Replies

Start from one premise, and reason all your arguments backward. The premise: Bush is not the legitimate President. Therefore, every action he takes is without any mandate, and must be resisted in any manner possible. Any rationalization that Bush uses to justify his actions, can only be lies, by definition.

For a certain minority of persons born in this country, claiming citizenship as a birthright, and a smaller minority of those who have established residency here, and eventually gained citizenship, this is their sincere belief, and no amount of logical argument will dislodge this fixed idea.

Never mind that the reasons enumerated for taking up arms and marching to Baghdad included humanitarian and strategic considerations, relating to the very nature of the Saddam Hussein regime. These critics have latched onto one of the less important reasons cited for making a pre-emptive strike, that Saddam had in his possession weapons that could render extreme harm upon civilian populations, not for military advantage, but purely to spread terror in the target area. As it happened, these weapons were not deployed in the course of hostilities, but were apparently hidden for later use by guerrilla fighters. Because these terror weapons were NOT found, the argument goes, the whole invasion of Iraq was totally illegitimate. And if the invasion was illegitimate, then Bush's Presidency is illegitimate.

Maybe the US as a whole could do a recall election on the Presidency like they are doing in California.

The hilarious thing about it (tragic though for the country) is that Dems like Kerry etal are such stinking hypocrites. They all enthusiastically supported Clinton when he passed the bill to dethrone Hussein in '98. Of course they all (except for Lieberman) have a case of political amnesia. They should do what Lieberman does which is just to say that he can do what Bush is doing much better. Kerry and Lieberman know that to follow the paths of Dean and Gephardt would be sheer disaster. Clinton knew that in "92 which is why he ran his campaign of ostensibly trying to out-Republcan the Republicans. His stealth campaign of creeping liberalism was well camouflaged. They should do the same to have a chance. But at least quit being such unbelievable hypocrites.

Just tell 'em President Bush won four times.

Here's another little known fact about election 2000:

The day after the Electoral College officially elected George W. Bush President (EC vote: 12/18/00), Clinton went to the UN and demanded new, tougher sanctions placed on Afghanistan if the Taliban didn't hand over Bin Laden:

"Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands." - Tough Sanctions Imposed on Taliban Government Split UN, by Barbara Crossette, New York Times, Dec. 20, 2000.

Just in time for Inaugeration Day. Too bad the press was busy covering the petty theft, vandalism - surfing quickly over the pardon stories.

Clinton knew the Taliban was not going to hand over Bin Laden.