I think you miss my points. It's typical of someone who has an agenda and then gets upset when someone questions that agenda.
I don't think it's wrong to be rude to a bigot and someone who attacks groups by virtue of religion. The person you were defending does that. I have stopped posting about him and yet you want to continue with your point of view, a view which has been detailed at least 4 or 5 times.
You seem to have a need to get in the last word despite the fact that I agreed with you and indicated I would not post any further about someone I believe is a lowlife. This says something about your need perhaps for attention or that you can't drop something after most normal people would drop it. I'm pleased to oblige you. If you want to drone on, I will continue to offer my opinion of your opinion of my opinion of your opinion of my opinion, etc.
As to the second half of your post, you also misjudge me. I'm not a strong Bush supporter. In fact, my feelings toward him are similar to my feelings towards Clinton. They were both decent leaders which is in my cynical view the best that one can hope for in today's world of pandering to an electorate.
As for being critical of Clinton, I have equally opposed those who constantly bring up the disgusting waste of time and money to reveal his peccadillos. In my view, Clinton would have reacted exactly as Bush has after the cowardly 9/11 attacks. I strongly believe that Clinton would have continued his own very clear policy of attacking Saddam. He may have tried a bit harder to get the UN on board, but, would grow frustrated with them and invade, just as Bush has done. The French were motivated out of their own economic ties with Iraq and misled Saddam into believing that they could "hold off" the Americans. This would have happened irrespective of who was President of the US. I believe the invasion was justified to rid the world of a horrid tyrant who killed, maimed, tortured and stole from his own people and who was a threat to his neighborhood and the world. I believe the administration has done a horrid job of explaining itself and has been caught in a web of incompetence that comes out looking as lies. I am not sure that Clinton would have come out any cleaner given the way he handled disinformation.
So - to the point I made about you. You will post over and over one-sided criticism of Bush despite the fact that this is a "moderate forum."
That, IMO, is bad form and even rude. I'm not calling you names or attacking you. I'm just pointing out that you seem to have set yourself up as the "thought police" here and that you may even be hypocritical in your posting.
Moderate means balanced and your posts, if they are going to comply with the thread's TOU, should be as such.
I am critical of much of what the administration has done and have posted my points. However, when I post, I usually post in a balanced way and even try to give my opinion as to how something should have been handled. I prefer that to just mindless criticism, again, especially on a moderate thread. The criticism gets "old" when the same points are repeated over and over. It is so easy to be an arm-chair critic with nothing constructive to say.
I will compare you to the French. They posture and claim to have the moral imperative. Yet, when it comes down to the bottom line, there is no way they would have moved away from their own self-interest. Today, there is no way that they, or much of the UN, would provide brave troops and funds necessary to stabilize Iraq. I believe the US is making a big mistake. The US should call the bluff of the critics, offer to cede control of them and let them come up with troops and funds proportional to their respective wealth and population. I doubt we would see more than negligible offers. Instead of cowering behind the phoney moral "high horse," offer some constructive advice and tender assistance. The high horse becomes the dead horse, and the critic wastes everyone's time merely to satisfy his/her own ego.
So - there you have it. I believe both of our positions are clear. I have no desire to go back and forth with you as it probably is getting quite boring for most readers. I'd suggest that you do not give in to the urge to prove yourself "right" by getting in the last word and repeating basically the same thing, a view you have repeated over and over, and one that both you and I and anyone with an intellect already fully understands. |
