"So Doug we are waiting for your explanation of why we should only pay attention to the NEWS headlines you think we should pay atention to, and ignore all the rest of them."

Peg, had you identified yourself as the author of that "Guest" thread in the body of the message, I would have been happy to reply.

My reply will not be as nasty as your original post, I assure you.

I posted the message that you found offensive because so many Mudcatters were riding a dead horse moaning and groaning about the president's approach to the Iraq situation. He began by rattling his sabre and that nearly gave Bobert a heart attack, so after Bobert organized millions of people to march on Washington, he decided to modify his approach and go the U. N., which was what Bobert and Company thought he should have done in the first place. Long after he had done that, Mudcatters were still piling on the president for his approach to handling Saddam. It occurred to me that those who were doing that might not have heard that he had adopted an approach more in line with their thinking. That is why I suggested that they become more current with the news. In my opinion (we are still allowed that ... right?)if Bush had not rattled his sabre in the first place, he would not have gained Saddam's attention.

As to your question above: I don't give a hoot what anybody reads.

There may be two replies to your query. The first one disappeared when I hit the submit message space. It is difficult to write exactly the same thing in a second post that was written in the first one, so if the first one appears due to some computer internet magic, I'm sure you will look forward to reading it. :>)

Teribus: Excellent post you made as of 9:00 A.M. this date.

DougR