This is not a political forum and we have strayed far off course with this thread, but I feel compelled to make some observations -- and then I will sign off with no further comments.
__Jakeroo -- Leave off Jake. you will not convince or change any minds here. Facts are facts. It's the interpretation of facts that sometimes leads to the parallel universe of the Bush administration. As one of his aides was quoted some time ago: "we make our own reality." You were right to capitulate in your last lengthy post, but you should have mentioned the cost (just money, not lives) of Bush's war has now reached 450 billion dollars. The projected cost with all the ancillary expenses: 2 trillion low end, 4 trillion high end. But hell, so far it's mostly off the books anyway, so why worry?
__ L.Brown -- Your credentials are adequate enough, but your defense of our intelligence community, especially the CIA and its analyses are difficult to give credence to. The CIA, despite a budget that could float several third world countries, couldn't find its own ass in the dark using both hands. But Larry, your abbreviated response to my last post is a little disingenuous. It's hard to believe you wouldn't know all about Ritter, a fellow intelligence officer and a key player and voice in the debate about Saddam's WMDs. And it's equally disingenuous to skirt one of the most damning pieces of evidence for the fraudulence of the case for war - The Downing Street memo - with the caveat that British intel had no "official" confirmation, etc. I believe you are sincere in your beliefs about this war and this administration and I can respect that. I believe equally that you are monumentally wrong -- with no disrespect intended. History will judge this war as a galactically stupid and frighteningly costly mistake. The President and the men around him, as well as the enablers in the Congress and national media deserve one of Dante's circles of hell. It would be interesting, as one writer opined recently, to know what GWB's answer would be if someone in the press corps had the balls to ask this: "How many people do you think would still be alive if you hadn't "decided" to go to war?" We have an accurate count of American soldiers, a less accurate count of Iraqis in case anyone is remotely interested (depending on which survey you accept, probably half a million). I'm still waiting to hear those numbers mentioned as often as Saddam's mass murder numbers. Please don't take this as a brief for Hussein. He didn't die slowly enough or in enough pain, but we have destroyed a country, its infrastructure, xcreated a civil war, de-stabilized the entire Middle East, and most regrettably, established a stronghold for Al Quaida where none existed previously. Enough of this. There isn't time or paper enough to list all the horror.
__ King -- I used the term unscrupulous to be politic. I agree only with your assessment that this President and administration is completely incompetent. I should have been more blunt and less fastidious. They have lied repeatedly and often, broken laws they were sworn to uphold, trashed and vilified any and all critics. I am not a Bush hater. It is hard to hate that which one holds in utter contempt.
__Jack M. -- Cheney's deferments hardly qualify as urban legend, as does GWB's service -- or dis-service --, but it is an interesting footnote that none of the principals in this administration or the neocons who provided the architecture for this war ever served. Remarkable coincidence? Fortuitous planning? Or maybe God just has a perverse sense of humor. Makes little difference until the Commander-in-Chief, with the appropriate John Wayne bravado (Wayne never served either but remains icon for every Conservative warrior mentality) utters the most ill-advised and grotesquely stupid comment a President ever made: "Bring 'em on"! Hubris, arrogance and stupidity all bound up in one package. Do I think George Bush is stupid? No, but it would be a kindness not to think him a very ignorant man.
Finally, I find it both odd and disturbing that so many on this board and elsewhere who consider themselves sportsmen and caretakers of the wild, find it so easy to support an administration - and, indeed, a political party - that consistently degrades environmental laws and regulations which can only serve to make hunting and fishing more untenable for the future. Ironic might be the correct word if you vote for those who - supposedly - allow you guns, but effectively reduce or eliminate the ability to hunt wild game with them because of the consequences of their policies.
I've had my say. If I've ruffled feathers or provoked outrage it has not been done out of malice. Opinions are ubiquitous, like navels and noses. Everyone has them. These are mine. Cheers and regards.
Will
