Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Whatever they got it was enough for them to address the American public that there is no question that Saddam had WMDs. They said that at the end of the Clintons administration and they went on saying it right up until the invasion. So if Bush lied, so did the Clinton administration and so did most of the Democrat and Republican leadership. Or the other option is that they all believe Saddam had WMDs.
|
Other options include: (1) Iraq had programs during the Clinton years that had ended or were destroyed by the Bush years; and/or (2) Our intelligence (or the inspectors, etc.) learned something during that time.
Quote:
|
And you don't think Kerry and Sen. Clinton and Pelosi weren't trying to score points with their more conservative constitutents when they claimed Saddam still had WMDs and the administration should do something about it.
|
My answer for different individuals would be different, and I haven't followed enough of them to be sure who to condemn. I suspect that very few Democrats did the work I would expect -- well, hope for -- of a legislator. Instead of actually looking at the intelligence, I think they took others words for it. An exception would be Sen. Bob Graham, who went into some depth into the NIE and related documents and then voted against the war.
Quote:
|
You really are intellectually dishonest. Just put words in my mouth and then critisize them. Your favorite strategy. Sometimes the Democrats are principled when they don't support Bush and are being political when they do (Flag burning amendment, Gay marriage amendment etc). Believe it or not, it depends on the situation. Candidate Bush was definitely playing politics when he critisized Clinton's policies in the Balkans and then continued them when he got in office. Everyone thought there were WMDs and most of the responsible Democrats supported the invasion. Some supported the president for political reasons, some out of principles and most out of a little of both. I am sure some were worried that Bush might find that Saddam was close to developing a nuclear weapon and they didn't want to look soft on national security. But they all thought he had WMDs. When it turned out there were no WMDs, it was a political opportunity the Democrats (whether they supported the war and thought there were WMDs or not) couldn't pass up. It is just pathetic that someone with a law degree can't see when people in his own party are playing politics.
|
I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing here. Your last sentence is funny, given that what seems to have irritated you is the notion that some Democratic support of the war was politically calculated.
Setting aside motives, I think legislators did not have the same access to intelligence that the executive branch has -- some less than others -- and most of them did not bother to study what they could see.
