The point of the article was to make our president look like a liar. It was very transparent, as are all the dem talking points. They have failed to make one stick yet. This latest will also fail.
Your second LIE: To get them to look at the past so as to prevent a possible repeat.
If you wanted to look at the past in order to prevent a repeat, you would be willing to look back to September 11, 2001 and be willing to back your president in his efforts to prevent a repeat of that horror.
Your third LIE: To look at things from more than one viewpoint. To be better informed, instead of buying into the spoon fed pablum.
This entire article is based on one viewpoint, the RAT one. It does not inform, it spreads propaganda. It is spoon fed pablum from the party of RATS.
Would you be so willing to attaack Iraq if Clinton were the sitting Pres? Or would you suggest that Clinton was trying to change the headlines, or distract from something else?