Given that Bill Clinton described Iraq as "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists" in 1998, isn't it a little hypocritical for Democrats to deride George W. Bush for saying the same thing?

No-one derides Bush for saying it

They attack him for over-reacting to it in such a random, dangerous, extravagant and ill-informed way

Raising concerns is one thing; launching an unnecessary, ill-advised invasion is a different thing. Especially when that invasion has had such devastating consequences.

So no hypocrisy.

Read other answers by

Rupert Baines on Quora:

• Given that American troops found thousands of very old chemical warheads, shells and aviation bombs in Iraq during the war, was George W. Bush right about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction?
• There seems to be consensus that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a major mistake. To what extent will it tarnish the legacy and reputation of George W Bush?
• Weapons of Mass Destruction: Obama's Director of National Intelligence believes WMD's were moved from Iraq to Syria prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2002. If true, what does this mean for historians?

Read more answers on Quora.

from Quora http://ift.tt/2foaGGC