A nice story posted at ……

Love Was Here Ringtone Love Was Here Ringtone The Answer Ringtone The Answer Ringtone If God Will Send His Angels Ringtone If God Will Send His Angels Ringtone Eight Line Poem Ringtone Eight Line Poem Ringtone Champion Ringtone Champion Ringtone Delete…

Good Molly Ivins, if anyboy’s still here.

You’re right. There is no moral equivalency. That’s because the link you cite above is about Clinton’s decision to bomb Iraq again over the WMD inspections issue. It is completely separate from the bombing over the alleged PLANNING of an assassination attempt against GHW Bush.

It is telling that you would either confuse those events or make such a transparent disinformation attempt.

Nevertheless, readers here should click on the link you provided and read it all the way through. It’s a keen lesson in why the Democrats remain feckless in the face of the most failed presidency since Nixon, or, arguably, the worst ever.

At the bottom of the story, there are other links, including one to a story describing the Republican’s portrayal of the bombing as a cheap political stunt by Clinton on the very eve of his impeachment.

This brings us nicely back to the thread: the Democrats inability to win elections by opposing the Iraq war. Given their history of supporting similar boondoggles, they lack sufficient credibility on the issue.

More important, perhaps, is Mark A. York’s apparent assertion that Clinton’s bombing was justified. No wonder a progressive, rational view of history has trouble getting traction in America…Even when we know STONE COLD HE HAD NO WMDs, we still have reasonably intelligent people saying it was right to bomb him because he was too slow in proving that to a world that was actively trying to assassinate and/or overthrow him.

You’d think that people like Mark would at least be willing to avail their worldview of the sole benefit of the invasion of Iraq, which is that we no know he didn’t have WMD and we even know why he needed to bluff that he did have them.

This is like the people who still insist the Gulf of Tonkin was an act of war by the North Vietnamese. No amount of evidence is good enough for them, since their views were not formed with its benefit in the first place.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I would argue at this point the strike is on far better footing than Bush had as Clinton explains. Of course the brain trust of the country and loyal opposition was more concerned with the old girlfriend. Saddam didn’t give most of the people a trial. He killed as many as he wanted at any time. It’s established fact only a moron would deny. There’s no moral equivalancy. Period. The proposition fails on its face.

Well, Saddam argues that he gave his victims a trial and they were found guilty.

So if anyone not participating in the assassination attempt on him was executed, it was an “accident” in the same technical, semantic sense you use to describe Clinton’s cruise missile attack.

Sure, any trial Saddam held would have almost certainly been crude and unfair. But such a trial would be less crude and less unfair than a cruise missile attack on an entire building.

Apparently, Mark’s sense of moral superiority allows him to forget that any such building would almost certainly have dozens of civilians, from janitors to file clerks inside. Is his declarations that their deaths are “accidental” a result of his sense of “moral superiority” or denial?

Lastly, enough already with the silly argument that calling a U.S. war crime a U.S. war crime is tantamount to apologizing for Saddam or anyone else. There is no logical connection there. No one is apologizing for Saddam here. It’s about acknowledging what we, as Americans, have done.