Three Year Old Arguments Are Valid When The Questions Have Never Been Answered

Helen hits Tony over the head with another Cast Iron Skillet of a question. Of course, he doesn't answer it:

Q The new Italian Prime Minister says that the President's invasion of Iraq was a grave error. As the new kid on the block, can you give me the latest rationale the U.S. has for invading Iraq?

MR. SNOW: There has only been one rationale, as you know, Helen, and this that Saddam Hussein had resisted -- what is the proper number, 17 United Nations resolutions -- and had refused repeatedly to permit weapons inspectors to do their work, and consistent with that. And also we had cited other concerns in terms of democracy and human rights. That case has never changed.

Also the case laid out and voted by the United States Senate --

Q He finds that as a justification to invade a country where we had choke-hold sanctions, satellite surveillance --

MR. SNOW: Helen, I'm not going to get in another argument about the -- this is a three-year-old argument and you're trying to re-argue the case. The President made his case back then. The United States Senate voted overwhelmingly.

Q He did not make the case.

MR. SNOW: Well, in your opinion he didn't make the case. He made the case. He laid out his reasons.

Q He made the case, in your opinion?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

I know the attention span of republicans is rather short, but really, we need to know why there was a WMD bait and switch executed to get the congress to back the president on his Iraq Attack. Oh, wait, I answered the question.