comment #1

ltlewis3 says ...

The difference, of course, is that it was reasonable to believe that Sadam had WMD. People of all political stripes believed it. The Clinton White House certainly believed it, or at least, believed that it was a possibility. What the "Bush lied, people died" crowd has failed to establish is that the president had direct and prior knowledge there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion, and still invaded. That would be cause to call him a liar, not the fact that the information he was given and acted upon was wrong.

It is not, however, reasonable for Hillary to have believed she had been to target of sniper fire, because it did not happen. If she had been fired at in some other location she visited as First Lady, then we could say she misspoke. She just got the countries mixed up. Without that, she either deliberately lied or is so delusioned that repeating the story so many times has caused fiction to become fact in her mind.

comment #2

115thDreamer says ...

Yep - I had the same thought when I saw that part her interview replayed this morning. Never mind that actual American soldiers are in various parts of the world dealing with real sniper fire - she and her team saw an opportunity for some P.R. and took it. Yet more evidence that the depths to which she'll sink keep moving lower and lower....I shudder to think how low she's capable of going between now and August. She really is the perfect example to show someone who doesn't realize why the morally bankrupt, lying, cheating politician has become an archetype in society and a cliched character in films, etc....."Exhiibit A - Hillary Clinton". God, I want her to go away so badly.

comment #3

mutinyco says ...

Maybe Obama can now joke about claiming the Kennedy's were responsible for bringing his father to America...

It's just politics. They all invent and inflate. Move on...

comment #4

Edward says ...

Real funny, Bush making a joke about not finding WMD. We had no reason to attack Iraq, they had nothing to do with 9/11. This administration supports torture; Bush and Cheney should be tried as war criminals or at the very least impeached.

To be more on topic: Clinton should quit the primary, she's lost any credibility she might have had.

comment #5

Teacher's Pets says ...

"...it was reasonable to believe that Sadam had WMD. People of all political stripes believed it..."

The fact that many regular people had inaccurate or irrelevant information pounded into their heads by a White House-led PR campaign is separate from the fact that the Bush Administration at the very least sold as a certainty what, if we assume* even a minimum of competence on their part, they had to know was very much in question.

I remember reading a book by Scott Ritter (the UN weapons inspector in Iraq for half a decade) the August before the invasion that made a case against the presence of any weapons program that was an order of magnitude more convincing than anything the Bush Administration ever presented.

* A major assumption, I admit.

comment #6

Teacher's Pets says ...

Also, Clinton had just as many reasons to cynically play up Iraq's threat to the world as Bush did, to similarly awful effects (several serious waves of bombing, continuation of sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands).

The game of "it's OK because a member of the other political party did it too" isn't effective when one has reached the minimal level of political maturity necessary to acknowledge that the party closer to their own views isn't endowed with heavenly purity and perfection.

comment #7

mizerock says ...

You didn't have to be a foreign policy expert to know that whole "yellowcake from Niger" story was a bunch of hooey. The understanding was, if you're right about this, then clearly we need to do something. The understand should also have been, you're wrong (or lying!) about this, your whole administration is going down in flames. Where were the checks and balances?

I don't think anyone doubted that Iraq had SCUDs, and that they were willing and able to use them on Israel at any moment. It could have led to dozens of deaths, maybe even hundreds. Was that enough of a threat to make it worth attacking a sovereign country? 99% of the world decided that it wasn't. And then we didn't even find the SCUDs. Whoops! But at least we didn't elect Senator Kerry, that guy was goofy.

comment #8

dangovich says ...

Why was there such a rush to go to war with Iraq, aspecially at a time when we had a heavy commitment of troops and money tied up in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda? There certainly was no imminent threat to the United States from Iraq.

The answer, of course, is Bush and the neocons needed to exploit the American public's blind anger over 9/11 before it died down.

As for Bush's WMD joke, the man often has displayed an emotional detachment from the war, including, but not limited to, his bizarre penchant for smiling and snickering at inappropriate moments.

comment #9

dangovich says ...

aspecially=especially

comment #10

Mr. Muckle says ...

Come on Itlewis3 or others afflicted with similar lack of logic. It was not at all reasonable to believe Saddam had WMD. Belief should never have had anything to do with it. There should have been conclusive evidence to that effect before launching hostilities that may yet bankrupt this country and which have already killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of uninvolved civilians in Iraq. They lied blatantly about having conclusive evidence.

The illogical argument you and the Bushites have made is that it would have been possible to have conclusive evidence of the absence of WMD. That's like saying we have no proof you're not a pedophile and even if you're not one yet you may become one. We can't risk the safety of the children so you should be locked up.

Especially when it results in such loss of life and treasure, such arguments, and the whole Bush administration and those who supported them are OBSCENITIES.

comment #11

Wrecktum says ...

That’s a bad taste comment coming from Hillary in L.A. during an upswing of shootings in the city. She's tone deaf to the issues facing urban America, and the other candidates are too.

Hey Hillary, instead of joking about getting shot at in L.A., why don’t you tell us what you’re going to do to reduce gun violence on our city streets? Stop ignoring urban issues!

comment #12

T. Holly says ...

The worst part is how she rehearsed it as her opening bit. And then the dual "wishes make things come true / policy wonk" in her takes over. Obama's more realistic and grounded and unifying and inclusive. You can't go wrong with Obama. What's he going do? Have a White Party on Memorial Day and invite Louis Farrakahn or something?

comment #13

Marty Melville says ...

Let's bend over way, way backwards and pretend that BushCo actually believed there was WMD to be found.

What kind of person (let along the very person who committed it) would use this tragic error as part of a comedy routine?

comment #14

Mjs says ...

ltlewis3,

No, the real difference is that Clinton's BS story didn't cost anybody their lives.

comment #15

Geoff says ...

James Woods needs to be in W. I don't know who he would play exactly. Who doesn't love James Woods?

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

lewis: "What the "Bush lied, people died" crowd has failed to establish is that the president had direct and prior knowledge there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion, and still invaded."

Colin Powell saying, "I'm not going to read this bullshit" isn't enough proof?

"It is not, however, reasonable for Hillary to have believed she had been to target of sniper fire, because it did not happen."

Why not? She was in a war zone, after all.

Wrecktum: To be fair to her, the gun regulation bill her hubby enacted was put to pasture by Bush when it was ready to expire.

Anyway, I'll say that my gripe in this case isn't about Bosnia, but her refusal to apologize for her husband contributing to the outsourcing of jobs.

comment #17

Mgmax says ...

If there's one true statement in this ridiculous parade of misinformed liberal cliches, other than that James Woods should be in everything, I missed it.

Now back to my designs for Martha Stewart's Che Collection at KMart.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

"Now back to my designs for Martha Stewart's Che Collection at KMart."

Shouldn't you be rallying against that giant government hand-out to Bear Sterns instead?

comment #19

hardlanding says ...

"No, the real difference is that Clinton's BS story didn't cost anybody their lives."

Well, not unless you count the 250,000 Bosnians who died from *real* gunfire thanks to Hillary (according to Christopher Hitchens, http://www.slate.com/id/2187780, from Jeff's April 1 posting).

comment #20

Mgmax says ...

I'm not the one who created hysteria about the housing market. I'm all for the invisible hand smacking the stupid around. Helots! Nothing but helots!

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I'm not the one who created hysteria about the housing market. I'm all for the invisible hand smacking the stupid around."

Then shouldn't the Wall Street speculators be the ones who pay first-not be paid?

comment #22

frankbooth says ...

D.Z., Mgmax, D.Z.

Heads, tail, heads...

comment #23

Mjs says ...

"If there's one true statement in this ridiculous parade of misinformed liberal cliches"

How long have you been an idiot? How long have you hated America?

comment #24

christian says ...

Bush should never have been re-elected solely on this pathetic bit which you can watch right here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YjXPOxnu2N8

As you watch the "liberal media" yuck it up with President McSmirky, note that soldiers and civilians are dying for his little joke. Yes, he lied. People died.

Defend please, Mgmax.

comment #25

Terry McCarty says ...

Geoff wrote:
James Woods needs to be in W. I don't know who he would play exactly. Who doesn't love James Woods?

Paul Wolfowitz would be a good role. Imagine James Woods as the ultimate neocon selling Josh Brolin's W on the merits of regime change.