Tim,
Given how strongly you came out against Clinton (possibly) perjuring himself on the grounds of possible sex with an intern [obviously completely irrelevant to the finances, government or laws of the US, not to mention the whole of the rest of the world]...
you do seem awfully eager to excuse or disavow the possibility that a President and any/all his men lied in many public statements and actions to push through war against a country proven by events to be no threat whatsoever to the US.
Now, you being a fair-minded non-partisan observer, don't you think it slightly more important to discover what led to the invasion of a no-threat country than (say) the origin of semen on a lubricious intern's dress?
Or, to put it bluntly, and without legalisms.
You claim to be arguing from good and the right.
But, you've invaded a country, killed uncounted tens of thousands of its civilians, destroyed its infrastructure and left it still more f*cked than ten years of blockade. And set up a load of semi-permanent bases on its territory in convenient positions to cover its huge oil fields.
This country was no threat whatsoever to the US. Or even to any allied country. And your intelligence made this clear, and predicted that military resistance would be minimal (cakewalk, anyone?).
Isn't it important to find out who decided to invade, why, and hold them accountable?
Don't you care that you've just killed thousands of foreigners simply because, well, because you could?
And, don't you see how f*cking unbelievable you look to the whole of the rest of the world when you claim to be acting from anything other than blatant self-interest?
And how bizarrely hypocritical it is to attack Syria for, er, interfering in the affairs of another country?
I'll leave the unanswerable rhetorical questions there. But please, if you do bother answering, don't insult our intelligence. |
