Of course not. We're doing it because we want to secure the safety of Americans (and others--but that wouldn't matter to you, presumably). And because doing so would save the poor oppressed people of Iraq, who, in contrast to Americans, really *are* oppressed. And because doing so would serve our economic interests. There are many reasons to get rid of Hussein. Do we have to have only one?
From my angle, I would say that going into Iraq for the wrong reasons could result in a failure to properly complete the neccesary nation building activity there - activity that - without it... an Invasion would be completely wrongheaded and unjustified.

Your memory is extremely faulty. Bush's father appointed only two Justices to the Supreme Court. One of them voted in favor of Gore. Also, not one of the Justices is, or was, a "buddy" of any President. And none of them was ever high up in any party. Maybe you should brush up a little bit on American politics.

Between Reagan and Bush Sr., 5 justices were named to the bench, and Rehnquist was elevated to the Chief Justices seat.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that he plans to remain in office forever? That he's not actively trying to build up support for his re-election campaign? That there's some sort of plan to prevent elections in 2004? Again, you should cast off your veil of ignorance. Read some *American* newspapers; you might then acquire a clue.

This was I think a reference to Aeros Norwiegan author, who commented that the only way to remove a sitting president was an assassination. Not a reference to Bush planning something illegal.



Keith (NOT BACK)
One always dies too soon-- or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are-- your life, and nothing else. - Garcin, No Exit