Old subject....Saddam and WMD.

[wendybeth]

But why were the calls ignored? Because of suspected dog-wagging? It's all well and fine to call them hypocrites now, but what of then? I personally think they are all a bunch of weasels, but considering how very much crap I've heard piled upon the heads of the liberally inclined, it surprises me how very much proof there is that the Dems did indeed try and do something about it.

Now, I wonder why they were unable to. Hmmm......

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

But why were the calls ignored?

Ignored? Who was commander in chief and has the authority to order the military to strike? Who wrote and passed the joint resolution of congress (calling for Saddam's ouster) that Clinton signed?

The whole "but he said it, too!" isn't what this is about. The issue is that Bush is being accused of manipulating intelligence to throw the country into war. People seem to have forgotten that Bush was saying nothing different than those in office before him.

The difference, as I see it, is that Bush chose to do something other than the occassional surgical strike and deal with what was perceived by everyone quoted (and many, many more) to be a problem. It's fine to disagree with going to war. I just think the current dem leadership wishes to revise the history of the situation, trying to make us believe that Bush was the only person to ever make such claims about Saddam.