[logan]

Rove has nothing to do with decision making regarding Iraq, logan.

Well, maybe not now; but it's hard to believe he didn't have a hand in how they used the buildup to the invasion to pull off the unprecidented 2002 victories.

I'm glad to see everyone agree's we've got to own up to our responsibility here though. I'm just a little more sanguine about what kinds of compromises people will make when re-election is on the line.

[Darksheare]

Welcome to FR.

[ohioWfan]

There will be no compromises when it comes to the safety of the American people, regardless of the election. None.

It would be totally contrary to the character of the man running.......and totally contrary to everything he has done in the WoT.

And, IMO he will win the 2004 election in a landslide precisely because of his strength in protecting the American people at his own political risk.

[Always Right]

Well, maybe not now; but it's hard to believe he didn't have a hand in how they used the buildup to the invasion to pull off the unprecidented 2002 victories.

Go to some left-wing nut site if you really belive that crap

[AQGeiger]

I'm just a little more sanguine about what kinds of compromises people will make when re-election is on the line.

You are a little more optimistic/cheerful about what kinds of compromises people will make when re-election is on the line? You couldn't have meant you were a little more bloody or bloodthristy about such compromises. Those usages of the word just don't make sense in that context. But I'm confused why, if you really think the President will compromise his principles for the sake of re-election, you're cheerful about it.