Well, this got my dander up. I can understand the desire to avoid responsibility in light of this unprecedented disaster. That's normal. At what point do you decide to accept responsibility and accountability? Is it a sliding scale, to be modified as needed? Is there a specific date?
You throw around comments such as "we need strong defense to use a nuke". Do you have any clue what the "defense" is required to avoid unnecessary domestic retaliation? You are obviously licking your chops to use a nuke, regardless of the danger to our cities, and maybe get yourself fried in the bargain. Don't you see that's perhaps a slightly irresponsible idea. If mass destruction is used over there it won't be based on "oh, about 3 or 4 years of something or other, and we'll be ready" without any idea of what "ready" means, sounding like blithering sex education teachers telling high-school kids only to have sex whenever they're "ready". All of our policies are opposed to first-use, you ... well, never mind. If such is unleashed there, it will only be because a disaster unlike anything we've seen to date occurred here, and god rest your soul with everyone else's.
I'm more than a little offended by that idea
Discussing this here is probably a waste of bandwidth
Regardless, I might consider looking for some shred of logic to blame Clinton with, except that Powell failed to complete his action under King George I, which was a disaster leading to this one, and KG was further responsible for corrupt and incompetent intel ops as well, then, and subsequently. His people are still there and still in charge.
No benefit comes from this endless jihad against bill & hillary, except maybe obsolete personal satisfaction, mental masturbation, diversion from real problems and excuse-making for any current and future failures. |
