“My only question: When the British are done with Mr. Blair, can we have him?”
I’ve been saying the same thing for years. I am a fan of Clinton’s, but I would have _gleefully_ chucked him for Blair.

My question to Tony Blair's final response is "When is that?"

There is no such thing as total security. We can not alleviate every threat. We are in no more or less danger today then we were September 10, 2001. Anybody can load a u-haul with fertilizer and blow it up. Was it proper to deal with Afghanistan in the manner we did? I believe so. But it seems many Americans have forgotten WE ARE STILL THERE! The soldiers themselves feel forgotten. How many soldiers will we leave in Iraq? And when N. Korea is dealt with, how many do we send to Iran?

And the biggest question of all... HOW THE HELL DO WE PAY FOR IT? I just don't think tax cuts are the answer.

I hope that military man Colin Powell has the sense to not release confidential information that might in any way compromise the sources of that information. The most irritating thing about Clinton was the cavalier way his administration treated security. That includes not only national security; but this also includes the security of classified material as well. I cannot add anything to what Clinton’s detractors already stated. All Clintonistas, as Democrats are prone to do, practiced lax security compromising our most expensive, top-secret projects.

This includes the computer modeling for the stealth fighter; the wiring harnesses for the F-22 Raptor (Clinton allowed those to be manufactured in Mexico, NOT NEW Mexico); the entire Energy Department mess with Wen Ho Lee, and the release of IBM supercomputers to China as a payoff to a campaign supporter. Only four applications exist for supercomputers; three of them are martial.

We actually are not required to proffer any more information on Iraq. All the evidence is readily available inside Iraq once we invade. Everybody already knows about Iraq. Hussein’s non-compliance is legendary. He is simply enjoying a good laugh at the UN’s expense. The United Nations obviously cannot do its job without the hammer the United States military offers.

We offer that hammer and Europe balks. I would like to see how effective this organization is in the future without our military support. It would melt into irrelevance. Then what would socialist Europe do? Spending more than 1% of GDP for their own defense is verboten!

The real decisive factor for me in this whole controversy is Tony Blair himself. He would not stick his neck out and take the beating he is without solid proof of Saddam Hussein’s non-compliance. There IS solid evidence supporting Saddam’s ouster. The only fly in this ointment is that this evidence is unquestionably classified information. Democrats, as all liberals worldwide, use this incident to beat Bush senseless in the media; but it will not matter in the end. They will be the court jesters with this incident as they were in last November’s elections; Bush will come out ahead again; and the liberals will then play damage control covering their own foreign policy incompetence. This is as it should be.

I was always convinced of Saddam Hussein’s inextricable link to Al Qaeda. His hatred for the United States dictates that he will retaliate in any way possible for his 1991 humiliation. If Bush proves this, it will link Iraq’s totalitarian dictator to our enemies the totalitarian terrorists. Is this enough reason for us to oust that totalitarian dictator?

I just love Prime Minister Blair. His clear thinking, and rationale is exactly what the US needs to fight this war. Where was he in 2000 when truly we needed a Presidential candidate with a spine and brains? Does he have a twin American brother? He can keep our hot-headed, shoot-em-up western President leveled. It's true leadership from individuals like Clinton, and Blair that attempts to keep peace. I am also very pleased that Great Brittian have always been out allies. With their support, we may have a chance against Hussein. Bravo, Prime Minister Blair.... Take em out!

>>It's true leadership from individuals like Clinton

Deonna,

Using the two words "Clinton" and "leadership" in the same phrase is oxymoronic. Clinton and Gore never led in their entire lives. That is why Bush won.

Kevin,
I have been very quiet about Bush, despite the comments I have recently made regarding him. However, you are pushing me to talk about him. Where is the leadership, when you have to lie, and cheat your way into an office? I mean, has that family ever done anything decently and fair? As far as Gore is concerned, Yes, I agree that If he had been elected, his administration would not have been to strong. However, it would have been decent, and in order. As far as Clinton, Gore, and leadership? The three go together, and the works they have done, not only in the White House, but in their previous government jobs, speak highly for them. You really need to assess your thinking. Clinton and Gore get more accolades and recongnition, than Bush and Chenney. Oh, Forgot, If you count the countless times that Chenney has been rushed to the hospital, and the fact that Bush nearly choked to death on a pretzle..... yeah, that's leadership.

Deonna, I was going to reply to your post, but the complete lack of anything resembling actual reason prevented me from doing so. I don't agree with everything that Kevin says, but your response just, well, takes my breath away. Never mind...

Kevin, at least admit that Clinton faked out the GOP leadership by taking credit for their initiatives to reduce the scope of government in the late 90's. It was a classic case of "when being chased by a mob, your best move is to yell 'they're going that way, follow me!'" Heh.

I must say that Bush needs to release some sort of verifiable proof to bolster his case. Don't misunderstand me; I'm behind his policy, but he needs to do more than intone "we know..."

That's the damnable thing about democracies. Citizens have irritating expectations of being informed... Heh.

Me, I say if we get Blair we should get Thatcher too! :))