[albed]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

In your imagination perhaps, but not really, because the approach supported in the bill made much more sense than what that Republican president actually did, which was basically to rush in all pumped up

Still the "rush in" line after 8 years of waiting for compliance with weapons restrictions, sanction violations, a corrupt oil for food program, Saddam getting richer and more powerful and thousands of people dying under his oppression while waiting for The Iraqi Liberation Act to achieve what? Make him laugh himself to death at the impotence and corruption of world leaders. When are you losers going to quit on the 'rush in' line?

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

with a total disregard for the support of body of nations who had so recently galvanized in the post-911 world and all shared the same concerns

What was all that diplomatic activity about then? Colin Powell going from country to country giving "total disregard" I suppose. Get a clue.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

and without any coherent exit strategy,

Bureaucratspeak for accomplishing set goals. The term means nothing, which is why everyone uses it I suppose.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

like the whole affair was going to be some two month long publicity photo-op for American superiority, but ironically creating the largest recruitment of specifically anti-American terrorist organizations there could ever possibly be.

It is a pain waiting for them to become terrorists before killing them but it's all those damn laws and lawyers that have to be complied with.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

The Clinton bill was designed to strengthen the democratic Iraqi parties and movements opposed to...

A Clinton bill? You should know better than to lie so blatantly or even dull witted people might begin to disbelieve you. With a veto-proof majority even his signature was meaningless.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...81007-iraq.htm

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Sometimes according to some people, it seems like all was darkness and without form before the Time of Bush--they seem to be in a kind of religious ecstasy, filled with the self-righteous glee of televangelists, but instead of 'sinners,' all who do not share this pure adulation are 'sore-losers.'

If it bitches like a sore loser and whines like a sore loser, it's a sore loser.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Meanwhile these same morons are still whining about Clinton--mostly on the basis of having gotten an extramarital blowjob. I can't tell if this adolescent fixation is a result of pure jealousy or if it pings their guilt, but I have a hard time believing it's actual moral outrage.

The moral outrage comes mostly from his lying under oath on full color video and still being aquitted in an extraordinary example of government corruption that boosted the conservative ascendancy that has liberals crying and throwing tantrums like never before.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Save your breath Nic, you're talking to a guy who got a court order to install cameras in his restrooms. Government is invisible to such hypocritical assholes as long as it serves them and their special interests, but the minute it moves to serve someone else that's when they start bitching about it being too much.

So the government didn't interfere with his cameras. How's that serving him? Hard to see things clearly through that awkwardly placed orifice isn't it? Especially when what you like to do in restrooms blocks it completely.