Sigh.

No, I have no animosity. You tried to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war. The illogic of such a parallel is so obvious I was moved to cry out momentarily, because such un-reason is painful.

In any case, Bush had some wonderful opportunities to make things better, both before and after his Defining Moment of 9-11.

But he did not. He instead made things worse. His choices were made, his actions taken, on the basis of different principles than people belileved he had (those who believed he had any).

"Bush spending mopney on the Iraq War is JUST like FDR spending money on World War II" is a ridiculously improbable proposition, on the order of saying that a cat is just like an orangutang, because they both have fur and breathe. It's absurd on the face of it. Bush's invasion of Iraq was an elective course, pre-emptive and unilateral. Iraq had not invaded American soil, nor had it launched a military attack against an ally, as was the case in Bush Senior's little war in the sand over Kuwait. Bush could have chosen NOT to invade Iraq, limiting his pursuit of terrorists to Al Queda, focusing on the appropriate target, and retaining the sympathy and friendship of nations. Today, he has a lot of unnecessary blood on his hands because he chose otherwise. So do those who support him. A lot of unnecessary, unjustifiable, inappropriate bloodshed, mayhem and cold death. You may sanitize all this until the cows come home. Rationalize to your heart's content. The bottom line, when all the glorious phrases die in the wind, is that it was a bad choice cuausing unjustifiable death, homicide with a blunt instrument writ extraordinarily large in the sands of Mesopotamia.



Go figger.

A