I don't care about the "Bush lied" crap - especially since it turns out to be crap. Especially when it comes from those like Michael Moore who wouldn't have supported the war anyway. I'm not interested in moral equivalency debates about putting people in plastic shredders vs. parading them around in women's underwear. Especially from those who find no problem in Amnesty International's ability to overlook any number of atrocities from other countries while finding volumes to write about when it comes to the US.

I am interested in knowing what those who find Bush more morally repugnant than Saddam Hussein think about the following article written by someone who is an admitted ABBS sufferer that believes Bush is an @$$hole. As they say - RTWT (read the whole thing).

Then, if you are so inclined, check out this from Victor Davis Hanson.

It seems to me that our nation would be more well served by giving the benefit of the doubt to those we disagree with than by ad hominem attacks, If we are lucky, Bush is wrong about the nature of the threat we face, if not we are lucky we have leadership that takes the threat seriously. But we don't know that we are out of the woods yet. I, for one, am willing to believe that based on the intelligence available to him, Bush is doing what he thinks is best for the country. And Kerry would do the same. Our job is to decide who has the better grasp of the issues facing us, which doesn't require character assassination and impugning of motives.