Microsoft releases Windows, Office fixes

TalkBack 28 of 67:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Ahh, it's all Clinton's fault....

It always goes back to Clinton, doesn't it? In the end, it drives neoconservatives nuts that under Clinton, the country did very well.

Not that I think Clinton deserves all the credit, mind you. I think it's just that neoconservatives can't stand the idea that a moderate Democrat happened to be in office during the best economic and domestic environment this country's ever seen.

But all of that's beside the point. We're several years into the Bush presidency now, and boy are we ever in a pickle.

"Saddam hosted Answar Al Islam - a Islamofacist terrorists group with strong ties to Al Qaeda."

Islamofascist is a wonderful new word recently coined by neocons to tie Islam (a word that literally translates as "peace," by the way) to fascism in order to provide a context in which a secular fascist such as Saddam and a religious nut such as bin Laden might be all buddy-buddy. Unfortunately, the evidence behind it is rather...shall we say...missing like Saddam's WMDs! Hah! I made a funny! Just kidding... None of this is really funny at all.

There's been no credible evidence presented that Saddam was actually supported Answar al Islam, which isn't surprising since they actually kinda wanted to overthrow him. You see, Answar al Islam is an Islamic terrorist group, not an "Islamofascist" group. And they were working out of the Kurdish-controlled section of Iraq. And waddyaknow... Saddam was trying to oppress the Kurds! Hmmm...

"Saddam was sending cash ($25,000 a pop) to the families of martyrs of Palestinian terrorists who died murdering women and children in Israel."

Let's ignore the question of the credibility of this evidence, and just assume it's true. Tell me, what part of that made them a clear and present danger to the United States? Is a suicide bomber a weapon of enough mass destruction to merit our occupation of a country that produces them? Gosh, guess we better go invade Palistine, then. Or North Ireland, Saudi Arabia, all sorts of countries in South America...

"Saddam hosted Abu Addas - I hope you haven't forgotten him - Achille Laurel anyone?"

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! Abu Addas, a very bad man. Harboring him is a no-no. But please try to avoid selective logic here. If having a terrorist in your country, and supplying him with credentials that allow him to travel freely, is a valid reason to invade it all by itself, then the United States had better be ready to invade itself pretty quick. Terrorists are criminals, and should be treated as such. There are mechanisms in place to force extradition of criminals, which we could have done with Addas on any number of ocassions when he was in other countries. Ooops, did I mention the fact that Addas was known to be in quite a few different places throughout the Middle East? Guess that adds to the list of countries we need to invade.

"When we attempted to get bin Laden back in 1998, the Taliban said we couldn't have him because he was on his way to Iraq. Now why would they have said that?"

Because the Taliban was filled with horrible, evil, attrocious monsters who committed one of the most egregious sins: They lied.

The evidence that bin Laden ever went to Iraq and spent time under Hussein's protection has been thoroughly discredited. Maybe not as publicly as Bush's Nigerian yellowcake, but just because it isn't talked about as much doesn't mean the evidence is sound.

"it's okay - most liberals think Clinton was impeached because of the Monica Lewinski affair (hint: he wasn't - but search on why he was permanently disbarred from practicing law)."

And here we are on Clinton. Here's a little something for you to consider: When the Monica Lewinski scandal reared its ugly head (after only 6 steady years of investigation that found shocking evidence he'd lost money on a land deal! Shocking!), Clinton was given a strictly limited definition of what a particular kind of "relations" was by the Republicans who were prosecuting the case.

He was disbarred because what he did was essentially evade the truth. But thanks to that definition he'd been given (by Republicans), he was able to get out of impeachment on a technicality.

Now, which lie is worse? The one resulting from an improper relationship, revealed after Ken Starr's multi-million dollar investigation? Or the one where (please, just admit it it already!) Saddam Hussein is described as an immediate threat to the United States when we could barely control his own back yard?

And no revisionist history, please. Bush really, really did present Iraq as an immediate threat. For the love of Pete, please re-read his speeches. I'm suddenly sick and tired of the "he never said 'imminent' and 'threat' in the same sentence together" comments. You know what they remind me of? "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Posted by: Damon K   Posted on: 11/12/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now