[Remole]

I am a strong supporter of the way this president is conducting the War on the Terror Masters, and I agree with the conduct of the Iraqi battlefield. But I am honest enough to realize the very low likelihood of a Bush fils administration invading Iraq and dislodging SH in the absence of a major terrorist attack such as 9/11. Knowing what I know now, in Sept 03, especially as presented in Kenneth Pollack's book The Threatening Storm, I would be in favor of militarily outsting SH even if 9/11 had not happened. But I am honest enough to know that I would be in the very small minority; I have some sympathy with the hard-liners in the Clinton administration, who wanted to do the tough thing about SH but knew that Clinton would not make the case (recall that he sent Albright and Berger to OHio State Univ for that disasterous town meeting). It is a hard thing to admit, but it is true, that 9/11 has galvanized the American public to carry out certain tasks on the world stage that otherwise we would not have been willing to do. If that is what the Bush enemies call "manipulating the tragedy of 9/11," well, so be it.

[auggy]

"If that is what the Bush enemies call "manipulating the tragedy of 9/11," well, so be it."

Manipulating??

There wasn't any manipulating. The majority of the Demos made some of the same statements about WMD's, Sadaam, and Iraq as George W. This maybe the word they are now using for W. But, they are all as guilty as, W when it comes down to taking Sadaam out. There wasn't any manipulation, at least not that I can see. They agreed it should have been done. Only now they want to make it appear, as if, it was all Bush's decision to attack Iraq.

They are all a bunch of lying bastards. So is the news media.