Thanks, Deckman.

I'm sorry our unnamed Guest is angry at Americans like me "who keep trying to justify and defend the depraved actions of the worst president in US history." I don't think that really applies to me, though. I didn't vote for Bush last time; in fact, I have voted in every Presidential election since 1976, and have never voted for a Republican for President. There is a lot about Bush and his "power base" that I don't like -- their arch-conservative social agenda, their mismanagement of the economy. But I am honestly trying to evaluate which of the candidates is going to be best on the national and international security issues facing us. When it comes to Iraq, I need more than complaints from the opposition; I need a credible alternative plan. So far, I haven't heard one.

It is not unusual for Presidents to be less than candid with the American people about a whole host of issues, including our willingness and rationale for going to war (remember FDR, anyone?). Moreover, in today's world, with the joint problems of rising terrorism, unstable governments, and the continued proliferation of nuclear technology, it would not be wise for a President to be completely candid about our intelligence gathering. However much we might wish that it were otherwise, effective intelligence (spying) and transparency in government are not fully compatible. The fact is, we need to be prepared to trust the guy at the top to do the right thing, without necessarily knowing all the details. This makes the issue of trust supremely important. If the guy at the top proves himself to be less than credible -- not about smokescreen issues like sex with an intern or thirty-year-old reserve drill records, but about the critical choices that we elected the guy for -- then he needs to be voted out. But we need to stay focused on the big picture, and recognize that we might have some reservations about the abilities and trustworthiness of all the available candidates; including Kerry, who has tap-danced around the issue of his support for the war so much that it is very difficult, even now, to figure out where he stood on it then, and where he stands on it now. In fact, the only Democratic candidates who can legitimately claim to have been honest about their position on Iraq are Dean and Kucinich (against it from the start) and Lieberman (for it all the way). And none of them are going to win this race.

Again, I am not a Bush apologist, but I do think that he correctly identified a serious problem in the world, and took some very necessary actions to deal with it. I realize that puts me in the minority on this forum, but so be it.