Bill Maher asks the question I've had for some time....if you can be fooled by George W. Bush, how are you going to deal with DPRK?
And that laugh is downright haunting. It's not the first time her fake cackle bothered me, but it might have exceeded all previous instances in intensity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Was it so much being fooled by GW, as to thinking that we had the legitimacy to attack Iraq?
Personally, (this statement will likely ruin any actual political ambitions I ever had/have) I thought for sure that they were going to find something there. But I was so emphatically against the war because I didn't view Iraq as a threat, and thought it would be an distraction.
Big difference.
Its one thing to get caught swept up in the group think, its another to make the judgment that we had the right/validity to do what we ended up doing. Thats the piece that is more troubling. to me that shows more of a lack of judgment and moral grounding than the stupidity of believing what most of the so called experts were saying.
I think I agree with you, although I'll clearly admit to having been duped at the time on threat and all of that...but I was medicated most of the time. What's Hillary's excuse.
On a serious note, the reason I've found her to be so disingenuous, is her claim that she was for granting him the authority to go in, believing that he wouldn't really do it.
OK, now that's a bit silly to pass a bill giving the President a bluff card, but I'll give her a pass.
If I'm to believe her then I have to ask why she wasn't screaming bloody murder from practically the moment we went in.
I don't have the time or inclination to do a Lexis search, but I know damned well that she wasn't parading around complaining about this until it was politically advantageous for her to do so.
At the continued risk of overstating the obvious, this whole sham is politically-calculated on her part.
Gravel, Kucinich and Paul are the only honest fellows on that stage.
Post a Comment