General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Who CAN you trust on war and peace? [View all]rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And the excuse that the Democrats that supported Bush completely trusted him to use international institution and legal processes is pure fantasy. None of those people are that stupid or foolish.
Let's discuss the art of rhetoric.
" The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
What is the weakness of that statement? "The resolution "supported" and "encouraged"". How binding is "supported" and "encouraged"? Now George Bush didn't think that language was binding at all. I don't for a minute believe that HRC, Kerry and the other turncoats, didn't recognize rhetoric when they read it. They knew it wasn't binding. They either didn't care or foolishly trusted George Bush.
In her speech she said she trusted George Bush. This trust in spite of all the evidence that George Bush was lying.