[fr11]

Sorry, I meant to say '"slam dunk" case against Saddam' in the first paragraph. Anyway, I think you should read a little more into the reports that say Saddam didn't have any WMD because they also say that: 1. Saddam was corrupting the UN and buying off powerful officials (including France and Germany) through the oil-for-food scandal. 2. Saddam was buying time so that he could begin developing WMDs again once the sanctions had been lifted by the UN officials that he was buying off. The real mistake was made by Bush's father when he left Iraq before taking down Saddam. Bush 41 told the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and we'd have their backs. Many Iraqis did rise up, but we wussed out and ditched them. What happened next? The Iraqis who had the courage to rise up against Saddam were slaughtered. We owed it to the Iraqi people to go back and take down Saddam. Give Bush 43 some credit. Things will stabilize in Iraq and they will be a strong allie that can help bring peace to the Middle East (much more effective strategy than Clinton's worthless "peace talks" that got us nowhere).

[nosurrender]

OK, probably 2 sides to the story. I hope you're doing the right thing.

I'll read the info I got from another person, too. Looks like a lot.

We do need to talk to each other, you know. I don't know where you live, but people in the cities are ***SCARED*** of getting hit again. Lots of tears that night. You won an election, but the two sides will have to convince each other that they're reasonable human beings if we are to get through the next four years.

We can disagree, that's OK, but we are not enemies.

McGovern got his ass whooped, but Vietnam was still stopped. Our opinion does mean something, but I think as long as we are convinced that the country has not gone mad, we'll do what's best for the country.