> But for a
>person to write such things, knowing the further
>misery that's sure to come if their tactical wishes
>are granted, is leaving behind the proper human
>perspective and putting on the robes of assumed deity.
Your premise here is that things will be better under not-Bush. But for whom would things be better and why? This you haven't explained. The only likely alternative may well be more competent, but a continuation of the present policies in more capable hands is not necessarily an improvement.
If the only alternatives are between an imperialist power in the hands of a weak-minded, incompetent and thoroughly discredited leadership (which will be unable to play achieve its aims) and the same imperialist power led by intelligent, credible and competent new faces, then give us the former. Any day.
>I can't accept this argument, built as it is upon an
>olympian foundation.
Trust me, it isn't a god-like calculation. A child could work it out.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas