- #36
the number 42
- 129
- 0
thenumber42 said:a/ Bush failed to prevent 9/11
b/ Bush is too 'pro-active' regarding Iraq?
Isn't it perfectly rational to hold both positions? And let's throw in your red herring just for the hell of it.
c/ Clinton is responsible for neither a/ nor b/.
These positions are mutually exclusive? Please tell me how.
russ_watters said:B. Bush should have been more pro-active (prior to 9/11).
B directly contradicts A. You can't simultaneously be too pro-active and not pro-active enough.
Oh boy
If you like I will explain the rest to you, but I feel it wouldn't make much difference to you anyway.