Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 06:17 AM

  Horseface gets it wrong (again)

  " I'm not sure how anyone could run for president and be "unprepared" for war."

  History records that FDR was unprepared for war. The man-child entering the White House next month is certainly unprepared for, among other things, war.

  "What a cowardly, buck-passing answer. It was his administration that was responsible for the faulty intelligence."

  Wrong. As both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have admitted, the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD was consistent from Clinton to Bush. Horseface is simply lying when she claims that the Bush administration manufactured the intelligence.

  "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent."

  - Hillary Clinton, September 24, 2003

  "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." - Hillary Clinton, April 21, 2004

  "Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials." - John Ed-wards, February 4, 2007

  Now, Clinton and Edwards are not exactly paragons of truthfulness. Therefore, I advise Horseface and her fellow moonbats to read the actual press releases from the Clinton administration:

  http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/iraqthreat.html

  "But it was the Bush administration that changed the tone."

  This is BS and Horseface knows it. The Democrats started changing the tone on May 16, 2002. That's the day Hillary Clinton stood on the floor of the Senate with the copy of the New York Post that proclaimed, "Bush Knew." From that day forward, the Democrats made the war on terror a partisan issue.

  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E5DD1738F93BA25756C0A9649C8B63

  "Had we had a few months more [of inspections before the war], we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction [at] all the sites that they had given to us," Blix told the Associated Press in 2004.

  This is historical revisionism. First, Hans Blix himself lamented the fact that the Iraqis were not cooperating with the inspectors prior to the invasion and that Saddam refused to met with the inspectors.

  http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/nyt/nytreview041104.html

  Second, we had inspectors on the ground in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and they left believing Saddam still had WMD. (Note to Horseface: "WMDs" is redundant since the "s" is part of the "W.") If inspectors were uncertain about Saddam’s WMD programs after being in Iraq for seven years, does anyone seriously believe Hans Blix and his team could have found out the truth after just a couple of months?

  Lastly, Blix's statement ignores Tony Blair's recitation of the actual situation prior to the invasion. I invite Horseface and her fellow moonbats to read Blair's speech:

  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-06.htm

  It is sad to see Bush Derangement Syndrome completely rot Horseface's reasoning skills.

  —Groenhagen Read Groenhagen's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel