The answers are out there, if you bother to look them up.

It sounds as if you're claiming that every single family member offended by GWB & Co. trying to make political profit from their loved one's death at WTC is are either amateur or professional Democratic "partisans". Is that correct?

Of course I am not claiming this. What I am claiming is that those who were on the news, those who did the interviews, and those whose names are being spread around the media largely fall into that category.

To actually name names:

Colleen Kelly (New York Area coordinator of "Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.")

Rita Lisar

Families for Peaceful Tomorrows is a subsidiary of a non-profit group, the Tides Center, that gets money from the Heinz foundations. If you found a link half that good between a Bush support group and, say, Halliburton, there'd be steam coming out your ears. The difference being that, unlike Halliburton and Cheney, Teresa Heinz still has a controlling position in the foundation.

Lisar's activism long predates 9/11, which was the actual point of the Clinton reference. She was a paid worker for the Democrats, which in my book is enough to define you as a "partisan."

The rest of the legwork you can do on your own, assuming you're actually interested in finding out the truth.

This was a setup from the beginning, prepared ahead of time in case Bush brought up 9/11, and the Democrats have been caught with their fingerprints all over it.

Even granting the assumption that this upset was really a spontaneous eruption of dissent, my original point was that many others in the same group were not upset, and in fact approved of the discussion of 9/11 in the Bush campaign. Of course, you dismissed this.