Originally posted by: Dari
Because it's based on his interpretition (suspicions) of Bush's motives, not of existing international law.Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
sidetracking is a form of doublespeak gaard...Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Therefore, it is impossible for you to go back and say exactly what they meant.>>
I see. So it really is a matter of interpretation. Ask yourself this Dari, why are you (and your mentor) the only ones who are expressing this opinion?
perhaps this will make it easier for you
"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."
that is not bush being quoted, that is CLINTON laying out his reasons for attacking iraq in 1998. now if clinton was justified in commiting acts of war against the nation of iraq "based on existing U.N. resolutions" why all of a sudden is it "illegal" for bush to do the same thing for the same reasons?yes, whoever heard of precedent having anything to do with law! it is not like many judges when making a decision EVER look for cases similar to thiers that preceeded them to help them in their judgments! ROFL!
time for sleep.