now is Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with, esp. after 9/11. The world agrees with me on that.
What I do not agree with was the halting of the last set of inspections and the going to war essentially alone. While I could even stomach that because SH has a long history of stringing the world along, I find even more distasteful the administrations lack of a plan to win the peace there. If I ever said anything different, let's see it.
Sadly, you want to place it all on W's shoulders because you blindly hate him to the point of being unable to see any facts, which again are all that interest me. So, please argue them only from now on.
Also, still no comment on the thousands of dead children under Clinton's Oil For Food. Hmmmmmmm
|
Thats Bull**** and you know it. first of all, Clinton never INVADED Iraq whereas Bushwhacker couldnt WAIT! And the Oil-for-food scheme was NOT Clinton's idea! Are you just pulling this stuff out of thin air? Also, your viewpoint changed when it became obvious you couldnt very well justify your pro-war stance based on faulty propaganda any longer. I dont buy into that whole "Saddam is a threat to the world" garbage. He really couldnt even do much in his own area primarily because of the damage inflicted on him in Desert Storm!!
I repeat, you got caught with your pants down.
