Uh, yeah, that's the only difference between Bush's and Clinton's Iraq policies.
Yet more lies about what I say hidden in sarcasm.
Did Bush and Clinton not both play the WMD card? Because that's all I said.
Man you are a tool. "Did he lie under oath?" You sound like you're his lawyer trying to get him off on technicalities, rather than making objective judgments. Of course he wasn't under oath.
It's an important distinction. If someone is trying to sell you something in a speech you assume they are likely to lie or exaggerate. If someone is saying something under oath they are obligated to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". Huge difference.
Question for you:
I think Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath. Do you think I would feel the same if he only lied on television?
You also claimed in one of your defenses of Bush that terrorism wasn't really one of his reasons for the war.
Quote me. Shouldn't be too hard.
Isn't that precisely what the Senate is going to look into?
It's bad form to answer a question with a question.
We shall see what they come up with.
No, but if he deliberately misrepresented the level of threat to Congress ( to get them to grant approval for the war), to the UN (via Powell), and to the American people (via his national press conference), I would say that that's a very, very bad thing.
I think Congress and the UN were well aware of everything Bush/Powell talked about and were able to make decisions on their own without him (and they did, as many were quite angry with him.) It is not as if he wasn't being called a liar before he even opened his mouth. It's not like these weren't questions before.
Re: Congress' abrogation of their Constitutional duties by handing the Executive supreme war powers. That is a travesty on a Constitutional basis alone, I don't think members of Congress are so stupid to belive everything the President says.
As far as the American people, I don't know how much he's lied to them. I haven't really seen the case made. Maybe, maybe not.
Wasn't there a problem with members of congress requesting intelligence data and not getting it?
I don't know if it was a problem so much as them not being authorized, which is perfectly valid IMO. Congress is more full of leaks than the Titanic.
If they weren't sure they shouldn't have given him so much power, that is their own fault those goddam bastards.
Clinton wages a full-scale war, with hundreds of thousands of troops, and I didn't notice? The difference is not the R or the D. The difference is that Clinton wanted to contain SH (and occasionally drop some bombs on him to keep him in check); Bush wanted to remove him from power.
And that difference is a bad thing!? haha
Why would neither admin be making the argument you've been advancing if, in fact, the humanitarian issue had been such a large part of their case? Seriously.
What do you mean "be making the argument"? They already made the argument, you agree to that.
They called it a war of liberation for Dog's sake.
Do you want them to make it on your front porch? How many times does it have to he rehashed to be known?
When was the last time Bush said something about WMD? Yet how often is it brought up even today?
This is very much about what Bush's partisan political opponents want the issue to be about, and since WMD is all they've got to attack with that's what they go with. It becomes a media event.