Bush is arrogant, stubborn, and closed minded, but if the U.S. and Bush is so evil, and if Bush is Beelzebub, then Chavez must be very brave or very foolish to risk the wrath of George (not to mention the Democrats). After all, Chavez had better be careful, or George may start making a case that Chavez (and Venezuela) has WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

True, the U.S. started a war based on bad CIA intelligence, and the U.S. has some serious problems (primarily, growing corruption within an increasingly FOR-SALE government, controlled by elitists with vast wealth and power), and we have misbehaved, bullied, and exploited other nations. We have been bad, and the concern of allies (and former, alienated allies) is understandable. Like the old saying, power corrupts, and our power has corrupted us. But we are not evil. We're not all bad. After all, one measure of any nation, that is very hard to over-look, is how many people are trying to get into that nation, and how many are trying to get out of it.

However, while that may be the case at the moment, it may not be that way for much longer if slumbering voters continue to allow bought-and-paid-for, FOR-SALE, irresponsible incumbent politicians to sell us all out, threatening the future and security of the nation.

This good people - bad people is not a simple matter. Were the German civilians good or bad people for turning their heads and ears away from the bad and evil they saw, and rationalized as temporarily necessary for the greater good, during the Hitler regime?

Sometimes good people do bad things. Sometimes bad people do good things. It is far more productive and effective to define what are bad or evil acts and ask good people to avoid or halt them, than to ascribe those adjectives to groups of people themselves, I think.

Good point. To attribute qualities to an entire population (or nation) is rarely accurate. However, some individuals have exhibited a long pattern of behavior, that begins to leave little doubt.

You're right about the Germans. Many Germans believed Hitler was wrong, just as many Americans now believe that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, wrong to call it the "front on the war on terror", and wrong to say it is making us safer.

There is still a big difference between Bush and Hitler. Bush possibly (just barely, if at all) had a plausible reason (to invade Iraq), had WMD actually existed in Iraq.

But Hitler's actions were plain-and-simple, blatant, unjustified aggression against neighboring nations.

The question I have is: Did Bush really believe Iraq had WMD? Or did Bush know all along it was a weak case, actively tried to inflate the severity of the data, and decided to invade Iraq anyway? Because if Bush did lie, then he is not much better than Hitler. But, if Bush and the CIA were simply wrong, then Bush and the CIA are simply incompetent and criminally negligent since their incompetence led to an unjuistified war.

Either way, it was technically an unjustified aggression.

So, there is a valid argument that the U.S. may possibly be creating more terrorists with hatred of the U.S., by giving people true reasons to hate us.

Our governemt, congress, and CIA have all the information. They either misled Americans, or they were incompetent. Either way, American voters should now do their job, and at the very least, do not re-elect any of the irresponsible, incompetent, incumbent politicians that were the cause of this problem, of which the nation will be suffering the consequences for a very long time, not to mention the 2703 U.S. American troops that have already died, the 19,995 wounded U.S. troops, the 232 Coalition troop deaths, and the 48,000 Iraqis killed, and hundreds of thousans wounded.

All of that on flawed intelligence about WMD that did not exist.

The Constitution provides the Congress with immense power to subpoena the White House to testify, and many legal enforcement tools to force the White House to divulge the information Congress needs to insure the people's oversight of the Executive Branch. This includes the power of the purse to cut funding for agencies or offices of agency heads who refuse to divulge what the White House is doing. Other tools include contempt of Congress, obstruction of Congress, and all the laws making it a crime to lie to Congress oversight committees.

Yet, despite all this power, the Congress utterly and completely failed to investigate the evidence the White House touted as a basis for invading Iraq. Now, Congress is complicit in the Iraq debacle, and unwilling to take responsibility for its inaction.

These are some of the myriad reasons voters have to vote out incumbents in Congress on Nov. 7.

No doubt about it. Congress is complicit, and unaccountable.

Yes, one could fill volumes why voters should do the one simple thing they were supposed to be doing all along, always:

• Stop repeat offenders.


• Don't re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, incumbent politicians!

Not just this coming November election. Don't ever re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians, because they start to multiply like rabbits, the corruption spreads, and our pressing problems multiply, and then we have the massive problems we have now, growing in number and severity.

There will eventually be painful consequences for so much fiscal and moral irresponsibility.

And, perhaps that is as it should be. Voters should suffer the consequences of their own irresponsibility, by continually re-electing the very same irresponsible politicians, securing their cu$hy, coveted, incumbent seats for years (and decades). The sad part is that the ones that will suffer the most are the voters, themselves. The politicians have already amassed vast wealth and power; they have already got theirs, and they'll be fine. Maybe they will become high-paid lobbyists even if they're ever voted out of office. That sucks, but voters allowed it.