Mark's blather continues

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

Mc writes:
> >If I remember correctly, there was some delay between Saddam's expulsion of inspectors and Clinton's military attack on Iraq
> 
Mark writes:
> 
> How long has Bush beeing building this war with Iraq? Talk about DELAYS. You have no point.

UGH, again!  The point positively refutes your assertion that when Saddam expelled the inspectors in 1998, Clinton reacted firmly and in a timely fashion with his ultimately impotent bombing of Iraq.  There was a definite delay in his response, which caused the raids to "coincide" with the Lewinsky thing (I think it might have actually been on the very day she testified before the grand jury, but I'm not sure).  THIS is why republicans pounded him.  Had he done what Bush is doing now immediately upon Saddam's outrageous expulsion of inspectors, few republicans would have opposed.  The Clinton bombing was awfully successful, wasn't it?  Quite a deterrent for Saddam.  Oh wait, he didn't re-admit said inspectors until Bush took up the issue 5 YEARS LATER!

Mc writes:
> >As usual, rather than addressing the substance of WHY I refer to many of your 

Mark writes: 
> Excuse me, but who used the word "blather?" Funny how you can say what you like but I can't. How very conservative of 
> you.
> 
> Oh, and wipe your chin.

I used to think you were intelligent, just misguided.  I'm quickly losing faith in this opinion.  "Blather" refers to what you write.  It is simply a way to crticize your outrageous yet staggeringly predictable assertions.  You can say whatever you want, and I have never once implied otherwise, but I certainly have the right to challenge your opinions.  I also haven't resorted to name-calling and cheap insults of a personal nature to make myself appear somehow superior.  I have dealt with you through ideas, while all you can muster is another pointless "drool" remark.  You really are turning into a cliche.

Mc