Replies

Your "argument" has as its template that the President of the United States, VP Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Lieberman, McCain, the PM of GB, Australia, Italy, Israel, any many others, are all, "messianic" conspriazoids, prone to delusions, look upon the deaths of our soldiers as some sort of computer game.

I would call that dramatic, worthy of an OJ Juror.

This so-called "radical departure" policy has been debated for decades, and I have followed it closely, and is a good debate, worthy of serious discussion, and will obviously continue according to events on the ground, leaders that rise in the ME and Europe, the UN, the EU, ect, and how seriously they deal with the ME, and how their decisions rely on their natural need to protect and strengthen themselves, and their goal to reduce American power and influence.

Finally, if I were on your jury, you would know that I have also followed negotiations with NK for the past decades, and the past 3 years, so hopefully, you wouldn't try that talking point in your argument for a guilty verdict for the President.

My verdict is "not guilty", for the defendants listed above, I have seen no past displays of sinister, vile, or nefarious behaviors in them during their combined century in government, nor do I see them all waking up one morning, in a "deluded" state of mind, wanting to take over the world.

It is not logical, and I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

See ya.

You are answering charges that I did not make, on behalf of men I have not even discussed.

Nor is my purpose to convict anyone of anything, at this point. My purpose is to challenge what I consider seriously flawed judgment. And the Messianic references go to the President's overly dramatic speech. The policy is flawed, and so in my opinion is the rhetoric advanced to support it.

As for North Korea, my point was not that the President does not recognize the danger there; but rather he does not give it quite the priority he should. Whereas, for whatever reason, he gives excess priority to Iraq.

And if I was prosecuting anyone, I would have to excuse you from the Jury. But relax, I am not. This is more about ideas than crime. (Although when Dean Rusk pursued this policy (1961 to 1969), he crossed some lines for which he should have been indicted, in my opinion.)

William Flax