Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
My God, Rupert, you're right! A pardoned guy is soooo much worse than almost 3,000 Americans dead for a lie in Iraq!
"Mistakes?" Is that what thousands and thousands of dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis are to you?
Give me a choice between a guy who pardons a tax evader (that was his crime, right?) and a guy who sends Americans to die for fictitious WMDs, and I'll take the pardon man. At least then young men and women will still be home with their families.
I look forward to your novel-- "It's all Clinton's Fault!" Let it go, Rupert. Man hasn't been in the White House for six years. Let's talk about Iraq, since that's actually happening now. Proud of how your guy is running the war? Proud of Rumsfeld, too? Doing a terrific job, isn't he?
|
I don't know what this particular guy was in jail for but Clinton pardoned 177 people and they weren't just tax evaders. He pardoned people for all kinds of crimes including drug-dealing. The thing that is so disturbing is that the pardons were basically for sale.
How can you compare that to Iraq? There was nothing sinister about wanting to remove Saddam Hussein from office. Everybody wanted him removed. The invasion had bi-partisan support. John Kerry had advocated invading Iraq well before 9/11. In an interview on Face the Nation back in either 1999 or 2000, Kerry suggested that we may need to act unilaterally and go into Iraq and remove Hussein.
By the way, do you honestly think that if a democrat would have been elected in 2004, that the war would be going much better right now? I don't. I'm not saying that we are doing a great job but I think it's a really bad situation over there and I doubt things would be going much better no matter who was in charge.
By the way, I liked how you changed the subject. There was no way to defend Clinton's actions on these pardons, so you decided you would change the subject and bring up the war in Iraq.