From Reuters via Yahoo!: "White House spokesman Scott McClellan said [...] that 'based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action' -- war with Iraq -- in order to 'confront a threat posed by Saddam Hussein."
Since we know today that Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs, what exactly was the threat that he posed? Does McClellan realize how stupid he sounds?
Posted by geoff2 at January 13, 2005 12:33 PMI suspect actual knowledge was/is irrelevant to the president's decision on the war with Iraq. He would still consider Saddam Hussein a threat. Perhaps to his family's honor if nothing more.
It seems very unlikely at this point that the White House spokesman particularly cares how he sounds, stupid or otherwise.
Posted by: Susan in St. Paul at January 13, 2005 12:51 PMFamily honor? Over a thousand dead Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, for the Bush family honor? That's one of the sickest theories I've heard on this subject yet.
Posted by: Dan Martin at January 13, 2005 03:17 PMThank you, I guess. Remember most of the deaths happened after the war was declared over. The number of seriously injured Americans and Iraqis is supposed to be staggeringly high as well.
I don't find it anymore sickening than going in for imaginary WMD, which the administration swore they knew were there.
What is your theory Mr, Martin?
For the record, I do not think Bush had any concept of what the war would be like.
Posted by: Susan in St. Paul at January 14, 2005 09:09 PM