Submitted by Jay Diamond, Jun 16, 2007 05:13

Romney's "answer" to the very first debate question on Iraq was less noteworthy for the "null set" nonsense than for his assertion that Bush invaded because Saddam Hussein had not allowed the weapons inspectors into Iraq.

Hussein, of course, allowed the inspectors in and gave them full access. It was Bush who forced the inspectors out by telling them the invasion was imminent.

This was widely covered in the press, including the New York Sun, and it was thoroughly documented by Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector.

Romney either lied or he was comically ignorant of major recent history material to what is arguably the worst military fiasco in American history.

Either way he has amply demonstrated his incapacity to be president of the USA.

As to Giuliani's bravado in answer to the same question as to whether he would still support the invasion if he knew then what we know now, let us examine his exact words as quoted by you……..

""Absolutely the right thing to do. It's unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror."

Giuliani boldly asserts that it would be "unthinkable to leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror."

Cheer, Cheer from the crowd.

But if we take him seriously then we are left with a Giuliani who ignores WMD as a casus belli and substitutes the somewhat lower standard of Saddam Hussein's existence.

Giuliani is stating herein that he would not even have bothered to send in the inspectors that Romney either forgot about or lied about.

Any sentient human with critical faculties would immediately grasp that the American public, even in 2002, would not have countenanced the invasion of Iraq just because Saddam Hussein was ensconced there.

So in declaring the WMD irrelevant to his reason for the attack on Iraq and substituting the mere existence of Saddam Hussein, Giuliani was asserting a cause of war that the American public, and assuredly the American congress would not have found sufficiently persuasive.

I think you will agree that Bush would not have resorted to the WMD "reason" if he felt he could get the approval of congress and the country merely by citing the existence of Saddam Hussein.

Giuliani was full of baloney in his "answer", and he therefore joins Romney in the not qualified due to being a liar category.

We've had enough bonehead, grasping liars for a long, long, time.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.