Opinions vary!

You must be one of those name callers who Phil Barton referred to who cannot back up their views with substance. I have re read my reply and it makes perfect sense to me.

Kerry told the truth in 1971, with good motives and intentions. He stuck by his convictions even at personal expense (his discharge), he had no motive to aid the enemy, and it did not profit him in any way.

Ice called him a "murderer" for doing what the government sent him to Vietnam to do, but he considers Bush a patriot for sending more young Americans to do the same thing in Iraq that Kerry did in Vietnam.

What part of this do you not get?

Unnecessary. I have survived four years of this idiot, I'll survive four more, if necessary. In fact it may not be necessary, either way. Read on.

Also excerpted from "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips:

"In addition to the quadrennial presidential election, a second more remote means exists for removing a chief executive over a rising perception of war-related abuses. Professor Raoul Berger was trenchant in his 1973 classic Impeachment: : "In our own time, the impeachment of President Truman, apparently for his conduct of the Korean War, was suggested by its staff to the Republican high command. There have been reiterated demands for the impeachment of President Nixon, arising out of dissatisfaction with his program for disengagement from the war in Vietnam. President Kennedy concurred with Attorney General Robert Kennedy that if he had not moved to expel Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba at the time of the confrontation with Khrushchev, 'he would have been impeached.'"

"In the summer of 2003, as public unhappiness with apparent prewar deceit rose in the United States and Britain, voices on both sides of the Atlantic- lonely ones, to be sure- invoked this drastic remedy. John Dean, of onetime Watergate notoriety, opined that "if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked." In Britain, Labour MP Malcolm Savidge told a U.S. interviewer that should allegations prove true, "that would clearly be a more serious issue than even Watergate" and could "fit into the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors which we in Britian used to have as a basis for impeachment, and which, of course, you still have as a basis of impeachment." Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, an ex-Marine Major, and registered Republican, urged George W. Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress. Florida senator Robert Graham, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also touched vaguely on the possibility of impeachment."

So again, hope springs eternal, regardless of what happens on Tuesday or thereafter in courtrooms across America, or in the Capitol in January!