Reply #61: Well, it wouldn't, by itself,

[forgethell]

lead me to one opinion or another. It certainly isn't evidence of any kind for or against election fraud. It is, I think ,evidence that Kerry didn't think there was fraud. Now that could be considered to be evidence, I guess, but very weak, really. Just my opinion.

I'm not prepared, at this time, to comment on Bush's motives for everything that he does. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that political considerations would play a part.

Just for the sake of argument (I know this will be as hard for you as it is for me), let's assume that Bush is not going to war for oil, or Daddy, or any of the other negative reasons that people have suggested. Let's assume he is doing this because he sincerely believes that what he is doing is for the national security.

One of the unfortunate aspects of war is that soldiers are 'expendable' in order to accomplish the mission. Another is that sometimes some people must be sacrificed in order to save more, later. Another is that fallible human beings make these decisions, and they could be wrong. Mr. Bush could have decided that the election of Mr. Kerry would seriously compromise the war effort that he felt was essential to the war effort, and made his strategy accordingly.

Again, I am certainly not prepared to say that this was the case. I just throw out the possibility. While I felt the Democrats got the shaft in 2000, I don't think that Bush is an extraordinarily evil man, as some others do. I simply disagree with him on a number of issues. So, I'm willing to cut him some slack while he is in office. That doesn't mean I can't oppose the policies that I am in disagreement with.