Another was that the president would agree to play "Mother may I?" with France, Germany and Russia until they stopped being on the take in the U.N. "Oil for Food" scandal. Yet another was that President Bush, before initiating "shock and awe" would devise a failsafe plan for "winning the peace." Apparently what this meant was that the president, with a clairvoyance usually reserved to God himself, should have been able to devise a military course of action that would not only rout Saddam Hussein in short order, but would guarantee there would be no insurgent and terrorist resistance. I suppose it also meant that this plan should have ensured that we would not sustain 1,000 casualties, given the seemingly magical significance of that number.
But wait. You raised something else in your speech -- not for the first time -- beyond the pre-war conditions. You also invoked your next favorite line of attack (or should I say "excuse?"): that you voted to give the president authority to attack Iraq primarily to arm him with leverage to carry out a meaningful threat against Saddam.
If Iraq did not constitute a significant threat to the United States and did not have ties to Al Qaeda, Senator, as you also said in your speech, then precisely what did you think the president should threaten Saddam about? And if indeed Saddam was no threat, why did you insist on imposing all those meaningless pre-war conditions on the president? If, as you say, the war was a mistake, there is no purpose in those pre-war conditions or threats.
Correction. There is a purpose: to provide you cover for your many irreconcilable positions on this war.
Wow: Clinton Global Initiative Partners with Groups that Promote Thousands of Abortions | Cortney O'Brien
Head of Secret Service to Face Tough Questions From Lawmakers on White House Security Breach | Katie Pavlich