In a short-attention-span nation, many voters have forgotten the serious deliberations that preceded the war. They forget that the NIE asserted without reservation that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological WMD. They only know that some intelligence officials had doubts about Iraq's nuclear capability and that the administration announced that President Bush should not have included a sentence about Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium in his 2003 State of the Union address. They use the above to claim that Bush lied America into war -- even though Bush delivered that speech three months after Congress voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
Clinton added to the Bush-lied pile-on when, undeterred by the fact that then-CIA chief George Tenet was appointed by her husband, she wrote in 2005 that America went to war based on "false" -- as opposed to tragically erroneous -- intelligence.
Now Clinton finds herself on the receiving end. Since Democrats won't recognize any legitimacy to the WMD case, Clinton's pro-war vote must be a sign that she was duped or she didn't do her homework.
The anti-war crowd needs to have a bogeyman -- and he can't be Saddam Hussein, whose cooperation with U.N. inspectors would have prevented this war. If the U.S. intelligence was wrong, it can't be because Hussein successfully tricked the world into believing he had WMD, which it seems, he no longer possessed. The culprit must be, to borrow from a former first lady, "a vast right-wing conspiracy."
NYT Journalist Wonders: "Free Speech Aside" Why Would Anyone Hold A Contest to Draw Muhammed? | Katie Pavlich