Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Exactly. He's never had a legitimate reason. His handlers forced him into one (he does nothing based on what the NYTimes says) and now he's backpeddling to the 5/6 agin. Why? Because no one would have supported him had he offered the 5/6 original reasons. Again, you're offering more evidence that he's been lying/manipulating all along.
|
Huh? You started with the premise that the fact that he has shifted his rationale indicates that he is lying. I pointed out that he did not shift his rationale, that he has been consistent all along, but that he highlighted WMD at the UN because, well, WMD was the reason why he was in breach of UN resolutions (and therefore, a proper justification for war, due to the breach of the 1991 cease fire). I just don't get this.
