Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a strange little world that you live in where whether the Democrats would support the President in a counterfactual world is a more compelling question than whether there actually are WMD in Iraq.
|
Actually, he understands that whether or not there were WMDS is not a compelling question. We thought they were there, we took out Saddam Hussein, and is seems they were not there. End of story. Now that Saddam is gone and isn’t coming back it is irrelevant whether they were there when we went in.
It is just Democrats trying to score political points that make it a relevant issue. The only reason I would care if there were WMDs in Iraq is because it there were, it would give the Democrats less to scream about. :cussing: That is the only purpose it would serve. However, the point he was making is that even if there were WMDS the Democrats would still be screaming about something else. Therefore, from a practical standpoint (politically, strategically and tactically) the issue of whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq is irrelevant.
I agree.
