Comments on: Bill Clinton Unleashed (VIDEO)

By: MsUnderestimated

MsUnderestimated — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:22:15 +0000

You must be tired, exleper, jumping to conclusions like that. When you try to submit back-to-back comments on my blog, SpamKarma catches them and I have to approve them. And as you can see, that is exactly what I did. So there goes your “censorship” charge.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:51:05 +0000

(Formally Exleper)

No worries It doesn’t surprise me that you find a way to retreat while choosing to ignore the facts. Responding only emotionally instead of intelligently.

It only reinforces my belief that this country is so deeply divided because of the republicans blind passionate pride.

Additionally, you may choose to delete this account and ignore me as well because of your inablitiy to debate the topic in a mature manner.

“If your not with us your against us.” Another example of the blind leading the blind.

By: exleperII

exleperII — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:48:13 +0000

No worries It doesn’t surprise me that you find a way to retreat while choosing to ignore the facts. Responding only emotionally instead of intelligently.

It only reinforces my belief that this country is so deeply divided because of the republicans blind passionate pride.

Additionally, you may choose to delete this account and ignore me as well because of your inablitiy to debate the topic in a mature manner.

“If your not with us your against us.” Another example of the blind leading the blind.

By: exleper

exleper — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:38:04 +0000

No worries. It doesn’t surprise me that you find a way to retreat while ignoring the facts before you.

It only reinforces my belief that this country is so deeply divided because of the republicans blind passionate pride. Reacting only emotionally instead of factually with open eyes.

By: exleper

exleper — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:34:14 +0000

No worries. It doesn’t surprise me that you find a way to retreat while choosing to ignore the facts presented before you.

It only reinforces my belief that this county is deeply divided because of the republicans blind passionate pride. Reacting only emotionally instead of factually with open eyes.

By: MsUnderestimated

MsUnderestimated — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:25:20 +0000

Exleper, with your “Was it because Bush II wanted revenge for Daddy” comment/question, you just negated any need or desire for me to debate this with you any longer. Your talking points are showing. Goodbye.

By: exleper

exleper — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:04:48 +0000

Like I said, any WMD’s that were elluded to in the build-up - the right-wing propoganda machine used to persade the public and exploit our feelings after 9/11 - were procured from intelligence documents from the ’80’s taken completely out of context. We propped up Saddam and provided him with the weapons since, he too, was an enemy of Iran. Blowback baby!

By: exleper

exleper — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:48:25 +0000

Was it because Bush II wanted revenge for Daddy? Was it the military industrial complex? Was it oil? My feeling’s are it was a combination of all 3. However, had we given the time for sanctions to work effectively, Iraq would have fallen or compitulated just like Lybia. What was the rush? Our troops could have remained in Afganistan in the original larger numbers and finished the job.
The billions we’ve spent on this war could have been used instead to secure our ports and borders. Something I feel is more necessary than a needless war!

By: exleper

exleper — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:40:10 +0000

Read 1441.Result: Inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities. As was discovered after the invasion of Iraq, no production of WMDs was taking place, and no stockpiles existed.

Debate about Resolution 1441 therefore turns on whether, despite the absence of WMDs and the acceptance of inspections, Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution, and whether an invasion was justified in the absence of any further UN Security resolutions on the subject.

My response to the second paragraph would be a comparison between Iraq & Lybia (I’m sure you remember that terrorist nation). Reagan imposed sanctions on the latter and, for 20 years, they were a non-entity. Lybia eventually was welcomed back after Kadafi complied and denounced terror. No war - no troops. Iraq was just as isolated and even further with a no-fly zone. and posed NO immediate threat to anyone. So why didn’t we allow the sanctions to take a similar course as we had done with Lybia

By: MsUnderestimated

MsUnderestimated — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:56:01 +0000

Currently there are approximately 25,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but that’s in addition to the other NATO and coalition troops, so there’s answer #1.

And we DID know for a fact Iraq had WMDs. What do you think he used on the Kurds in al Anfar? Strong cologne? Also, in case you haven’t noticed, 500 weapons with Sarin gas have recently been uncovered. I’d call that “WMDs.” Saddam himself was a WMD.

And by the way… did you hear about a small thing called UN Resolution 1441? Hmmm?? go read it and educate yourself.