My dear friend Dickey--


That's right--when in doubt, smear the opposition as unpatriotic. Perfect Bush. That's a main reason why the US is polarized--precisely that sort of attitude.

And you wonder why thinking people are not fans of Bush. It seems only yahoos are.

As usual, you read poorly. I've already explained the situation to you. But here it is again.

JFK " stuck to his guns" needlessly and recklessly, endangering the world to save his and RFK's political careers.

He could have had the same result--withdrawal of the missles from Cuba--if he had been willing to let Khrushchev proclaim that Jupiters had been exchanged for the Cuban missles. And, as I recall, the Jupiters were scheduled to be removed soon anyway, as they were close to obsolete.


I did not say I would be happy to have Soviet missles in Cuba. But JFK could and should have been willing to let Khrushchev save face--important for him--in order for the missles to be withdrawn. By refusing to do so, he risked the Soviets turning down the deal--and thereby risked nuclear war.

I have told you what JFK should have done.   If you disagree, please specify exactly why I am wrong--and please use some logic --for a change.

In diplomacy--- unlike debating---it is often worthwhile to let the opposition derive a benefit from the process. But of course, as a good Bushite, you can't be expected to know anything about diplomacy.

I have little time to waste on you these days--please read some history before you favor us with more of your (brilliant?) analyses.

Re: Kerry and Hillary--I've already answered that question. Sorry if you don't like the answer. Maybe eventually you'll understand that not every issue is black and white. But then your hero Mr. Bush doesn't, so perhaps you are also a hopeless case. As Captain Ginger points out, shades of gray aren't your strong suit.

You'd be best advised to spend more time on reading and music, as I intend to do.
I'm sorry to say you are getting boring.



Alternatively, in your copious spare time, you can come up with just one quote by a Bush regime spokesman, during the period summer 2002 to March 2003, clearly refuting any connection between Saddam and 9-11. (The one you have cited is worthless--it is severely undercut in the very next paragraph--similar to the "denials" that Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.)


You still, after wasting all this time with absurd generalizations, have not come up with one clear quote--that is, one which is not badly undermined by what comes after.

The propaganda campaign by the Bush regime in that period is a fact, not a theory. And you still have no evidence to deny this.