Smedly--

1) Thanks so much for responding in a way that might possibly indicate you would like to have a sane debate on this.

2) Foul language is not necessary, unless it's the only language you speak. I was hoping you'd be at least bi-lingual: guttter language and English----- (even though one of our enthusiastic posters seems to be just starting English, having mastered the first one cited.)

3) Objectivity of sources sounds like it will be a problem for you. Most Americans will accept a statement by MSNBC as objective. (As you may know, NBC is owned by GE, one of the most respected firms in the country). I am not citing Ramparts, the Nation or another source which may not be objective, just as I don't believe that Mr. Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is precisely the ticket here either.

4) I'm sorry I gave you credit for more intelligence than appears to be the case. I assure you I won't again. Since you're a Bushite, I should have known. Have you figured out that the "RD socialist party" is in your head? As a registered Republican, albeit one totally disgusted with Mr. Bush, I find your idea faintly amusing.

I did not quote the article--I paraphrased, except when I used direct quotes. The crucial quote is by Senator Domenici,---- (another Republican who has found Mr. Bush less than perfect, certainly on this topic.)---- and, like all quotes I use, word for word.

In case you still haven't figured it out, everything after the quote by Robert Galluci is my own commentary. I would have thought that perhaps when I mentioned Doug R., Larry K, et al., you would have realized this.

I also started the whole posting by referring any reader to MSNBC---to avoid having to take my word on anything.


5) You still haven't answered if Bush was right to sacrifice world nuclear safety to the wishes of a few firms --- (perhaps Bush supporters, who knows?)---who want a shield from workers' safety liability.