You were so close...then slipped back away.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, I guess for historical purposes you could go back and examine the facts all you want. Let me throw an analogy out there just to see how you react:Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, I know you had a disclaimer in there, but seriously, asking "...where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS..." is a pointless question. Either the outrage was there, or it wasn't. Would it help if I told you I was outraged about Clinton right now? Grrrrrrr, stupid Clinton! There. Can we move on now?Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYFor Christ's sake DM, aren't you tired of aiding hypocrits? I didn't say that it excused or justified anything Bush did, infact I think I made that point quite clear - please re-read the thread. Clinton had a big hand in how this Iraq situation played out - so YES what he did IS relevant and open for discussion. If people who are criticizing Bush can't admit that Clinton used the same REASONS then they are hypocrits. I repeat - I'm not looking to justify Bush's actions - only to ask where the outrage was/is that Clinton used the SAME REASONS to attack Iraq and wether or not we should follow the intel trail back to it's origin. Heck if it goes back to and through Bush 1 - then fine.
Why not, instead of merely comparing the reasons, actually compare the intel behind each decision, since that seems to be the relevant issue here. Right? So tell me, was Clinton's intel good or not? Can it be shown he manipulated the intel to justify his attack? To me that seems more relevant than simply equating A=B here...
Exactly the questions that aren't being asked! Thanks - you finally realized my point. If people are so hell bent on dragging Bush through the intel mud - then they sure as hell better keep on going back - this is not currently being done. Clinton wasn't called on his intel - it was just assumed that it was correct and justified. I'm not saying that we shouldn't dig through the intel to make sure everything was up to snuff - but what I'm saying is that if we start digging - we better not stop with G.W. Bush, it better go back all the way. Currently it reeks of partisan election posturing -we'll see if these people have the balls to dig through Clintons intel.
Imagine on Monday, some guy robs the liquor store and gets away with it. There are no cops around, or they're all busy eating donuts or whatever. He gets away clean. On Tuesday, some other guy robs the same store. This time, the cops are waiting and he gets nailed. Should we allow the Tuesday criminal to get away with it because the Monday criminal did?
Of course not. And I'm not suggesting anyone's a criminal necessarily - it's just an analogy
If Clinton attacked Iraq using the same justification as Bush and there was no hubub, that doesn't necessarily preclude us from examining and/or criticising Bush's actions independently of Clinton's actions. You seem to miss the point that we're not talking about Clinton anymore. He's not the president, and it is possible to isolate and discuss what's happening right now without bringing the rest of history into it.
Besides, I thought we've already had this discussion before. Deja Vu?
You forget that I'm not trying to say we need to let "tuesday's robber" free because we didn't catch Monday's. I would say however that once Tuesday's robber is "caught" it shouldn't mean that monday's robber should get off free. You had your analogy backwards The investigation should go all the way back. I won't hold my breath though