[Gunrunner2]

I would caution against using the word "avenge."

In the context provided---your posting---you list only one reason for Bush’s possible action against Iraq, and that is to avenge a foiled assassination attempt against his father. (“I think war is certain because President Bush is set on invasion to avenge his father.”)

That certainly cannot be your heart-felt belief, as this would say that Bush, as good and great a man that he is, is willing to have American warriors die to avenge an unsuccessful assassination attempt against his father. Clinton may be capable of such selfishness and cruelty, but not Bush.

However, you do say in a subsequent posting, “. . .when the President of the United States suggests that ONE of the reason's he's sending hundreds of thousands of US troops into harms way is because he wants to kill Saddam as payback for his alleged attempt to kill his father, you have to think twice about the President's true motivations for launching this war against Iraq.” This is an improvement, but again, I suggest, you are not representing Bush’s motivation accurately.

You see, his use of the word was less than politic, I grant you that, but it was understandable. You see, Bush Sr IS his father, and it is a fact that Saddam did try and assassinate Bush Sr during a visit to Kuwait. You can also be certain that Bush views his father as "dad," not as "Mr. President." Therefore, I can forgive Bush for the slip, as I recognize it was nothing more than an innocent reference to his father and not to be sole justification for any action against Iraq.

Bush's statement was not in any way meant to be "I'm gonna get you because you tried to kill my father," rather in context, it is best understood as "I am coming to get you, you are a bad man, and evil man, and heck, you even tried to assassinate a President of the United States."

You may be "troubled" by his use of the word "father," I am not as I am not reading anything into it.

I think we should refrain from jumping onto the left-wing loony bandwagon that alleges Bush is immature and a simpleton and cares not a whit about American lives, or that he thinks an attack on his “dad” would be enough to launch an attack. Indeed, I think an assassination attempt against the president of the United States is justification alone for an attack, and Bush Sr. is not my father.

With best regards.

[rightwing2]

I would caution against using the word "avenge." In the context provided---your posting---you list only one reason for Bush’s possible action against Iraq, and that is to avenge a foiled assassination attempt against his father. (“I think war is certain because President Bush is set on invasion to avenge his father.”) That certainly cannot be your heart-felt belief, as this would say that Bush, as good and great a man that he is, is willing to have American warriors die to avenge an unsuccessful assassination attempt against his father. Clinton may be capable of such selfishness and cruelty, but not Bush.

I believe Bush is a good man and a good President. I have pledged to support him for re-election. He is sincere in his beliefs. He is a man of faith who has expressed his devotion to God, which is the stellar opposite of Bill Clinton. That being said, he is not infallible by any means. I did not mean to imply that a personal vendetta is the sole rationale for the President’s decision to invade Iraq. Clearly, it is not.

In truth, I see two primary reasons for President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq at the current juncture. One is personal—avenging the failure of his father to oust Saddam and Saddam’s alleged attempt to kill his father. The second is a neoconservative exercise in de-facto neocolonialism, the purpose of which is to conclusively demonstrate the military power of the United States in conquering Iraq and engage in a successful nation-building effort there and from thence destablilize the Iranian terror regime in an attempt to recast the balance of power there in the US favor. Disarming Iraq of its remaining WMD potential is only a secondary rationale followed by a tertiary rationale of fighting more or less non-existant Iraqi terrorism.

I do not fault President Bush at all in wanting to avenge his father. I think that is a very understandable rationale for his decision. However, I think he may be misinformed about the likely casualty count from an all-out US invasion of Iraq and the consequences to follow.

I think we should refrain from jumping onto the left-wing loony bandwagon that alleges Bush is immature and a simpleton and cares not a whit about American lives, or that he thinks an attack on his “dad” would be enough to launch an attack. Indeed, I think an assassination attempt against the president of the United States is justification alone for an attack, and Bush Sr. is not my father.

I absolutely do not think Bush is immature or a simpleton. You are putting words in my mouth here that I never even thought let alone suggested. In fact, he has demonstrated a great ability to lead both on foreign and domestic policy as demonstrated by his twin triumphs of retaking the Senate for the Republican Party and getting Congress to bend over backwards to support him on Iraq last month. He is consistently underestimated by his leftwing opponents, of which I am not one. I think he cares a great deal about the lives of his fellow Americans.

I agree that an assassination attempt alone is enough justification for an attack on Iraq and more particularly an attempt by us to assassinate Saddam himself. Keep in mind that we have been bombing Iraq non-stop since Clinton wagged the dog in December 1998 and the air campaign of Desert Storm II began a couple of months ago. However, I am not sure that this attempt would justify an all-out invasion, which would likely result in CBR attacks against US troops and thousands of American KIA and WIA. Freegards, Rightwing2