RebSaint
Lint smoker
Offline
Really I think all this discussion about the pre-war position of various Dem. candidates at this point is moot.
Very few in either party spoke out and thought the war was BS from the outset. Knowing what they know now about WMDs, Al-Queda, Hussein's pre-war capability, etc. etc. I doubt many Republicans would have been behind the war.
Really, I don't give a **** what a politician did or voted before the war, I'm interested in what he/she is going to do from here on out regarding Iraq. All this noise about how Obama has been ant-war from the outset doesn't make him, at least regarding the war, any more attractive than Clinton.
From my standpoint, many politicians and Americans were snowed under by the slick pre-war sales-pitch the administration sold. Clinton was duped, Obama wasn't.
It's all irrelevant regarding what to do about Iraq's future, imo.
Both parties, really I think will do more of the same in Iraq. Doesn't matter who gets in I think.
Very few in either party spoke out and thought the war was BS from the outset. Knowing what they know now about WMDs, Al-Queda, Hussein's pre-war capability, etc. etc. I doubt many Republicans would have been behind the war.
Really, I don't give a **** what a politician did or voted before the war, I'm interested in what he/she is going to do from here on out regarding Iraq. All this noise about how Obama has been ant-war from the outset doesn't make him, at least regarding the war, any more attractive than Clinton.
From my standpoint, many politicians and Americans were snowed under by the slick pre-war sales-pitch the administration sold. Clinton was duped, Obama wasn't.
It's all irrelevant regarding what to do about Iraq's future, imo.
Both parties, really I think will do more of the same in Iraq. Doesn't matter who gets in I think.