NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
CaféAuLait;6852973 said:Faulty intelligence may have led the Clinton Administration to believe Saddam had WMD - but Clinton didn't invade Iraq. The Bush boys did - TWICE.
Righties can spin it all they want - but THEY OWN IT. Does anyone remember how pissed off Democrats were after they realized Dubya had lied to them? I do...
Much to her credit, or discredit, Speaker Pelosi said impeachment was off the table.
Also, 9/11 happened on Dubya's watch...
You kill me, really. This partisan hackery is amazing. It's 'faulty intelligence" for Clinton and company-- As I can quote them till 2003 claiming they had WMD's but for Bush "it's lies", not faulty intell. Or actually believeing Clinton's and Company's lies? Should Bush have ignored their 'lies"? Guess so, eh?
Democrat Quotes on WMD
snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
You nailed it. Clinton's faulty intelligence simply morphed into Bush's lies. When Liberals site Clinton's faulty intelligence, why or how was it faulty? Could it be that his administration chose to reduce Defense and Intel spending leading up to his departure in January 2001? Look at the Intel infrastructure Bush inherited! Contrast that with the Intel infrastructure Obama inherited. Obama will complain about the economy he inherited. Bush inherited both a poor economy and poor intel infrastructure. By 2005, Saddam was taken out, many key Al Qaeda were captured or killed, unemployment was 4.5 percent, and the US Treasury was experiencing its largest net revenue gain ever ($26.5 B.....some might call "a profit.")
That's the funniest post of the week so far.
Bush inherited 4.0% unemployment and a budget surplus.