(War is really, really not nice and should be reserved for the big issues.)

You hit the nail on the head.

T. B. - "I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this. Most liberals aren't. But we're all waiting for the rest of the story."

This may be the only place we differ. I don't trust him, not an inch. Don't have any reason to trust him, he's proven to be quite the liar. The trumped up charges against Iraq, such as the remote-controlled airplanes which could spray biochemical agents over the US, the moral outrage about using biochemical weapons, which were supplied by Rumsfeld, Reagan and Bush1, don't lead to trust.

If the "war on terrorism" were real, I don't understand why the UN can't do it's stuff in Iraq and why the US isn't concerned with North Korea. I would think that a country WITH rockets capable of reaching South Korea, Japan, and parts of the US AND with nukes would be the target.

So, I've learned that when the problem isn't the problem, one must find the problem. What is it that makes Iraq such a big deal.

That's obvious.

However, the big, if not the only, issue is trusting GWB. And I certainly don't.

The Ds went to war in the '40s. Went to war in the '50s in Korea. Do you think they shouldn't have? The Rs signed the Armistice in Korea.

The Ds went to war in the '60s in Viet Nam. Absolutely shouldn't have done it. And that was just for pride, too, and 58,000 Americans died, and millions of other folks who valued their lives as much as I valued mine.

Shouldn't have done it.

Nope. War is bad, and I don't trust Bush. Haven't seen any reason to, frankly. Intellectually he's on a par with a couple of the folks on this board, and at least financially he was immoral as he could be as a company owner and member of other companies boards.

I've seen the drums of war beat before. Seen the demonizing, the propaganda. And don't trust it.

But if I did trust him I'd agree with you. If I thought he knew more than he's said, I'd trust him a bit.

Arf