Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Gosh....that question has already been asked and the "answer" was a "textbook example" of avoidance. Why do you think that there would be any change in the answer, now?
|
Well, three reasons:
1. Bush
isn't that quick-witted. 'Avoidance' is a very plausible interpretation of his response, but I'm not seeing any major flaw with the alternate interpretation that he
couldn't come up with a good non-Sosa example. And that he'd honestly dispute the examples that you'd consider glaringly obvious. It doesn't seem crazy to me, for instance - incorrect, maybe, but not crazy - to believe that the WMDs did exist and were hidden very well or moved out of the country. (Not to get into that topic here.)
2. A few years have passed and Bush experienced significantly more of a backlash since.
3. Add a dash of naivete on my part and simmer for the remainder of the term.