DougR thinks we're a sovereign state and should NEVER let the world court decide anything REMOTELY connected with US security. But we don't have to respect other sovereign states, and we are free to use UN violations as a pretext to attack them. Isn't that the definition of a double standard?

Here's another point: those of you who have been defending the war will quite likely vote for Bush. The rest of us may well vote for the Democratic candidate instead. But, given that Kerry is specifically mentioned by Ritter as having purposely perpetuated the administration's falsehoods about WMD, I wonder if some of you will join me in trying to get another Democrat nominated instead? Kerry also supported the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, and didn't bother to vote on the medicare bill; but now he claims he opposes all three, just as he claims he oppses the war and abhors the falsehoods that Scott Ritter says he helped perpetuate!

It's not too late. Kerry has less than a third of the delegates he needs. Whatever the media says about momentum, it's only true if we the voters let it be true. Think about it: the media's constantly harping on "momentum" is a way of saying we don't really have a choice! They want to force voters to pick their favorite candidate and so far they are doing a pretty good job.

I'm going to vote for Howard Dean in my primary. Those of you who supported Clark: I know he has endorsed Kerry, and I don't blame him. He obviously HAD to to have any chance of a future in the party, and he will be very good for the party. But you don't have to vote for Kerry. Clark's message was one of an outsider coming in to reform Washington. Dean's the only one left who fits the bill.

I realize that I may have to vote for Kerry as the far lesser of two evils in November, but this is the primary season. I don't think the media-driven idea of momentum, or the blatant favoritism of the party insiders, should decide who we vote for now.