Bush Supporters PLEASE Explain THIS!

Americans, IMO, would not have supported a pre-emptive unilateral invasion for any reason other than to defend the US against a direct and imminent terrorist threat. Bush knew this. Which is why he had to lie. He gave up on getting binLaden in Afghanistan to go after Saddam. He had already ignored information given to him by the outgoing Clinton administration re binLaden. Getting binLaden was not part of his agenda; getting Saddam clearly was. He figured he could simply "equate" the two and Americans would never know the difference. He figured wrong.

BTW, all the other "reasons" don't come into play. Previous WMD usage. Nation building. Bad Man Saddam. etc. Which is not to say that any of those reasons could and should not have been taken to the UN, discussed on their merits for legitimacy, and determined (or not determined) to be valid reasons for carefully planned, multi-lateral action. That action, of course, would take whatever form necessary: diplomacy, sanctions, containment, and, if necessary, regime change.

I suppose the "IMO" is an acknowledgment that all that follows is just opinion. Good thing. I believe the evidence is that the American public largely does accept the preemption dictrine of the Bush administration. Its key elements are taking the fight to the terrorist enemy and acting forcefully against states harboring terrorists or likely to harbor or support them. I believe the "direct and imminent terrorist threat" bit is just a holdover from the failed policies of the Clinton administration, and a figment of Angie's imagination.

BTW, all the other "reasons" don't come into play. Previous WMD usage. Nation building. Bad Man Saddam. etc. Which is not to say that any of those reasons could and should not have been taken to the UN, discussed on their merits for legitimacy, and determined (or not determined) to be valid reasons for carefully planned, multi-lateral action. That action, of course, would take whatever form necessary: diplomacy, sanctions, containment, and, if necessary, regime change.

The United Srates was attacked

- not the others on the Security Council, The whole UN context with respect to Iraq surrounded the WMD matter to the exclusion of all other factors. Barring Bush's actions the Security Council was moving rapidly to the removal of all sanctions. Their renewed affection for sanctions occurred only after we proposed to intervene. The European powers on the Council are so wrapped up in their comforting illusions of a world governed as the EU, so envious of U.S. power, and so fearful of upsetting the unstable Moslem states on their southern borders and the influx of immigration from them, that they were and are incapable of forceful action. At the UN Bush addressed the only issue they would hear. In numerous speeches before the Congress and in other forums Bush laid out his entire strategy and all the factors motivating it quite clearly.

As for all the rest Angie describes herself as an independent and moderate, and Bush's advisors as extremist, etc. All these labels are merly the products of the point of view and standards of the speaker. They have no objective reality or meaning.

panzade,

I think those of us who voted for "Bush the Uniter, Bush the Moderate" the first time around actually are more angry and more passionately opposed to his policies than those who did not vote for him.

And I think it is voters like myself who will make a real difference in this election.

....So, George, let me ask you something. Just for the sake of this discussion, ok? If you could come to believe/understand that the information above is true, would that color your opinion of Bush at all? Because if this stuff doesn't change your mind, probably nothing will.

As you may remember my saying in a previous post, I was once a Bush supporter, but I was a Bush supporter WITH AN OPEN MIND, which is why I am no longer a Bush supporter.

angie wrote:

....So, George, let me ask you something. Just for the sake of this discussion, ok? If you could come to believe/understand that the information above is true, would that color your opinion of Bush at all? Because if this stuff doesn't change your mind, probably nothing will.

As you may remember my saying in a previous post, I was once a Bush supporter, but I was a Bush supporter WITH AN OPEN MIND, which is why I am no longer a Bush supporter.

Well, there is far more than just information "above". There's also lots of opinion and conclusions representing your interpretation of events, and there are as well relevant facts not included. In short no basis on which to conclude that if I don't change my mind, it is necessarily closed. Further the fact that you assert that you once were a Bush supporter, but have since changed your mind, does not imply that others who have not followed your path are not aware of the facts and/or do not interpret them correctly. In short there are other defensible paths than yours. Yo should consider the possibility that it is your mind that is closed.

There are always many hazards, dangers , and challenges facing our country in this troubled world. Terrorism is only one. However, Its significance and importance has grown, both absolutely and relative to others during the last several decades.

One can't run off after every danger without unduly expending his ability to deal with others, unforseen which may arise. The trick is to identify and deal with those that in some appropriate way are the most proximate and dangerous. It is sort of like steering a ship through a twisting strait with rocks and shoals on either side. There is no straight course that will get you through: one must alter his course as he goes and deal with the hazards as they present themselves.

We supported the Taliban in order to limit , at realtively low cost, the power of the Soviet Union and its potential to influence India/Pakistan and the Gulf States if it were to succeed. We were successful in that effort, but found ourselves later having to deal with the residual Islamist insurgency. Should we have anticipated this? If we recognized and reacted to the possibility earlier would it likely have made any difference? These are questions for historians to answer. Contemporary analysis is often wrong.

Similarly Reagan intervened in Lebanon to limit the incursions of both the Syrians and the Israelis. (shortly before the bombings there were some very tense confrontations between the Marines and Sharon's IDF troops south of Beirut.) Overall our intervention was partially successful, though we must still deal with the Syrian presence in Eastern Lebanon. The barracks bombing was one of the early significant Islamist terrorist manifestations in the current age. At the time we had still to deal with the Soviet Union which was still arming the Syrians (and we feared others). Should we have done more? Good question. I don't know.

(As an interesting aside - the French also had forces in Lebanon then and also suffered from a simultaneous terror attack which killed about 40 of their people. I was, at the time, flying in a fighter squadron off a carrier in the Mediterranean, and found myself involved in joint planning of a retaliatory airstrike with French air forces operating off their carrier, Foch. It appeared the French just wanted a quick in and out bombing to make smoke and save face. We wanted to kill the bastards and do much more. While our planners argued, a U.S. political decision was made to cancel the strike, so the French went ahead on their own. Their effort accomplished nothing, but perhaps they saw it as saving face. )

You make the point that Clinton did more than others to combat terrorism. Perhaps true, but by a wide margin, Clinton was presented with a greater step-up in terrorist activity than any previous President. In his case it was directed at both domestic and international U.S. targets, and designed to kill indiscriminately - unlike previous episodes. The relevant question here is whether his response was adequate in relation to the proximate new danger and the other factors and dangers we faced at the time.

The fact is that during Clinton's administrations terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities and citizens continued at an escalating frequency and intensity as their public rhetoric increasingly identified us as the target. Moreover Clinton faced no other competing dangers that might limit his actions. Throughout this period Clinton's response remained one based on intelligence and legal action alone. Soon after he left office we were confronted with 9/11 - an action that had been under planning for a long period of time. There is no doubt fault for both the Clinton and Bush administrations for failing to intercept this thing. However there is little doubt that Bush fully recognized and dealt with the escallation he faced on 9/11.

Some have made the case that the prospect of systematic Islamist terrorism had, by at least the mid '90s, knowably become one of the greatest hazards we would face in the decades ahead. Further the worst outcome might be some connection that might emerge between those terrorist forces and the several purveyors and developers of biological and nuclear WMD. I believe that this possibility should have been recognized and dealt with beginning in 1995, and I fault Clinton and Bush equally for failing to act sooner.

However, I find little to fault Bush's strategy and focus since 9/11. One can properly criticize many aspects of the execution of our current strategy. However, in my view, Kerry has not properly identified any of the failed elements of execution. Worse his excessive and unsubstantiated promises, vague assurances, and his many alterations of view to fit the currently prevailing breezes, make me conclude he lacks both the judgement and the character to lead in such difficult times.

Wow, I'm impressed george, FINALLY an unbiased look at the present situation. While I will not agree with everything you said, and you pass of a lot more blame on Clinton, you do recognize that he was the first president to do something about terrorism and also focused on the right person. Most of the post was generally unbiased though, an you did a fairly decent job at showing an unbiased eye.

I, on the other hand, look at the situation with an unbiased eye, but EVERYTHING shows me how Bush duped the American public and how he used propaganda to garner public support to invade Iraq/ As for Clinton, I for one believe that if Clinton was still in office, 9-11 probably wouldn't have happened. There are of course reasons behind my thinking which I will explain below.

1. Clinton realized the threat BinLaden posed to US security and he was constantly examining the security and threat level Bin Laden posed.

2. He had daily meetings with Richard Clarke on Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the recent intel concerning him.

3. He gave Clarke the resources needed to attack terrorism, such as giving him a budget and a cabinet level position. These thing were stripped of Clarke when Bush took office.

4. He took every threat seriously and gave Clarke the power needed to investigate each and every threat. This directly resulted in the thwarting of the terrorist attacks planned on US soil for the 1999 New Year celebrations in NY, LA, and Chicago. The whole scenario is in Clarkes book.

5. By the end of September 11th, we had who the terrorists were, what watch lists they were on, the fact that they were under suspicion from the FAA and they were on watch lists. The FBI and CIA were not talking to each other, but under Clinton, Clarke was the go-between. He would gather the intel from both agencies and formulate a plan of attack. Under Bush, absolutely nothing was done, nothing. This is even after he received the August 6th PDB titled Bin Laden determined to attack in the US.

6. The stripping of Clarke and removal of his budget directly took away the system of joining the intel from the various branches. He in effect played an acting roll as what the 9-11 commission recommended in their report.

Did Clinton do everything to get Bin Laden? No, he could have done more, but with the power he had and the impeachment hearings, his focus was not what it should have been. Although, I will give him credit, he did attack Bin Laden at the worst possible time for him politically, during the impeachment hearings. He did this amid screamings from the Right Wing about "Wag the Dog" and how Bin Laden was a childish obsession for him.

Bush, on the other hand, ignored every threat prior to 9-11, but he reacted in a somewhat forceful manner after 9-11. If he would have stayed focused on Bin Laden, instead of Iraq, he would probably have locked up another term. Instead, he took much needed forces away from the war on terror and focused on Bin Laden. If you even think Iraq was part of the war on terror, I will show you not only how Bush had information counter to what he was telling America at the time, but also how and why he invaded. He used a campaign of propaganda and outright fear to dupe the public into thinking Hussen attacked the US on 9-11. There was a reason 70% of Americans at one time believed Hussen was part of 9-11, Bush told them. Not directly, but in a manner which he would never say the direct words, but instead use insinuations and hyperbole to dupe America into thinking he was responsible.

If you want to debate Bush's reasoning, I'll do it any day, for it was downright un-American and reminiscent of Communism and the Nazis the way he used propaganda to dupe us. It was in such a treasonist manner Judas would have been jealous. Personally, I think treason charges should be brought up against him and his administration after he looses the election. I just hope Kerry has the balls to do it, for it will be the first step in showing the world what America is all about and how we are not fear loving war mongers only concerned about oppressing the Muslim population and getting our hands on their oil.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Montana wrote:

Bush went and attacked a country because he CLAIMED they had WMD's and that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Thousands of people have died and continue to die every single day because of this man, so I do believe he is the one who needs proof to back his claims. The fact that he doesn't have one speck of proof to warrent the killing of thousands of innocent people, is my proof that he lied.
Bush had it out for Saddam right from the get go and that couldn't have been more obvious. Revenge is the name of his game and it's scary to have such a dangerous man behind the wheel.

Montana, Montana, Montana.

Bush did not claim Saddam was involved in 9/11 and therefore it is not incumbent upon him to prove that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?

Not meaning to jump in on the discussion, but you know as well as I do why America believes Saddam was involved with 9-11. He NEVER said they were connected, but he purposely tried to make Americans think that he was by using speech such as "SH has harbored terrorist like Al Qaeda". You know what he was attempting to do with this and you also know how gullable the American public is and how they would fall for such a stunt. It's more a discredit to the American population for believing the rhetoric and the spin.

Jump in, the water's tepid.

Saddam did harbor terrorists like al-Qaida.

The purpose for making statements like this was to make the point to the American people that Saddam was a threat. You can believe it was intended to mislead a nation of gullible fools if you like, and you can insist all you want that it is common knowledge that this was Bush's intent, but the fact remains that that does not make it so and your opinion is based on speculation, not fact.

Quote:

If you are so certain that Bush claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11 you should be able to produce a link to the quote(s) in which he made the claim. You can start by checking out all of the anti-Bush websites. Surely if he actually made this claim they will have proven it on their sites.

Alas, he never made a direct implication, but instead used hyperbole, fear and threats to make a paranoid AMerica believe this was true

Same song, slightly different lyrics.

Quote:

Yes, Bush did claim that Saddam had WMDs. So did most of the rest of the world. We know for a fact that he did at one time have WMDs, what we (and the rest of the world) apparently didn't know was that he was capable of the entirely irrational move of getting rid of them, but not letting anyone find out and thereby prevent the US from invading Iraq and taking him down.

In fact this is so irrational a move even for a madman like him that I remain unconvinced that he did not bury them somewhere in the vast Iraqi desert, or transport them to Syria. That's just my opinion though, and not one voiced by the Administration.

Claiming they had WMDs (when everyone else thought they did) is not lying unless Bush knew for a fact that there were no WMDs. This has not and will not be proven although I invite you to try.

It may be that Bush chose to play up the intelligence that told him they had WMDs and play down that intelligence that questioned that fact, but this is not lying, and no amount of exasperated caterwauling from you or others will make it so.

I differ from the fact that he chose, because he used known false information to sway America's opinion. He cherry picked intel to promote his way of thinking, while completely ignoring any counter evidence.

Again, opinion, not fact.

We should have finished the job in Afghanistan first, both the Taliban and the rebuilding instead of focusing on a Iraq.

A reasonable point of view. I disagree with it, but it's hardly the opinion of a mental defective or sinister propagandist.

I look at it this way, if I was president, I would make sure to have ALL the information in before I formulated an opinion on a country I was going to invade, not discredit any and all intel contradicting my viewpoint.

I'm sure you would imagine that you did just as I'm sure Bush did, but like him, certain biases would creep in to effect the manner in which you viewed the information. People almost always approach a decision with a bias for a certain choice, and rarely do they realize it. It doesn't mean the person is ignoring or discrediting the information that doesn't support the bias.

Quote:

As george has already written, there were other reasons for invading Iraq. I accept that it was Bush's belief that if left to his own devices, by a world that just didn't seem to take his threat seriously, Saddam would have eventually put WMDs in the hands of terrorists. There is no document that proves that this is what he was planning to do, but all things considered, it was not at all a far fetched conclusion. The risk was too great to ignore.

Actually, I categorically disagree with you here if you are talking about Al Qaeda. You don't mention it, but you seem to imply it with the topic of your post. If you are talking about other terrorist groups ie Hammas, this is a possibility, but a remote one.

You are, of course, free to disagree with me, categorically or otherwise, but it would be helpful to your position if you would explain your reasoning behind why it is a far fetched conclusion that Saddam would have eventually turned WMDs over to terrorists.

It could have been al-Qaida or it could have been an as yet unformed successor group. The point is that Saddam had reason to want to see the US crippled if not destroyed, and what better way than enlisting a terrorist group as a catspaw?

Quote:

Iraq was also invaded because the West needs a Democratic beachhead in the Middle East. Unfortunately Bush didn't emphasize this reason enough. Perhaps he felt that the voters were not sharp enough to appreciate strategic moves. Based on many of the posts seen in A2K one can understand such an assumption, but it was, nevertheless, a mistake on his part. Presidents should always trust the American people to understand the full reasoning behind their actions. They should not try and play to the lowest common denominator. I think the Bush Administration did, and I have criticized them for doing so, but this failing is a far cry from lying to America to enable an act of personal revenge. While it is quite possible that Bush was only too happy to take Saddam down, I don't believe for a second that personal emotions were the driving force behind his decision. You apparently do, but you also apparently tend to think and express yourself in a rather cartoonish fashion:

Funny, we could have started the democracy in Afghanistan. This is where we should have focused, for what would change Muslim thinking? We could have rid the world of AL Qaeda and the Taliban, then focused on a strong democracy in Afghanistan. This would have allowed us the greatest possibility for success, instead we invaded Iraq and fed right into radical Islam theology. The US is hell bent on oppressing the Islamic population through any and all means. It's great recruiting material for your impressionable minds, yet it could have been different.

You seem to want to focus on a single reason for invading Iraq. I have not argued that there was any single reason but a group of several. If we relied on Afghanistan alone to establish a viable democracy in the region, we still would have had to deal with the threat presented by Iraq. In any case, Iraq is a much better prospect for a stable democracy than is Afghanistan. While Iraq has it's share of religious leaders it also has a strong underpinning of secularism. It has a middle class and a comparatively well educated professional class. Afghanistan, by comparison resides in the stone age and will have many more hurdles than Iraq to clear in any race for democracy.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I never heard Bush say Iraq represented an "imminent" threat nor have I seen proof that he did. I did hear him say it was a "gathering" threat.

Just a little reminder on what was said by the Bush administration about the so-called "imminent threat"

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Quote:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is."
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

JR, Am I sure glad to see somebody else showing sources that negates all the arguments put forward by the neocons and repugs. You're probably as frustrated as I am that these small-minded people do not understand simple logic or what their president have said and what actually happened under his administration. I have determined at this point that they are all "brain dead." That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from all their illogical responses.

Finn, it is you who is presenting an unreasonable argument.

Bush used 911 i.e. (the imminent threat of further acts of terrorism being perpetrated by Saddam against the US) to justify his invasion of Iraq for a very simple reason: the American people would not have stood for his unilateral pre-emptive action against Iraq for any other reason.

You are using an unproven contention (Bushed used 9/11) to justify another (The American people would not have stood for the invasion for any reason on than a link to 9/11), and managed to throw in a mischaracterization as well: "unilateral." Now that is an unreasonable argument.

Americans, IMO, would not have supported a pre-emptive unilateral invasion for any reason other than to defend the US against a direct and imminent terrorist threat. Bush knew this. Which is why he had to lie. He gave up on getting binLaden in Afghanistan to go after Saddam. He had already ignored information given to him by the outgoing Clinton administration re binLaden. Getting binLaden was not part of his agenda; getting Saddam clearly was. He figured he could simply "equate" the two and Americans would never know the difference. He figured wrong.

Nothing new here.

BTW, all the other "reasons" don't come into play.

And you know this how?

Previous WMD usage. Nation building. Bad Man Saddam. etc. Which is not to say that any of those reasons could and should not have been taken to the UN, discussed on their merits for legitimacy, and determined (or not determined) to be valid reasons for carefully planned, multi-lateral action. That action, of course, would take whatever form necessary: diplomacy, sanctions, containment, and, if necessary, regime change.

Additionally, you make a mistake by assuming that anyone who opposes Bush is "Liberal". I am an independent "unenrolled" voter, always have been. I voted for Bush last time because I believed his "other" lies: that he was a moderate, that he would work with both sides of the aisle, that he was a uniter, not a divider, etc. IMO, he has shown himself to me anything but moderate.

No I don't assume that anyone who opposes Bush is a Liberal, just the great majority of them. That you voted for him in 2000 is utterly meaningless. It doesn't imbue you with some special authority or unique insight.

He is a dangerous stubborn extremist who surrounds himself with extremists:
military (unecessary pre-emptive invasion over diplomacy and multilateral cooperation),
economic (tax cuts that benefit the extremely wealthy who stash it or invest it overseas as opposed to significant cuts for the middle class who would actually spend the money here and stimulate the economy),
social (extremely neglectful of the entire health care issue),
cultural (supports an amendment to write discrimination the Constitution denying gay Americans their right to civil marriage),
and religious (no support for embryonic stem cell research).

Where have I heard this before?

In spite of the overwhelming unity and common ground shared by all Americans after 911, Bush has succeeded in dividing this country on every single issue possible, and the divisions are deep and painful. I personally believe this will be his legacy.

Somewhere in all of this hyperbole is an opinion which may or may not be reasonable amd which may or may not prove to be correct, but in any case I'm hope it made you feel better to give me a piece of your mind.

I will "feel better" when Bush is defeated and my country is back on a truly American course, one that is strong and respectful, not rash and arrogant, and one that restores our position in the world to one of inspiration and leadership, not one of intimidation and aggression.


I do not see any point in continuing to line-by-line each other. We have each had our say, and I stand by all my points.