Well, T. The Summit Proposal was just that. A "proposal". I understand the "proposals". I am on two town committees and have had many of my "proposals" move forward to the bettermnet of the town. Was the finished product exactly as I "proposed". No, but had I not made them then those ideas would not have been a srpingboard for the progress that came from the "proposal".

Now, what I have said about the Summit is a proposal. It isn't too far removed from what Senator Mitchell was proposing. It wasn't too far from what our allie, Sadi Arabia was proposing. But the big bug-aboo was the Bush administration's complete rejection of the proposal. See, that's where you and I differ. You think why peaceful solutions can't work and I think quite the opposite. Hey, Bush didn't give it one moment's thought before dismissing it.

If you will recall, these proposals were being floated before the massive resistence movement started. This was in thew days when Powell and Rice were being kept out of the loop by Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush was not even talking or thinking of the UN.

So I'm sticking with my premise that a Summit would do a lot more good than a War and I'm sticking to my observation that the Bush administartion has no interest in a foriegne policy where it has to listen, rather than threaten and bully.

Bobert