The hyperbole was simply a match to the hyperbole of your post. The solution is to avoid the Clinton is morally superior to Bush line of argument altogether.
Sorry, bud, if you think that sort of comment would stop me from posting my judgments. You intervened in a conversation that your judgment, at least on this issue, is way over the top. You cannot censor posting here; you can only endure it. As many of us endure the Bush hagiography. You will have to get used to it.
And, just to point out another discrepancy, my post had nothing to do with superior morality. It had to do with superior statesmanship, superior presidential work. Just better at the job.
However, if you use Clinton to attempt to slam the moral character of people who support the war, I will object.
Again, your intense aversion for Clinton leads you to misread posts. The post was not a slam against people who support the war; it was a slam against brother Bush and his administration. Different fish.
Now when I call Bush a psychopath, as you did Clinton, you are permitted to say something. But when I criticize the policies of the Bush administration and note the contrast with Clinton's, I'm happy to argue with you. But none of this "blood on the hands" junk. Because that takes us to the Bush complicity as well. And we don't need to go there. |
