The only thing that shifts regularly is the dems attacks on Bush.
There is no link between saddam and terrorism. Remember that one? An oldie but goodie. It was replaced with There is no link between saddam and al-queada. The rationalizations for that one were legendary. Saddam was too secular they complained. That one lasted a little longer. Next it was there are no operational links between saddam and alqueada. Then it was shifted to there is no link between saddam and 9-11. Remember all the articles and editorials from the msm on how stupid fox news viewers were for believing that saddam might have had something to do with 9-11? Enter Able Danger and the next arguement will be that saddam didn't actually fly the planes himself.
Then there's the wmd's. WMD's always seem to pop back up every time one of the other attacks come flying apart at the seams. They've gotten good mileage out of it with much help from the press, but it has moved around a bit too. First there were no wmd's. Next came the condemnation that there weren't as many as predicted. Then they are just pre-1991 wmd's (whatever that means).
Anybody up for that no blood for oil number. Don't see that sign around much anymore.
Did I miss anything?
They're holding the blood for oil sign among all the others outside of WalterReed this week.
Yeah you missed a few. See post 19. Also I forgot to add that Mr. Paper Tiger averaged a casualty count of 119 people per day over the course of his 23+ years in power.
A tell a ‘friend’ of mine how Saddam finnanced Atta and he says, “I don’t believe Saddam even knew what side of the bed he woke up on, someone else was running that country.” I press him and ‘learn’ Saddam wasn’t even running the country it was his sons. In other words Saddam wasn't responsible.
I roll my eyes and call my friend nuts.