Replies

Democrats are really placing our troops in danger. If I was of the Bathists, I would never give in until after the election to see if Bush could be defeated and a "friendlier and kinder" administration is installed. If this subject is broached, the Democrats huff and puff and say they are not putting our troops at risk and they are being "patriotic" by invoking their right to say anything they wish. I want to remind them, you can call a camel a horse but when all is said and done, it remains a camel! Their rhetoric is a camel and not a horse!

In 1968 voters chose Nixon (who Wm. Safire tells us never said he had a secret plan for getting us out of Viet Nam) over Hubert Humphrey. When the Viet Nam situation got even less popular by 1972, Nixon was re-elected when the super-peacenik Geo. McGovern was the alternative. I don't think peaceniks (especially petulant retraitors?) are viable contenders for the U.S. presidency. ['nother topic - Imagine Howard Dean calling George W. Bush petulant? Like Bobby Kennedy said (paraphrased) - take your own most glaring shortcoming(s) and vehemently & repeatedly accuse your opponent of that.]