So in other words Amos, you define what people can say on this thread. No one can have any objections to what you say or make any comparisons or tell you that you are wrong.

You complain about the president. I ask you who would be a good president. You mentioned Lincoln and FDR. When I compare their actions to Bush you tell me it is about Bush, not them.

My freedom of speech is subjugated by your freedom of speech. Correct?

Well I am still going to say what I want to say but I am not going to indulge in the name calling you seem to feel is necessary to prove your point.

The USA was attacked on American soil and American lives were lost. Whomever or whatever attacked us, whether they had an industrial base or not, still deserved a counter attack. They got it.

Whether you believe invading Iraq was justified or not, the Clinton administration thought so and that was inherited by the Bush administration. Actually Clinton, whom you said "seemed to hold to those values" did attack Iraq on the grounds that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs.

Notice the the Muslims in America were not rounded up and put into interment camps and held indefinitely with no charges without the approval of congress.

Enemy combatants were captured on the battlefield and held indefinitely until it could be determined if they were a threat, with the approval of congress.

Overseas communications and mail from certain sources are being monitored in an effort to detect terrorist activities. I would be pissed off if this were not being done as it was done during WW2 and right after WW2 up to the present time using UKUSA and ECHELON.

It is true things have not gone well but when was the last war the went well? Maybe it was Lincon's civil war or Wilson's WW1 or FDR's WW2 or Trueman's Korean war or Johnson's Vietnam war or Clinton's invasion of Somalia.

It is your namecalling, impassioned and incorrect rhetoric that exposes the incorrectness of your position.

You appear to be an idealist to me, destined to complain no matter what.