Answering the Critics Part 1
For those of you who hadn't seen, I've had a number of dissenting comments in the last couple of days. I obviously can't make a habit of doing this, but I'm going to answer some of the comments people have left, all in the interest of fair and reasonable discourse. Lee, if you're reading this, take notes.
The first comments come from "Dave Edwards", who declined to leave an E-Mail address or homepage.
In case you hadn't noticed, "Dave", the Senate panel did provide evidence in these cases. The right honorable gentleman, Mr. Galloway, came to Washington to answer the charges, and he did so, defiantly and triumphantly... Without countering any of the numerous bits and pieces of evidence against him. He claimed that the entire thing was a smear job from President Bush and his Republican cronies. A woman named Hillary Clinton did the same thing a few years ago, accusing the "vast right wing conspiracy" of trying to frame her husband. It was rather defiant, just like Mr. Galloway's testimony, but it didn't counteract the mountains of evidence that proved President Bill Clinton, her husband, of adultery, perjury, and conspiracy to commit perjury. If Mr. Galloway wants to be defiant, that's fine. I invite him to defiantly answer the charges with hard evidence demonstrating that the Senate's evidence is incorrect.
Also, the international community doesn't work like a regular court. Saddam Hussein was required to disarm unconditionally, and to demonstrate that he had done so. He didn't do that. He was given ample chances, and the international community, namely the United Nations Security Council, passed fourteen resolutions against his government for failure to cooperate before the Coalition of the Willing finally said "Enough" and did the U.N.'s job for it. Hussein had the opportunity to comply and save himself, and the world, and his people, a costly and bloody invasion, and he failed for twelve years. So you're wrong there, too.
As for the snide little comment about oil, you've only demonstrated that you're ignorant about Gulf War II. Aside from oil, aside from weapons of mass destruction, aside from Saddam Hussein being pretty much completely evil, he was also a strong supporter of international terrorism. Every "Palestinian" suicide bomber, prior to the liberation of Iraq, insured twenty-five thousand dollars for his family upon pulling the cord on his bomb belt or vest. Saddam Hussein and his government were given a list of demands, by the international community, to comply with in order to prevent the invasion, and he completely failed. So you're wrong there, too.
I'd give you a few links, but I've already posted links to a great deal of what I've just said, and your little "leave everyone else's oil alone and stay home" comment demonstrates fairly conclusively to me that you don't research what you say anyway, so it's pointless, isn't it?
The first comments come from "Dave Edwards", who declined to leave an E-Mail address or homepage.
I guess George is working to the old principle that it's the accuser's job to provde the evidence and prove guilt, rather than the accused job to prove innocence.
If the american legislature works on the basis of guilty until proven innocent, it sure as hell shouldn't be trying to shove applie pie down the throats of every country in the world.
And while we're at it - leave everyone else's oil alone. You don't understand abroad unless you're bombing it or robbing it, so stay home.
In case you hadn't noticed, "Dave", the Senate panel did provide evidence in these cases. The right honorable gentleman, Mr. Galloway, came to Washington to answer the charges, and he did so, defiantly and triumphantly... Without countering any of the numerous bits and pieces of evidence against him. He claimed that the entire thing was a smear job from President Bush and his Republican cronies. A woman named Hillary Clinton did the same thing a few years ago, accusing the "vast right wing conspiracy" of trying to frame her husband. It was rather defiant, just like Mr. Galloway's testimony, but it didn't counteract the mountains of evidence that proved President Bill Clinton, her husband, of adultery, perjury, and conspiracy to commit perjury. If Mr. Galloway wants to be defiant, that's fine. I invite him to defiantly answer the charges with hard evidence demonstrating that the Senate's evidence is incorrect.
Also, the international community doesn't work like a regular court. Saddam Hussein was required to disarm unconditionally, and to demonstrate that he had done so. He didn't do that. He was given ample chances, and the international community, namely the United Nations Security Council, passed fourteen resolutions against his government for failure to cooperate before the Coalition of the Willing finally said "Enough" and did the U.N.'s job for it. Hussein had the opportunity to comply and save himself, and the world, and his people, a costly and bloody invasion, and he failed for twelve years. So you're wrong there, too.
As for the snide little comment about oil, you've only demonstrated that you're ignorant about Gulf War II. Aside from oil, aside from weapons of mass destruction, aside from Saddam Hussein being pretty much completely evil, he was also a strong supporter of international terrorism. Every "Palestinian" suicide bomber, prior to the liberation of Iraq, insured twenty-five thousand dollars for his family upon pulling the cord on his bomb belt or vest. Saddam Hussein and his government were given a list of demands, by the international community, to comply with in order to prevent the invasion, and he completely failed. So you're wrong there, too.
I'd give you a few links, but I've already posted links to a great deal of what I've just said, and your little "leave everyone else's oil alone and stay home" comment demonstrates fairly conclusively to me that you don't research what you say anyway, so it's pointless, isn't it?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home