Bush's 'drive-by briefing'

"One thing I'm not going to do is jeopardize the safety of the American people."

I have news for you little buddy. You started jeopardizing the safety of the American people from the day you were handed the presidency by the Supreme Court back in 2000. Why stop now?

Emperor Bush suffers another setback. How will Rove spin this one to his benefit?

The wheels of justice are slow, but at least they are still turning.

Bush; "I wish I could comment on it... I would... I haven't been briefed enough" That means Karl Rove hasn’t explained things slowly and carefully to him yet, or told him what to say.

We're safer with Bush in charge than either of the alternatives.

the previous poster is a whining, deluded little baby. reality is so darn tuff for the liberals it seems.

Hey, check this out:
It turns out that at least one of those terrorists who plotted to blow up the Sears Tower pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda and took terrorist training courses. Anyone who said how the charges were trumped up and these guys were just a bunch of nutjobs trying to get uniforms want to change their BS story now?

Here's an except from the Tribune story: According to Getchell, Batiste was planning to take down the Sears Tower with dynamite. Batiste allegedly said he had worked in Chicago for a delivery firm and could count on former employees there to help plan the attack through the underground tunnel system in Chicago.

p.s. This supreme court decision won't make Bush let up on the terrorists, they'll just go through congress now.

GWB: "Don't be cruel."
US: Entire lyrics of Elvis's "Hound Dog."

Here, again, we see the benefits of a tripartite government. Each branch construes their constitutional powers and each has a check on that interpretation.

President Bush's first reaction to the ruling is much in the best tradition of constitutional propriety....especially if contrasted with President Jackson's lack of such propriety in the Cherokee Nation cases.

President Bush like many, well respected, Presidents before him has made the decision to push the envelope of executive power in the protection of the United States from proven asymmetrical and often fanatical threats. That either the Congress or the Supreme Court should assent to, or check this power should be of no surprise or worry, the system is working as it should.

2006 Democrat campaign commercial: Don't worry, terrorists. Don't worry, people attacking America. The Democrat Party (and its allies at the New York Times) will defend your right to attack America and not suffer the consequences.

Ah, mg, Bush has not jeopardized anyone's safety in the U.S.

Man, the hate and absolute nonsense from the looney, loopy, uneducated, ill-informed Left is nearly as scary as Al Qaeda.

On the contrary mg - - it's the terrorists that are jeopardizing the safety of the American people. It's a good thing your "little buddy" is doing something to protect us.

Thank you, Checks and Balances! It's fun watching Bush try to keep it together when he gets smacked down. I'll be replaying that clip of him this morning for awhile.

Thank God for the courage of the New York Times. It's ironic that Bush,as Cheney's puppet, runs over the Constitution, and then blames the press when he's exposed for yet another illeagle overreach. Of course it's just red meat for the wing nuts. But even the Republican dominated Supreme Court thnks he went too far. Who is he going to blame now, Reagan, his dad?

This all sounds more like the Soviet Union back in the day. Too bad simple minded idiots like Elvis, Bruce and John D weren't there. It's a classic case of wrong place, wrong time. They would have fit right in.

Let's see now - 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he's bungled every other operation we've seen of any kind, including intelligence assessment. Meanwhile, Clinton actually stopped genuine al Qaeda terrorists (not nut-job wannabes) from an LA attack - and tried to warn Bush, who wouldn't listen until after 9/11, that al Qaeda was the biggest threat out there (until briefed by people with a clue, Bush thought 9/11 had been done by Saddam!).

Oh, and by failing to suck up and obey the rule of law, Bush has energized our enemies and alienated our friends.

So how exactly is our little buddy keeping us safe?

Meanwhile, no actual liberal or moderate has ever said we don't want to fight terrorism. Some of us just have the sack and the brains to think we can defend both our country and our freedoms at the same time. Radical concept to the neo-fascists, I know.

Didn't that founder dude say "give me freedom or give me death"? Whatever happened to THAT kind of conservatism? Now it's "take my freedom, please, just in case I might be just a little bit at risk."

What a lot of &%$#@*% you tough-talking neo-fascists really are. Suck up and accept the risks and burdens of genuine liberty (hmm, sounds like "liberal," doesn't it?).

Turn your brain off, twist your head to the right (far, far right) and squint.

After that you'll see Dubya stamping, turning and stuttering to Rove and climbing up on Cheney's knee to whine "But I'm the deciderer. Who is the United States Supremebubly Court to tell me about Constitutionalality. I let you appoint me president in 2000. I'm the son of another president so it's my birth right to tell you justicesers what to do." (jumps down off Cheney's knee [stomp, stomp] "Uncle Dick God told me to be president. The Gitmomers are all guilty, guilty well except fo the ones I let go."

And thus a textbook case of full blown right wing neo-con whackos opened a new chapter.

Footnotes provide by Bruce, JD, John D, Elvis and Bill.

Cluck, cluck.

Stew, i would let up on that Kool-Aid if I were you? Bush has arrested and killed more Al Qeada terrorists than Clinton ever did. In fact, I think we can count on one hand how many Al Qaeda terrorists Clinton apprehended. But Bush has arrested and killed thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists.

Also, 9/11 was planned while Clinton was prez. Clinton never responded to the bombing of the USS Cole. In response to two U.S. embassies being bombed, he bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and an empty training camp in Afghanistan. He never responded to Khobar Towers being bombed either.

Bush administration also has prevented several attacks from occurring in the U.S. and abroad.

But I know facts and logic are two things Lliberal lefters can't handle. Oh, you folks can't handle the truth either.

I guess go back to the Kool Aid then.

Elvis also sang, "Suspicious Minds," which is most appropriate for this administration.

You said it, Stew. You'd think it was Bill Clinton who was President when 9/11 happened, the way the blame is constantly shifted.

It was just under a full year into Bush's "Presidency" and all the warnings and signs were ignored when the US suffered this horrible attack.

If, as the Loyalists like to say, Clinton could have somehow prevented it (a stretch, considering he was no longer in office), what does that make Bush's lack of action? Heroic?

Doh!

Given that gwb has been free to step all over the constitution in the name his war on terror this must have caught him by surprise. He must have been floored when he realized he could attach a signing statement to the decision.

To his lemmings out there who are comforted in being told what to think, DON'T WORRY!

I'm sure bush has his staff working on a way to get around the Supreme Court. In no time at all he'll be back to tuck you in at night and tighten your blindfold.

I love dangerous people like John D and Bruce. Can't see nor think rationally -- let's make them the next president and vice. Let's see. 9/11 happens and the National Security Adviser has no idea what the heck is going on. She gets a promotion for failing to protect us in the worst event ever on American soil. Then your best friend, the Decider, decides let's invade Iraq. No WMD's. No ties to Al-Qaedi. It has cost American taxpayers half a trillion ($500,000,000.00 -- don't worry you'll be dead so I'll have to pay it, thanks John D and Bruce), cost us the respect and admiration of the rest of the world (because guess what neo-cons, we can't eliminate terrorism by ourselves), a few thousand American lives, and we take our eye off the real threat: what's his name? That skinny dude, big turbin, blews stuff up. Anyway, yeah, "he makes me feel safe everyday and I thank god he's the president" -- a line from a 6 year old girl whose parent died on 9/11 and used ads in battleground states --disgraceful. Look, invading just to invade a country does not NOT make us safer. Get off your knees fellas and stop defending a horrible president. BTW, I respected and admired the first Bush so I ain't no liberal. When the horse is in last place, put it and us out of our misery.

One of the overlooked parts of the supreme court's ruling is their reference to the Geneva Conventions and that they do, in fact, apply in the case of the Gitmo detainees.

Unfortunately, we have done a brilliant job of ignoring the conventions of war because somehow they are "inconvenient," that those we are chasing care nothing for such conventions. But I can hardly see the logic in the argument: they will defy international laws in cruel ways and so we are justified in doing so as well.

It was our adherence to such principles that gave us the moral authority to lead the world. We can chase "terrorists" that seek to harm civillians forever, but we will never be victorious if along the way we also will kill civillians and torture suspects without regards to ethics and international law.

To me and millions of Americans and billions around the world, our lack of regard for international standards makes us a destablizing element on the world scene. Far from being defeated by our killing and capturing of hundreds of terrorits, extremists have been lining up to fight the agressive West. So, when will we realize that our brut force and lack of regard for human lives cannot be conditional on the personal convictions of our targets?

When killing and torturing doesn't work, maybe it is actually time to change your game plan? I'm all for catching those who wish to harm others, but if the NSA, CIA and FBI in 2000 was able to stop the millenium bomb plot, why can't we do it today without placing new limits on the liberty of our citizens and those with respect to Geneva Conventions?

The world did not change after 9-11, but we as Americans did as we became afraid when the terrorists successfully spread terror and fear. It is what we do while in fear - stick with our morals or bend the rules - that will determine our success and strength as a society.

John D, and how many of those "thousands" of Al-Qaeda terrorists that Bush took out personally with his Steven Segal like moves were terrorists before his administration created Al-Qaeda's greatest recruiting tool ever in Iraq? Invading Iraq was never about stopping terrorism, and in fact has put us at more risk and created more terrorists. There is no disputing either of these points.

You're the one drinking the Kool-Aid, buddy. So quick, go to your GOP talking points and dig up the "but hindsight is 20/20!!!" argument. You all know where it is very well by now.

"2006 Democrat campaign commercial: Don't worry, terrorists. Don't worry, people attacking America. The Democrat Party (and its allies at the New York Times) will defend your right to attack America and not suffer the consequences.
Posted by: Bruce | Jun 29, 2006 1:33:01 PM"

Jeez. I'll bet all you wingnuts used to call it the Democratic party before that ignorant bug killer from Texas popularized calling it the "Democrat" party amongst you Kool-Aid drinkers.

And here's a note for the rest of you Bozos. Start thinking for yourselves. Turn off that glass teat serving up Faux News every night. Read something other than Ann Coulter. Talk to people a different color than you are and listen for a change. This country is broken and people like me blame people like you. Find out why before it's too late. Someday there will be hell to pay for all this. Don't continue to be the cowards that you are and make all our children foot the bill for what you're doing now. Be responsible to OUR country first, not the pseudo religious whack jobs running it right now.

Re: Clinton VS Bush on Al Qaeda

I am a little uncertain how this thread got to this topic. After all, the article basically said is that the Supreme Court told our President that all he has to do to carry out appropriate prosecution of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is to get Congressional authorization (“repudiation”? - Mr. Silva, how naïve). However, since the political left has apparently once again developed a little problem with their historical perspective, please allow me to bring you up to speed.

Under Clinton, Al Qaeda attempted to blow up the World Trade Center. They subsequently attacked two US embassies, a hotel where US troops had been stationed (bin Laden has made his share of mistakes), and the USS Cole. Clinton’s response was to not bother to meet with his first CIA Director, turn down an offer to have bin Laden handed to him by Sudan, squashed plans by intelligence and military officials to kill or capture bin Laden, including failing to even answer a request for authorization to pull the trigger when the terrorist was in our sights. While Clinton gutted the CIA and the military, bin Laden basically took over Afghanistan and operated with impunity.

The September 11 attacks occurred about eight months after George Bush took office. Let me assure you that is not enough time to replace hundreds of analysts and operatives or give them enough time on the job to do it well. The problems with our intelligence services certainly could not have been fixed during the President’s working “vacation.”

People who have never bothered to read the 9-11 commission report seem to think the President received information that could have prevented these attacks. To quote the Commission’s report, “Despite their large number, the threats received contained few
specifics regarding time, place, method, or target. Most suggested that attacks
were planned against targets overseas; others indicated threats against unspecified
“U.S. interests.” We cannot say for certain whether these reports… related to the 9/11 attacks.” Elsewhere in the report, the warnings are termed “nebulous.”

However, the report does confirm that there were more than 70 related investigations underway at the time by the FBI and that actions overseas against al Qaeda cells involved more than 20 countries. In short the Bush administration had clearly made anti-terrorism a priority.

Since then, the Bush administration has ended the reign of the Taliban, killed and captured countless al Qaeda operatives, driven bin Laden into a cave and rendered him unable to run his organization or strike directly at the USA. Does anyone out there really think that al Qaeda intended to stop attacking us on our soil after 9-11?

RRD - How dare you introduce facts into this!!! That will just make a few folks heads hurt.

Once again, as John Kerry said, we should be traeting terrorism as a police action not a military action. We should of just arrested those mean Japanese pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor and put them on trial. What did the Japanese leaders have to do with this? This would be John Kerry and his merry band of followers' "thinking"

Eight months was not enough time for Bush to protect us from the 9-11 terrorists? Unfortunately, time is not what Bush lacked as evidenced by his five year run-up to Katrina.

"We will work with the Congress,'' said Bush, saying he takes the ruling "very seriously… I want to find a way forward.''

He wants to find a way forward, in other words if facts, history and Constitutional law as interpreted by the Supreme Court deny Bush, he will politicize(national security, war on terror) the issue with the Republican Congress and they simply will change the laws or terminate international agreements to give the results Bush seeks. Exactly what Bush demanded from government intelligence to invade Iraq. If the facts don't work, fix'em till they do.

Speaking of WWII, the Japanese did surrender, so did Germany. Does anyone really think that the war in Iraq will result in surrender from the 9-11 style terrorists?

Robert

Regarding the following quote from your post:

"I'm all for catching those who wish to harm others, but if the NSA, CIA and FBI in 2000 was able to stop the millenium bomb plot, why can't we do it today without placing new limits on the liberty of our citizens and those with respect to Geneva Conventions?"

Before I get to the real point of this message, let me assure you that I also support the Geneva Convention and am opposed to new limits on our liberty.

Where we disagree is whether or not our liberties are being threatened - personally, I have not seen it. Now before you try to convince me otherwise, think very carefully about what evidence you plan to use - because you have demonstrated a rather dubious understanding of the world around you in the statement I quote above.

The Millennium Bomb Plot consists of separate unsuccessful plans to bomb a US naval ship, tourism sites in Jordan, and LAX. The first failed because the terrorists' boat was overloaded and sank before it got near the ship (no intelligence or law enforcement agency knew about it until long after the fact). The second plot was thwarted by Jordanian intelligence forces (I can find no source that gives the USA any credit for this, including the transcripts of a Congressional inquiry). The third (LAX) attempted bombing was thwarted when a couple of diligent Customs officials searched the would-be terrorist’s car because he behaved in a manner that suggested to them that he was a drug smuggler.

In short, the NSA, FBI, and CIA had nothing to do with any of it and luck was the main factor is averting 2 of the attacks. By the way (and not that I approve) but the one intelligence agency involved, Jordan’s, has a reputation for less than genteel interrogations.

Not to pick on you Robert but I started paying attention to The Swamp just a few weeks ago and I find this type of serious factual error remarkably prevalent among the left. Sure, there are errors by some of us on the right (and I am certain, I will get caught on something, sometime) but it really seems to be a pattern on the other side. Earlier this week somebody blew a gasket when a couple of us on the right pointed out that dictionaries universally disagreed with his definition of a word, others have tried to dispute the conclusions of various reports (claiming they determined “X” when the reports clearly state “NOT X”), while others have typed in inexcusable historical errors – things like dates that every reference source agrees on.

This makes it very hard to take the rest of your arguments seriously and makes me wonder how you would feel/vote/act if you paid a little more attention.

RRD

RRD- You do a good job of regurgitating facts. The funny thing about facts and numbers are that they can turned to prove anyones point. I have to wonder if you are looking at the facts objectively or choosing what you want to use to support your beliefs? The 911 commission did not put blame on Bush or Clinton, but stressed that both could have done more to curtail terrorist activity in the US (on a side note, why has Bush failed to enact or been resistant to follow through with the recommendations of the 911 commission? With a Republican Congress, he really has no excuse). While you imply that Clinton may have done more to stop the terrorist attacks, which he may have been able to do, you must also have to acknowledge that Bush also failed to do his part to go after al Qaeda during his first year in office. The report and other sources (please refer to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5211.htm or http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf for a copy of the PDB) had shown that his administration failed to take action against al Qaeda. Why does the president need to replace hundreds of CIA analysts who need to get up to speed when their goal to serve the country and not partisan politics? And why did he keep CIA director Tenet who appointed under Clinton? RRD, your given Bush excuses. The people were in place, he needed to listen to them. Bush and his administration failed to follow through with reports of potential terrorist activity. I would still like know why he felt the need to take a vacation for the month of August for only being on the job for only 7mo especially after getting that 8/6/01 PDB. How is he going to get up to speed on things when he is not around? My point is that both president did not do all they could have to stopped the attacks on 9/11, based on the facts available. So, if you feel it necessary to blame someone, blame both presidents. Please don't make Bush seem like he's perfect. He is far from it.

If you and anyone else who wishes to live in fear want to believe that Bush is fighting an effective war, that's your choice. However, the reality is the Taliban you say Bush has ended, seems to have risen from the ashes and is making a come back in Afghanistan, and the costly war we are fighting in Iraq is doing nothing more but consuming our resources and diverting our attention from al Qaeda. By the way, how do you know that bin Laden is still in a cave "unable to run his organization or strike directly at the USA" as you stated? The simple fact that we have not found him yet, makes your statement about this irrelevant.

I just can't help but wonder, if Bush was a Democrat and doing all of these things that he has done since coming into office (war OF terror, the economy) would you or any other person who is so pro Bush, still be defending him so passionately? I really wish you would all think about that before answering. Because if the answer is no, as I suspect, then you are just doing what the powers-that-be want you do.

As to the point of this blog and ruling of the Supreme court, they know something, that we sometimes forget. Our way of life, our laws, our views are not the only ones out there. We are living in an international community, like it or not, and we still have to honor those laws internationally and nationally, like it or not. The day we stop respecting those laws, both at home and abroad, we become no different than the terrorists we say we are fighting. Then who has won the war on terrorism?

RRD: While your exposition reads nicely, I believe you're stretching things a bit.

You first of course blame Clinton (regardless of topic, that's where wingers invariably start). So far as I recall, this stuff about the Cole bombing, Trade Center, etc., all made the evening news. Yet in 2000 W did not exactly make terrorism a centerpiece of his campaign. I expect you'd be hard pressed to find a single campaign speech that gave anything but a passing glance at terrorism generally, and certainly nothing about Bin Laden specifically.

When he assumed office, W again made no public mention about the issue. And the record is quite clear that, pre-911, the Administration made no plans to replace "hundreds" of analysts (civil service employees, btw.) That W kept Slam Dunk on as CIA Chief likewise suggests no wholesale changes were contemplated, let alone transpiring.

In short, the objective evidence (e.g., budgets) shows W had no plans to undue all the evil Clinton had done wrong. Your attempt to revise history fails like a GWB term paper.

As for the 9/11 commission whitewash, even if you accept everything at face value, you can't avoid one point: it happened on W's watch. This is either a bad thing or a neutral thing for W -- it can never be considered favorable.

As for the 70+ investigations, did you perhaps consider the possibility that these investigations started during evil Clinton's term?

You finally talk about all the great "accomplishments," using factual inaccuracy of course, the funniest of which is that W has "driven bin Laden into a cave." Of course, neither you nor Nitwit have the foggiest idea where Bin Laden is, in a cave or at a rave. Yet you are so deluded as to call this an accomplishment. Sad.

RRD,

"...driven bin Laden into a cave and rendered him unable to run his organization...."

What cave have you been living in?

Bin Laden can and does run his organization. I know this because videos from his organization show up on the internet and Arab TV. And he has the resources to put together and pay for video production he can damn sure put together a plot to do us harm.

By the way how did Dubya manage to let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora? We had enough air power in Afghanistan to pound that mountain into pea gravel. Remember the photo of the B-52 flying overhead leaving a figure 8 contrail as Dubya fiddled?

This won't take long...

JohnK - the first "source" you use is "The Information Clearinghouse." A website that identifies itself as "One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media. This web site grew out of my personal frustration and anger at the failure of traditional commercial media to inform the American public, especially as it relates to US foreign policy. This web site is the work of one person." Personally, I will stick to the original source (In this case the actual 9-11 Commission document) whenever possible - not one cranky loner with computer.

As for your question about my positions if someone of a different party were in office, I think I would be as satified with foreign policy and unhappy with domestic spending regardless of party. I am on record (in another thread on the swamp) as saying I could easily vote for Lieberman or Obama in the future - depending on the quality of the opposition (to clarify, I have already cast a vote for Obama as Senator - proudly).

a blinkin - don't much care about campaign speeches, they focus on what people want to hear, not serious policy matters (that's why some pretty good people in both parties can't win election). As for the budgets you are looking at, I am real curious about that - the first year a president is in office, he is stuck with his predecessor's and the Presidential budget proposal usually does not get submitted until Jan/Feb (that would be about 5 months after 9/11 and the CIA/FBI budgets were swelling by then). You seem to doubt the lack of trained analysts (linguists for the most part, btw) but it is all a matter of public record that the Clinton admin decided to take a so-called peace dividend and empty a lot of seats in the CIA. Cofer Black is quoted in the 9-11 Report as saying he had 2 Arabic speaking analysts and needed 500 (I do assume the 500 number was rhetorical). As for 9/11 happening on Bush's watch, you are right it is a neutral issue, not anything he can be blamed for.

Zook - Any punk with a high end cell phone can send you a video. bin Laden's objective in life is to do harm to the USA; he has not been able to in 5 years because he is on the run. The majority of military and intelligence authorities agree that he is running from cave to cave in an area of Pakistan we cannot get to for a combination of diplomatic and logistical reasons.

Anything else I can do for you...?

RRD

Darn. How could those "activist judges" on the Supreme Court vote against Bush and his way of combating the terrorists? I bet Bush will not want a constitutional amendment to "do whatever he wants" in order to fight the war on terror. It will be the only way we can claim victory.

Next time, just kill the bastards and save us all the liberal harping about rights of foreign criminals who never belonged to an official army or represented an official gov't. Forget the POW theory and start the KIA's. Putting a bullet in their heads is more humane than what they do to our people. As far as I'm concerned, unless we are at war with a country, the geneva convention does not apply.

Don't know if any of you lefties have seen this most recent quote from OBL, but you may want to in order to understand (if that's possible) why we conservatives don't go for the "turn tale, and skate" policy you all advocate. You can thank "Bill the Great" for their current resilience. As a side note, notice how attacks on the homefront are not mentioned. Could this be why we bring the fight to them????

"We will continue, God willing, to fight you and your allies everywhere, in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Somalia and Sudan until we waste all your money and kill your men and you will return to your country in defeat as we defeated you before in Somalia," he said.

To RRD:

Yes there is something else you can do. Go to the triangle of death and shout how much you support Bush, Cheney & Dumsfeld, the axis of evil.

Wayne

What makes you think I have not done that already?

Seriously, Wayne, I am not completely confident that I have made my point until someone like you blows a gasket. I have had a huge grin on my face since your post came up!

Thanks!!!

RRD

To RRD:

Sir,

My friends who have returned from the Land of IEDs (used to be the Land of RPGs, but no longer) - those who are physically unwounded - are busy rebuilding their units with recruits of lowered standards. Those who returned and remained in their Guard/Reserve units are tolled twice, to rebuild their day jobs (those who got it back) in addition to rebuillding their units. The fact that you are on this board sir, daily, having the time of your life it seems, gives the impression that you might have a disconnect with THAT reality.

If you have been there sir then you have my thanks and best wishes in full. If you have not perhaps you might consider toning down your rheoteric. Those who are attempting to defend the liberty and constitution here may have more in common with those who are in service and sacrificed than you care to admit.

Jack

Jack

I respect your message and especially the way you conveyed it. Please let me explain my answer to Wayne in greater detail.

This is a web log where people debate (and I'll admit that I using a very broad definition of that word) anonymously. Unless they choose to share personal information, nothing is evaluated except their ability to write, reason, and refute. No one can claim superiority on the basis of position, degree, or other personal achievement. We all start over here, naked and unarmed - except our wits.

There are a number of people, like Wayne, on this blog who seem to think that "if you think its such a great idea to fight in Iraq, then you go" is a valid retort. There are others, who claim to be veterans and use this status as if it makes their judgment in the war unassailable. Interestingly, they often disagree with each other, so somebody must be assailable.

I, on the other hand find these positions both irrational and undemocratic (the concept, not the party). My reasoning for this position:

1) I suspect that many of those who claim veteran status never served - this is an anonymous board and they can make any claim they wish.

2) I suspect that those participants in this blog who have the most enviable records of military service choose not to make mention of it. (Just intuition but I suspect you may be one of these). If one really did serve 30 years and earn a Bronze Star, would you really want your record subjected to the various smears and libels that would undoubtedly follow on this blog? Again, who can really tell who you are or what you have done in this medium?

3) There are people who cannot serve, whose intellectual capacity still entitles them to an opinion and a vote in this country. Think about how foolish Wayne's little outburst would seem if I were disabled. (I am not, by the way, but you can believe that or not).

4) There are still others who choose not to serve, not out of a lack of patriotism or ability but because we have reached a point in our history where most people will not serve in the armed forces simply because there is no place for them. Yet, we would be ill-advised to disenfranchise those with no military background from the decision making process. (It seems to me that FDR proves both points 3 and 4).

Therefore, my response to Wayne is based first on the fact that he has no idea if I have or have not served (let alone, where, when, and in what capacity) and secondly, that the question of my service (or anyone else's) has no place on this board.

I am pretty certain Wayne is angry because I disagree with him and even angrier because I disagree effectively. Therefore, it does please me to see him and his ilk break down to that level of response. It makes me all the more confident in my opinions.

Finally, sir, I would suggest that my rhetoric on this page is already substantially toned down in perspective of this environment. (For example, I only pointed out that I enjoyed his discomfort, while he suggested that I do something that might lead to grievous bodily harm). I will also suggest, based on data and on personal experience, that the majority of military personnel are substantially more in my court than in that of, say Wayne, Zook, and a blinkin.

But that is a debate for another posting...

Once again, I appreciate the civility of your post.

Sincerely
RRD