Peter

Relax, it was a joke.

Every time I hear that we have the inside track on signing someone because he is a friend of Eric's, I am disappointed. Do Eric's friends not want to play with him? The next time you hear that we are going to sign someone because the player is friends with Eric, don't believe it.

I saw the clip on TV. Some people were definitely booing, but I was not sure whether they were booing at the Kerry girls (who were there) or the Bush twins (who were on a big screen). I don't suppose anyone on this board was there and could tell us.

You have not been reading my posts. My point is that this administration should not have used 9/11 and WMD to sell an optional war. As for whether the war in Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror, we can debate that. As I said, it had more to do with accomplishing pre-9/11 goals. These goals were legitimate (but not prompted by any imminent threat). Indeed, the goals were similar to the reasons for the first Gulf war (which I supported), but Iraq had not invaded another country this time. These goals were largely unstated by the administration. The administration should have sold the war on its own merits and let the American people decide whether the timing and manner of this war was appropriate - rather than engage in false advertising. These goals did not require the urgency that this administration placed on them. There was no imminent threat. Moreover, this war did not require that we alienate nearly every ally we have in the world. Indeed, I dare say that all but one other country in the world (if you go by the views of the population) was against this war. That is the difference between a war of necessity and one of choice. We have every right to eliminate an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. That is why the war in Afghanistan was and is correct and had universal support throughout the country and world. The war in Iraq was another story. This administration allowed people to believe that we (and the guys that died) were avenging 9/11. Instead, 9/11 was used as a pretext to accomplish a goal that had nothing to do with the 3,000 Americans that died on 9/11. It is pretty simple stuff. If you have any questions about whether the architects of this war wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, read the attached and look at who some of the authors were. "A Clean Break"

Not really. At least not against us. And certainly not compared to OBL. Iraq never was the threat that this administration made it out to be and according to Powell (before September 11th) Iraq was powerless and all boxed in at a cost of less than $3 billion per year. Compare that to the cost today. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 -- not the Baath Party. I was all for the war in Afghanistan. Instead of using 9/11 to sell this optional war, the administration should have been up front with the American people about the reasons for the war and gone about in a way that did not destroy the goodwill that we had around the world. I know that there are a lot of unilateralists on this board. Yet, if we really are going to be successful in a war on world wide terrorism, we need as many of our allies around the world as possible.

I am a Republican who is extremely disappointed with the way that this administration squandered all the goodwill that existed throughout the world after 9/11 and that insisted on taking our eye off the ball to fight an optional war to accomplish goals of some people that were unrelated to 9/11.

Actually it was. I am a Republican -- a Reagan paleoconservative Republican. I voted for Bush 41 and Dole. I did not like Clinton at all. I will not vote for Bush 43 however. I do not trust him (and more importantly the people in his administration other than Powell) with another four years. I am not that fired up about Kerry, but at least there would be a Republican congress that would force Kerry to moderate his policies just as Clinton was forced to moderate his.

If you read the papers, books, etc., that have come out on the subject (as I know you have), you realize that Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle et al had a hard on for Iraq long before September 11th. The war in Iraq has very little to do with the war on terrorism. It has more to do with protecting our allies in the region, controlling the region, and oil. The "war on terrorism" and 9/11 have been used as a pretext to accomplish something that people in this administration wanted to do long before 9/11.

War on terrorism? What a joke. We used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans to go after a guy who had nothing to do with September 11th and diverted resources away from getting the guy who was responsible. I wish this administration had its priorities in order.

One guy volunteered to go to Vietnam and for one of the most dangerous things that you could do there. The other guy didn't, but finds it easy to send other people's kids to die. It is relevant. The history of both these guys up until the election also is relevant.