I guess we disagree. Very many Americans really believe that Hussein poses a direct threat to the United States by virtue of his repeated attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Many of us also believe that leaving Hussein alone has indeed led to aggression against us and our allies. I guess we just disagree about that. But it's always surprising to me to hear people who love the idea of leaving Hussein alone, as if the world is a better place with him as leader in Iraq.

Again, I guess we disagree. Saving the people of Iraq *is* a good reason to invade Iraq. It's not sufficient, meaning it can't be the only reason. But it's still a reason, and not a "pretend" reason at all. Again, it amazes me to hear people claim that the world is a better place with Iraqis continuing to live under Hussein's brutal regime.

We haven't stopped disagreeing, apparently.

You can believe that, but like I said earlier, it destroys your argument that this whole crisis is somehow Bush's personal cowboy vendetta-crusade. It's simply not.

{QUOTEQUOTE}I did not mean that they were high in any party, though, but that they were ... how to explain it... following the politics of the party in their rulings.{/QUOTE)

See my reply to Keith below. Supreme Court Justices are notoriously private about their political leanings. We can frequently guess as to what they are by following their rulings. But with a few exceptions (Bush v. Gore is the most notorious recently), most observers don't think that their rulings are "political"--they just happen to reflect the fact that five Justices are generally "conservative" and four are generally "liberal."

Misunderstanding, I suppose. My apologies.


Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat
Dissenting voice of wotmania
Frightfully stubborn pacifist

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent