Jumping To Conclusions

I do. You and your Leftist friends have lost all touch with reality. Your hatred for President Bush is so extreme that you are willing to believe the most absurd charges because they are consistent with your world view. All you can see are right-wing conspiracies to take over the world. Bush is Hitler. He is going to do away with our constitutional government. There is going to be a coup. Oh, wait. You believe that has already happened, don’t you.

You are so afraid that the US will succeed in Iraq that you are willing to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were killed by Saddam Hussein. I suggest that you get your moral compass checked, because it is broken.

Maps of energy-producing nations, at a forum concerned with energy policy? Scandalous.

> Bush is Hitler.

I don't recall ever saying Bush is Hitler.

> He is going to do away with our
> constitutional government.

I don't recall saying this.

> There is going to be a coup.

Don't believe I said this, either.

> Oh, wait. You believe that has already
> happened, don’t you.

Nope, I don't.

> You are so afraid that the US will
> succeed in Iraq that you are willing to
> ignore the hundreds of thousands of
> Iraqis that were killed by Saddam
> Hussein. I suggest that you get your
> moral compass checked, because it is
> broken.

Huh? My moral compass is broken?

If you can't engage your opponents without mischaracterizing what they are saying, it may be time for a time out.

Hee-hee. The entire rest of the world's view that Saddam ran a broken country and posed a threat to no one appears to have been vindicated, and it's the Leftists who are out of touch with reality. Indeed, if anything's broken it's Richard's reality compass.

By the way, Richard, I know Partha. He's a Clinton Democrat, like me. We support the first Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the interventions in Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia. We don't support unprovoked wars of agression under the false pretense that George Bush gives a shit about the Iraqi people. In fact he specifically campaigned on the notion of not intervening in nations for the sake of spreading democracy. How much clearer could he be?

You don't support "unprovoked wars of agression"... except in Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia, apparently.

Yeah - they were *huge* threats to the U.S.

It seems like I have touched a nerve, Partha. You have been ranting on for months now making ridiculous charges about Bush. And now you are offended. That is too bad. Are you going to deny that you hate George Bush? Are you going to deny that you said that he stole the election? Are you going to deny that you said he is doing away with civil liberties by keeping enemy combatants prisoners? Yes, that is what I was referring to. And as to your moral compass, maybe you should have listed to Tony Blair's speech yesterday.

Can we be sure that terrorism and WMD will join together? If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.

Amitava, thanks for the revelation that Partha is a Clinton Democrat (and that you know him). I never would have seen the connection if you hadn't informed me of it. Partha still hasn't gotten over the fact that Clinton was impeached. He is obsessed with the fact that Clinton was disgraced and lets us know it constantly.

By the way, what are your feelings about World War I and the Spanish-American War? That is just as relevant as the fact that you supported the first Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the interventions in Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia. Your support for those wars has nothing to do with Iraq, now. No one accused Partha of being a pacifist.

Explain to me why is a bad thing that a murderous dictator is no longer in power. Why do you believe that Saddam has a God given right to go on killing more and more people? Could it be that you don't give a damn about the deaths of all those people and the only think that bothers you is the fact that America is powerful and does not bow down to the rest of the world?

And if you think that Saddam just "ran a broken country" then I really wonder about your morality. I just checked my dictionary and it doesn't have broken as a synonym for mass murderer.

And as to your claim that the entire rest of the world believed that, please explain what entire means? I just checked my dictionary again and it does list entire world as a synonym for France, Germany and Belgium. (And yes there were over 40 countries that supported the US action).

You don't support unprovoked wars of aggression? Unprovoked? Do you mean like when Clinton bombed Iraqi in 1998? How many more UN resolutions (you know the organization you love) did Saddam Hussein have to violate before you would support action against him? How about the fact that he constantly attacked our aircraft and the fact that he supported terrorists? Try the one's in Israel if you don't think he supported Al Quida.

In fact he specifically campaigned on the notion of not intervening in nations for the sake of spreading democracy. How much clearer could he be?

I would not want to accuse you of being stupid, because I know you are not, but how in the world could you make such a statement after 9/11? Do you not think things have changed since then? Why don't you read Tony Blair's speech and come back and tell me which parts you disagree with.

People on the right are (purposely?) confusing arguments.

Argument #1 : Sadaam was bad and his overthrow was good.

I agree with this.

Argument #2 : U.S. gov't lying is bad.

I agree with this, too. I wonder why everybody here doesn't?

partha

ps. Questions for the future:

Is it possible we could have neutralized Sadaam's threat without invading when we did? If so, then, uhh... the Mazumdars here have a point, don't we?

And, yeah, you're right, I haven't gotten over the fact that President Clinton was impeached. Richard quoted Tony Blair, so I'll paraphrase -- do you think history is going to forgive those who voted for impeachment/removal?

Partha asks:
do you think history is going to forgive those who voted for impeachment/removal?

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I'd guess that most people have no clue as to who voted for impeachment and who didn't.
I don't think anyone outside of Clinton ideologues gives a rats ass either. Most Democrats concede his presidency will go down in history as a failure. But even for those who don't, it's in the past... Move on.

> Most Democrats concede his
> presidency will go down in
> history as a failure.

Oh, I disagree.

The 1990s will be remembered as one of the golden ages of American history.

Well, I don't know the answer to the question, but it seems a little presumptuous to talk about what history will say. Reputations often change significantly in time, after all. A year or two after Eisenhower's term, he was probably much less respected than he is now. A year or two after Kennedy's, he was probably much more respected than he is now. A year or two after Carter's... nah, he's still just as much of a disaster now as he was then.

In any case, it's now for historians to think about. Why are we still talking about Clinton?

"The 1990s will be remembered as one of the golden ages of American history. "

Perhaps, in that they were a respite between the Cold War and the current war. But they were also the seedbed of escalating terror attacks culminating in 9/11. They were also the golden age of the stock market bubble, Enron and Worldcom, etc. Those things were years in the making.