Originally posted by rah
And GePAP, there is proof that Clinton lied. There is still no definative proof that Bush did. HAS he been tried and found guilty? Or are you saying presumption of innocence doesn't apply anymore. And I'm not saying he didn't lie. I don't know for sure yet.
And GePAP, there is proof that Clinton lied. There is still no definative proof that Bush did. HAS he been tried and found guilty? Or are you saying presumption of innocence doesn't apply anymore. And I'm not saying he didn't lie. I don't know for sure yet.
The Bushies stated that Iraq held vast quantities of materials, were restaring a nuclear program, had active delivery systems, which the brits went as far as saying could be used against another state within 45 minutes. Unless the US and Uk have been grossly negligent and incompetent in thier weapons searches, all of these thigs stand as false.
So either the admin. grossly exagerated the threat in order to build political support, or the threat was real and the admin. has been utterly incompetent to the point of dangerously negligent, in securing all those things they claimed.
Which do you preffer? Liers, or negligent bumblers?
Comment