perfidy

Bush's platform does attack "all that I hold dear," my body, my gay uncle, and my country, for example.

So, you are saying he's evil?

Brgt, do you really think that Buh is evil? Seriously? I realize that you're a liberal and all, but come on - Kerry is no doubt as far removed from my values and ethics is Bush is from yours, but I have never considered him evil. Misguided, wrongheaded, or wrong, certainly. I am more than willing to assume that he is not a monster scheming for the destruction of all that I hold dear. In fact, I do believe that he does have the best interests of this nation at heart, just that he is wrong about the best way to achieve them.

If Kerry were (god forbid) elected president, I would acknowledge him as such, argue with him if I think he's wrong, but certainly support him when it comes to foreign affairs, as I did Clinton in Kosovo and in Haiti.

Do you do the same now?

Bush's platform is far removed from my values and ethics that I am willing to take that risk.

If Bush can invoke the word, I can.

Bush is evil, Brgt? That's one step away from invoking Godwin's law...

Certainly true. I can cavil all I want, knowing that John Kerry has Massachusetts locked up tighter than Al Capone's vault. You, on the other hand, actually have to make a choice. With consequences.

Aw, no. Lying's cool. And head isn't cheating, either.

Not that this is worth our time. As another commenter said in a prior thread, "A pox on both their houses." I'm liking more and more the idea of writing in "Turd Ferguson" for President this November.

I guess if you live in Massachusetts that would be "witty", but I have a lot more at stake here in Wisconsin and Kerry is certainly not the lesser of two evils in my mind. One is evil and one is just not my preference. There's a big difference.

And Bush's insistence that Kerry was insulting former leaders by not recongizing their participation, while lying to them is somehow paying respect?

B- my point exactly.

It may be a long time, but it certainly doesn't project a "coalition of the willing" when countries publicly state they feel like they were misled and are therefore pulling out.

Also a good point. I do find it faintly ridiculous that, on one hand, the President states that we have a "strong international coalition" on our side, and on the other, has to bring up Poland and Costa Rica (nothing 'gainst them, but not exactly Major World Playas) as evidence. Now that those countries are giving notice, and talking about being misled, etc., it truly doesn't look great. Sort a low-grade *gasp* global test.

That's still most of another year and a half.

I can just see Kwasniewski sitting around watching the debate and hearing Bush say "you forgot to mention Poland!" and realizing "oh shit, we still have 5 guys there! We better get them home!"