Mummer,

The only reason my post was so long is I had to respond to so much of Henry's off topic, ridiculous, irrelevant tangents; like suggesting that we want an apology from Bush, but not the terrorists; the Phillipines; releasing two known terrorists; Qaddafi...

At least half of my post is spent refuting and deconstructing irrelevant, baseless, unrelated rhetoric, which is clearly designed to try to convalute(sp?) the topic at hand.

Henry and the rest of you on the right obviously do that because none of you are capable of properly, adequately or effectively addressing the real topic at hand, which was the war in Iraq, the premise on which we went to war in the first place, and the fact that Bush says he would have done the same thing without any such premise.

For all of his intellectual rambling about the sun and the moon and the stars, he was clearly unable to stay on the subject or offer any clear, logical argument against my main points, and he did not address the key questions I raised.

STAY ON THE SUBJECT!! FOCUS!! I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT IF YOU TRY!!

All of those tangential issues have NOTHING to do with the fact that Bush's original premise was false, and absent the WMD's or a clear link to terrorism or 9-11 or Al-Queda, he had NO JUST CAUSE for going into Iraq, and that HE STILL WOULD HAVE DONE SO WITHOUT A JUST CAUSE.

THAT IS THE POINT. THAT IS THE TOPIC. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH BUSH THAT MAKES HIM A POOR PRESIDENT, A POOR CIC, A POOR STATESMAN, AND A POOR DIPLOMAT.

At no point did Henry address THAT POINT. All he did was dance around and avoid the whole subject. It's like he's a lightweight in the ring with a heavy weight, and all he does is run around the ring in circles, staying out of reach, throwing jabs at the air, while I stand still in the center of the ring.

Get real!!