Jim:

Do correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will ;)) but didn't the invasion of Afghanistan stem from the fact that Bin Laden was operating out of there, and the Taliban were supposedly sheltering him? I'm NOT defending it, but just calling you on your logic.

As I understood it, Bin Laden is an *exile* from Saudi Arabia. Why would it have been useful to attack a country that no longer housed the 9/11 mastermind, rather than his base of operation and the government playing host to it? (Not that ANY of this bullshit makes sense...) Again, I don't support it, but I at least see the logic. Not to mention that if we'd focused on finishing what we started in Afghanistan rather than stretching ourselves thin in this whole Iraq fiasco, we might have created some sort of real concrete resolution. Sigh.

One other comment, O Wise Sage. What sort of "action", exactly, are you proposing we undertake here? You harp on and on about our lack of action, but offer no suggestions. There are thousands of people working hard to see that Bush/Cheney/Rove/etc. are brought to justice through what channels are available to us, which aren't many due to the stranglehold they have on our country. And if you're insinuating we should be taking our country back by force, ooooh, yes, that's going to go over well. I can't think of a better way to guarantee these assholes a permanent power base than to create an uprising they can stamp out with martial law, giving them all the carte blanche they need to ride roughshod over what's left of our freedoms.

Get real, or quit baiting us.

Molly

P.S. I know, I know...don't feed the trolls.