Well...there is a lot of humor to go around.
I didn't bring up the Monica missiles...you did;-)
Yep, I surely did.
And I'm not making a value judgement here. Neither good nor bad.
Neither was I. You were pointing out the humor those demanding threat warnings and then complaining then they got them. I was pointing out the (greater) humor (imo) of that many of the people laughing about Bush's wag-the-dog warnings are the same ones who complained about Clinton's wag-the-dog Monica-missiles.
I could even laugh at the people who's are now whining about the "can't please everyone." Most of them were the same ones who were, again, blasting away for Clinton for wagging-the-dog by shooting missiles at terrorists and for not doing enough to stop terrorism.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I guess you really can't please everyone.
I think we're smart enough to understand that the risk is present without having to be told over and over again.
Specific threats are different...vague everyday crap is unecessary. I thought we had already agreed on that somewhere else.
Indeed, I think we did.
But that ITSELF is the funniest of all.
We both agree that unfiltered information is bad. Yet, you claim that Democrats first demanded vague threat warning and then complained when they got them. You even cited a Democrat that complained about the lack of warnings.
So, is he complaining about the amount of vague threats now?
No! He STILL believe that more information (and more specific information) needs to be made available.
Yet, you somehow feel that this backs your position.
