And what evidence was that thinking based on? All of the real evidence was to the contrary. When he's president, will he not believe virtually every intelligence agency in the world when they tell him something?
Was he taking Saddam's word for it?
He had no access to the intelligence reports that were the basis of the votes in Congress - so on what basis was he forming his opinion? Couldn’t have been facts - must have just been an aversion to force, despite all the UN resolutions that Saddam defied. He is giving clear notice to the bad guys that if he is President they will have free reign and President Obama will do NOTHING about it.
He is a natural for Secretary General of the UN.
“And what evidence was that thinking based on? All of the real evidence was to the contrary. When he’s president, will he not believe virtually every intelligence agency in the world when they tell him something?”
Probably the same “evidence” that a far left wacko used to reach that decision in a discussion group that I was in. She was a firm believer in multiple conspiracies, mostly about big corporations willingly killing lots of people because it increased their profit.
Her “evidence” was a firm conviction that the Iraq war was all about President Bush’ grab for oil in Iraq and his “revenge” because his father had been the target of an assassination plot. Therefore, weapons of mass destruction and the war on terror had nothing to do with going to war there. There were just “window dressing” for the gullible.
This is the sort of thing the hard core far left believe.