Um...Mitt?
Apparently Mr. Romney thinks he deserves to be President, although he clearly hasn't paying attention over the last five years. Or else he has a very bad memory.
From the debate last night:
I know it was a little over four whole years ago, Mitt, but some of us still remember a couple guys named Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaredei reporting to the UN Security Council. It was a little bit over a month before we invaded. They told us that the Iraqis were cooperating with UN inspectors and that no weapons of mass destruction had been found. (Right about the time that Mr. Blix also questioned the conclusions in Colin Powell's presentation, and raised doubts about his evidence. How about that?)
Perhaps that news didn't make it to such a remote and isolated city as Boston?
It might help if before next debate you got a youngster nearby to show you a thing called "the Google", or better yet, just click here. It'll help you catch up.
Then maybe you could show Tom Fahey, the questioner who let you get by with this ridiculous historical revisionism, how he could do it. (Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, and all that.)
The question isn't 'was it a mistake to invade given what we know now', it's 'was it a mistake to invade with what we knew then.'
And my next questions are, why is it you still don't know what we knew then? And why is it OK for a candidate for President to be so badly misinformed?
From the debate last night:
TOM FAHEY, NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER: Thanks, Wolf.Yeah, well, funny thing about that. See, Saddam actually had allowed IAEA inspectors into his country, in November, 2002, and they actually hadn't found any weapons, right up until the time we told them to skedaddle because we were gonna start bombing the place.
Governor Romney, I wanted to start by asking you a question on which every American has formed an opinion.
We have lost 3,400 troops, civilian casualties are even higher, and the Iraqi government does not appear ready to provide for the security of its own country. Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?
MITT ROMNEY, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: Well, the question is, kind of, a non sequitur, if you will. What I mean by that -- or a null set -- that is that if you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.
I know it was a little over four whole years ago, Mitt, but some of us still remember a couple guys named Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaredei reporting to the UN Security Council. It was a little bit over a month before we invaded. They told us that the Iraqis were cooperating with UN inspectors and that no weapons of mass destruction had been found. (Right about the time that Mr. Blix also questioned the conclusions in Colin Powell's presentation, and raised doubts about his evidence. How about that?)
Perhaps that news didn't make it to such a remote and isolated city as Boston?
It might help if before next debate you got a youngster nearby to show you a thing called "the Google", or better yet, just click here. It'll help you catch up.
Then maybe you could show Tom Fahey, the questioner who let you get by with this ridiculous historical revisionism, how he could do it. (Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, and all that.)
The question isn't 'was it a mistake to invade given what we know now', it's 'was it a mistake to invade with what we knew then.'
And my next questions are, why is it you still don't know what we knew then? And why is it OK for a candidate for President to be so badly misinformed?
posted by Paul at 6:27 PM |
|
email this
