Chris Dowd... I find it remarkable that you could compare Clinton's "crimes" to those of Bush. For crying out loud, does a couple bombs on an aspirin factory compare to starting and getting clobbered in two wars and leaving the mess for everyone for years? It also would seem to me that on fiscal responsibility alone, Clinton makes Bush look like the worst president ever, which he passed so long ago that Warren G. Harding starts to look like Lincoln. It takes political courage to cut the deficit; it takes none to blow it sky high.

As I recall, few liberals ever liked Clinton all that much, and why would we? He was a moderate Republican, essentially. What liberal thing did he ever do? (admittedly, he chickened out of some..)

Finally, although I faintly recall that a "crazy militia member" did kind of blow up a building that time, Clinton was relentlessly hounded by everyone from the New York Times to Rush Limbaugh, and everything in between. Bush critics, on the other hand, barely existed in his first term, and in his second, he performed so horribly, and arrogantly, that everyone but your old pals the Freepers are now trying to wash off his stench.

The fact is, that Clinton governed so cautiously that all the hatred from the right was simply irrational. And Bush governed so divisively, and far to the right of his bait-and-switch promises, that not hating him is equally irrational. He is the most depised president we've ever had.

Deservedly so. I'm glad we at least agree about that.

Chris, I respect your breaking out of the righty pack, but I think that the way you lump all liberals together is a little misguided. The only reasons liberals defended Clinton is because he needed it. No president ever faced such an onslaught as he did. And I think you should give liberals a little credit; none of us have ever been such mindless followers as say, the recent Republican congress.

I would have to echo Will Rogers, when he said, "I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." It's still true.

Martin Gifford.... After I posted that letter, I went back and read your letters, and realized the error of my "wingnut welfare" comment. For that I apologize, sincerely. I was in error.

Perhaps you don't understand the term, wingnut welfare, though. There are tons of filthy rich people here who support the careers of right-wing mouthpieces and organs, and their heavily subsidized, coordinated messages turn up everywhere. You sounded like an unusually clever one.

However, I stand by the remainder of my arguments, and your highly defensive but dismally ineffective response proves my point.

Chris, I know a lot of Republicans who have abandoned their party, but the smartest ones did it during the Reagan era, because of the religious crap they were using to sell trickle down BS to the rubes. It's as simple as that. I grew up in a Republican family, but back in the day that did not mean that you trashed the environment, started wars, wasted money, and favored the rich to such an extent that the country literally started to go bankrupt. It also meant you weren't a racist. That was a Southern, or Archie Bunker thing.

It's a little different today.

I wish you weren't so combative; aside from the anti-gay thing you seem to have going, I think we agree on many issues.

And I only defended Clinton because I really did find the policies of his enemies offensive, and although they had lost fair and square, twice, because of their insane belief that they were right anyway, they attempted to derail democracy. Funny they did the same thing only worse, when they did get in power.

You were surprised, I wasn't.

Kitt and Jim... Thanks for the assist there. I was tied up, metaphorically speaking, unfortunately.

HRH... You're making me wish for a spleef about now, somewhat less metaphorically.

HRH... Compliment or insult? Closer to the former. Pass that baby around, though, mister.

War presidents, like war correspondents, share one defining characteristic. Death and destruction visited on others bathes them in glory and heroism. In their own minds.

The costs in blood and treasure matter not; why bother oneself with forgettable, dreary peace and prosperity when the battlefield makes that undistinguished man in the mirror a real Somebody.

Gordon, O'Hanlon, et al are in this now, and have persuaded themselves, anyway, that all dissenters, no matter how numerous, just don't understand.

Ignorance is bliss, they say, but in this case I think that the knowledge of their stunning naivete and the unfolding disaster they helped to cause make it necessary, even imperative, that they continue to believe.

I wouldn't want to trade places, much less egos, with them...

They will indeed go down in history, just not in the way they're hoping.

WT & Kitt... I consider anyone under 30 to be a teenager; that's special priveledge of the middle aged. Pubescence, is of course not entirely a physical thing. I know a few people still in its throes who receive the AARP Magazine.

Rollotomasi.... Earlier today, the site was moving at the approximate speed of continental drift; indeed, waiting for the next page to load, I think I watched a glacier zip across the park outside. The problem seems to have cleared up now, though.

C. Mosby, email me, cocktailhag@gmail.com and I'll fill you in on the bumper sticker thing.

"I hope for your sake that you do not have children or grandchildren, for they will live to curse your name." ---Aycharaych

You win the prize for the "most likely words to be greeted by crickets from the trolls" for today; maybe for the year.

My heartfelt congratulations; that reminder ought to be a one-stroke signature line for any words otherwise wasted on these addlepated asshats.