Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He said things that flat-out were not true
|
Are we back to parsing "learned" again, when the Brits still stand by their statements? Or that he shouldn't have used the word "imminent" in a sentence, even though he was expressly disclaiming imminence at the time? Or is it the WMD thing, where everyone who knew anything for years, including Clinton, believed the same thing? Or maybe it's the terrorism-link thing, where all new evidence seems to support a direct tie to AQ, but even if that doesn't turn out to be true, it seems to be accepted that SH was providing huge support to, at the very least, terrorists in one of the most unsettling hotspots in the world? Or possibly it was that SH was a bad guy, and you're not convinced, and think that maybe he just had a different point of view that we should respect in its diversity?
