There were three citations. One may have been in error. So what?

My point was, I'll be a clear and simple as possible, that the Chinese are well within the realm of reason to assume Bush & Co. will and/or have militarized space. That is based upon the totality of information available, two other samples of which were also cited.

Your point was that the body of one citation did not reflect the headline. That does not negate my assessment. To ignore both the point of my post and the other two citations and the many, many, many more Google would show to focus on one minor point is the mark of a True Believer, worthy of Tony Snow, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld.

There's the story about ol' Silas, standing before a judge in Arkansas. The judge says, "Silas, you are charged with having carnal knowledge of - - -"

"Just a cotton-picking minute, yer honor!!! What's "carnal knowledge"? I don't have much knowledge at all."

"Screwing, Silas. You are charged with screwing"

"OK - thas different."

"You are charged with screwing - horses, cows, sheep, goats, rabbits, pigs, turkeys, ducks, mules, donkeys, geese and chickens. What on earth do you have to say for yourself?"

"CHICKENS??!! CHICKENS!!?? WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT CHICKENS? THAT'S JUST DEAD WRONG, JUDGE, THAT'S NOT RIGHT! CHICKENS, MY ASS!!"

So the one citation may have been a chicken. My post commented upon the Bush tendency to try to militarize about everythng, and that a rational nation may want to protect itself from US aggression.

To read it otherwise is intellectually dishonest. You can have your chicken.

Arf