I posted the below comment on a blog post over here. It's such a shame that stupid right-wing commenters prefer hiding their heads in the sand. I posted this comment, which the loser deleted, 'cause he obviously doesn't want to debate the truth. Hey, I know people can delete any comments they like, but he asked for left wingers to comment, but then deletes their comments, while continuing to ask for them to comment. Like most right-wingers, he wants to stifle debate and hide the truth, suppressing the very freedoms they say they promote. Fracking idiots, the lot of 'em.

I'll ignore the insults, as I'd like to think that you're more intelligent than someone who uses insults to disguise their lack of intelligence. That can't be you, right?

Now, IF Clinton authorised the handing over of nuclear detonator blueprints to Iran, then that can certainly lead to interesting consequences. However... IF that is true, why isn't this information presented by the Bush administration as evidence? Why is all their so-called 'evidence' simply conjecture based on fears? The statement of someone's opinion in a book doesn't make it true, and the Bush administration isn't using that to back up their statements. All the Administrations' statements are based on suspicion and fear, without any evidence.

Expressing one's fears and paranoia doesn't make the subject of such fear and paranoia real. Evidence is what makes it real, and so far, there's been no evidence. Just like there's been no evidence of WMDs before and since the invasion of Iraq.

Which leads onto the next part of this debate, which IS still related to the Clinton issue.

Why do you, and other right wingers, prefer to latch onto issues that aren't real, in order to justify the actions of someone who is leading you into war with country after country, for no other reason than the expression of their fears? Why is it so hard for you to look at the illegal and immoral actions of the Bush administration, and so easy to divert attention to other people or events - like the Clinton conjecture - which may or may not have happened?

Why do you feel the need to justify Bush's activities by diverting attention from them? Why are you supporting something that is so obviously wrong, by pointing to other people who may or may not have done something wrong? There's no evidence apart from a single person's opinion in a book, and you're latching onto it as if it justifies everything that Bush is doing. By diverting attention from Bush's actions, it's as if you recognise it's a 'crime' and you feel the need to be complicit in the conducting of such crimes.

What about the evidence of Bush conducting illegal operations and activities, for no justification other than fear, with no real results other than the subjugation of your own freedoms?

Bush tells you that you must lose your freedom in order to keep your freedom, and you don't see the idiocy behind it! "Yes master, I'll give you all my freedom and become a slave, so that you can tell me I'm free. So that I can go only where you want me to go. So that I can do only what you want me to do. So that I can say only what you want me to say." And you call that freedom?

The more the US acts against 'terrorism', which is only becoming more prominent due to the US military actions in foreign countries, the more terrorism there's like to be. The more people you kill, the more you'll have rising up to avenge their deaths. There's no solution to this, other than to stop doing what it is that's causing it

Bush is actively creating the war that he allegedly wants to stop. "To stop people rising up to avenge the deaths of their loved ones, I'll kill more of their loved ones!" Sure, that'll work. Not.

Clinton started it close to a decade ago. Or did he? Wasn't it Rumsfeld, in the 80's, who went to Iraq and gave them chemical weapons to use against Iran? 'The ally of my enemy is my enemy.' The US went to war against Iran 20 years ago, by helping Saddam attack them. The person directly responsible for that is now your Secretary of Defense, who is responsible for planning attacking Iran... And so the war continues.

Your tirades about those against Bush don't change the fact that Bush is not acting in your best interests. The more you rant and rave about how wonderful Bush is, the more people are being killed by him, and thus by you because of your support. The more you support such actions, the more those who are being killed by you are going to want you dead. You're involved in a war of your own creation, and you're a participant by supporting it.

Do me the favour of responding with maturity.

Well, he showed he's obviously not mature. Case rested.