Not quite. Evidence is conveniently lacking after the war to prove the claims that WMDs were present in Iraq and the like, despite supposed clear evidence before the war.Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
I'm not really certain how to phrase it. Basically the US hasn't had to provide evidence to support their claims before the war, which is convenient for the Bush administartion; they made claims about Iraq, started a war after which they were supposed to find evidence to support those claims, and didn't find (or at least show) evidence to back up the earlier statements. Convenient for the Bush administration, don't you say?
Edit: why do people post before me?
Bookmarks