Things get bigger if ya cuts 'em!

[Buffalo Tom]

Cliff, it's interesting that, in all your windblowing, you didn't directly address and refute Sspad's assertions. Instead, you try to bog down the discussion in a variation of the 'who's stronger, King Kong or Godzilla?' debate. So you don't deny that Bush has trampled on your constitution, that his proposed space program is a financial fiasco waiting to happen, that he dishonours the men and women in the military by ordering them to make the ultimate sacrifice while depriving their families of financial support, and that he's done nothing significant to encourage job growth, in fact overseeing the greatest number of lost jobs since the Depression?

The only claim you've argued against is that Bush lied to the American public about Iraq's WMD program, and it was a half-assed argument. To say that Bush didn't lie because he received faulty intelligence is flawed. Ultimate responsibilty for the conduct of any underling falls directly on the shoulders of a leader. All principled leaders know that. Even if it was faulty intelligence, Bush should have come out and publicly apologized for depending on such unreliable information. He's done nothing like that, to my knowledge; all I've read are brief mentions buried deep in articles that Bush admitted the intelligence he got was unreliable. If this situation is true, as you claim, then it's still a character failing the American people need to look hard at. This president seems eager to receive the kudos when something goes right, yet he has neither the humility nor the ethics to accept blame when the administration he constructed screws up.

However, we all know that the CIA submitted caveats expressing their misgivings about the reliability of all the intelligence reports they sent to the Oval Office prior to last year's invasion. It seems to me Bush did one of two things that led him to use the faulty intelligence in his argument for war. In the first scenario, he made the decision to willingly ignore the CIA for whatever reason; this points to a critical lack of good judgement, again another leadership failing. In the second scenario, he let the people in his inner circle of advisors at the White House convince him that the reports were nearly 100 % reliable. If this second scenario is true, then every American has to ask himself/herself whether he/she can trust a man who is so easily influenced by other people to go one way on a serious issue, when the evidence before him strongly points to the other way. Not to mention the issue of choosing a band of advisors whose analysis is faulty at best, if this second situation is true.

Your dismissive arrogance and stone-blind stupidity is a reflection of the arrogance and stupidity of the current American Administration you so futilely defend. It's no wonder that you have as warped a view of the world as you possess.