>I didn't say Bin Laden - I said 'Terrorists'. Reagan and Clinton both
>made limited attacks on terrosists. My point was that someone said
>Clinton should have dealt with them. How? Invade afghanistan. Reagen
>should not have left afghanistan in the state it was after the cold war.
>Which is a major point for the terrorists. They felt we abandoned them.
>
>And I agree that Bush is now trying to take out Bin Laden. That is good,
>but I also agree with Kerry in that Iraq is a distraction from the real
>goal of destroying terrorists.
>
Well, at least we have some basis of agreement to go along with our disagreement.<g> My issue with Kerry is that he appears to be a pathological liar. I don't think he even knows he's giving different answers to the questions posed! I can't get past that. If he would at least stick to the same story, I would have more faith in him. As I've said before, trust is the cornerstone of any relationship. How do you deal with a man who says, "I'll never lie to you" when you know he's lying? A real conundrum, isn't it?