Quote:
Originally Posted by lailer75  yeah its kinda like the democrap liberals who "support the troops, but not the war" |
As usual, we get from the conservative side of the coin a splendid example of the inability to parse a statement in English. So let me lay it out for you:
The Iraq war was, in hindsight, totally unjustified. There is *no* logical argument otherwise from a U.S. perspective. So it's pretty easy to be "against the war", since it shouldn't have happened in the first place, and it's execution seems to define the word "blunder".
However, since that mistake has already been made, it makes sense to give the soldiers that are actually FIGHTING the tools they need to do their jobs until such time that the political will of the United States can be changed to support ending the conflict.
Therefore, it is completely possible to be against the idea of the conflict, but understand the reality of needing to make sure the forces that already involved in the conflict are properly equipped.
Now back to the topic at hand:
In reality, the AG doesn't seem to have done anything illegal other than possibly perjure himself - which doesn't seem to be terribly odd in this administration (or, indeed, many others). However, since politics and law are seldom the same thing, Bush would probably have been better off asking him to resign.
The Republican party is, at this point, really having some major PR problems.