On Apr 2, 7:37 pm, " wrote:

On Mar 27, 4:58 pm, "Hawke" He symbolizes

the huge mistake the country made in putting him in the White
House and we know you don't want to take credit for that even
though you deserve it.

Hawke

I want credit for not putting Kerry in the White House.

The hell... I take full credit for that! And Gore!!!

Bush has not
done well, but I think that Kerry would have been worse.

Dan

Had Kerry been elected, we would still be hearing how badly Brock
and Scurley and Gunner did in Vietnam. And my brother.

And be out of Iraq.

No. He's be bad mouthing those Vets, too. Probably testisfy before
congress stories he heard in the barracks.

Let's look at that logic dispassionately. You'd rather have the
disasters Bush has wrought upon America than the mealy-mouth do
nothings of Gore?

I avoid the "either-or" arguments because they're inherently biased
and universally non-representative. But ****, you'd trade Bush for
Gore?

Let's assume that the unbridled altruism of Gore has a negative
effect on business and the economy. Let's also assume that Gore has
a nasty relationship with the military. Now, can _anything_ that a
Gore presidency do possibly, remotely, compare with the disaster now
unfolding under the Bush administration compare?

I fail to see any possibility that old, boring, Gore could equal the
titanic catastrophe under Bush. How can you sit there ignoring the
crimes going on to whine about what Gore _might_ have done? You're
comparing grains of sand to brontisaurii, atoms to complex molecules.

What is wrong with your head, constantly whining about what "they"
_might_ have done while crimes are now being committed in your, and
my, name? while our nation disintegrates? Your fear of "terrorism"
has changed the very society we love, allowed lawyers and
professional politicians to ignore the very laws of our land designed
to protect us.

You've allowed Osama to win.

He couldn't have otherwise you know.
We can't be beaten but seem more than willing to surrender to our fears,
and
have done.

One of the oldest tricks of those fighting against a government is to
provoke the government into over reacting and slaughtering a bunch of
innocent people. Terrorists have used this tactic for a long time.
Governments have to be careful how they respond to terrorism or they will
make the people take the side of the anti government forces. Osama, with one
small attack in 6 years has provoked the US into a major over reaction. It
has cost us an immense amount of money and thousands of casualties. Osama
knew that he had virtually no military means to hurt us with so he used what
he had, a terror attack. From his perspective it has worked out beyond his
dreams. In addition to the greatly overdone military response on our part it
has also caused Americans to have a great loss in personal freedom and has
changed us into a virtual police state. I'd say Osama has won this one, and
the cost to him was only 19 dead and less than a half a million in cash.
Such a deal! He's made fools out of the US. But then it wasn't hard
considering who is in charge over here. And that alone is reason why Gore
would have been better than Bush. No way he would have run off half cocked
like Bush has and gotten us entangled in the mess in Iraq. You'd have to
make a hell of a lot of errors to equal the one Bush made in getting us into
Iraq.

Hawke