Are you certain you know which forum you posted this on, Hobbs?

" Well, I voted for this President when most here didn't, but I still return and read... I really shouldn't be wasting my time here telling it like it is, but I was compelled to speak out."

I would go so far as to say all but ONE regular here DID vote for George W. Bush and has stated that often. Most here also share your support and admiration for him and his leadership during the current conflict in the middle east. He and Tony Blair have shown true leadership... the willingness to stand up and do what you know to be right, no matter what the polls say you should do.

The last President who also had that moral certainty in his actions was Ronald Reagan. The current President's father did not have that strength of character. He paid the price of betraying those who elected him as a result. His treachery and betrayal also saddled us with Clinton as did the arroagnce of the Repooblicrat leadership who thought the candidacy of their party is a union shop seniority prize.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, stood in the sunlight in Berlin and said to Soviet leader, Mikael Gorbachyev, "...take down this wall..." even when warned against speaking that line by the political "pundits."

JFK came close on occasion, but there were some things about his Presidency that wreaked of sleaziness. He did handle the Cuban Missle Crisis well, but he then sold out the Cuban freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs to whom he had promised support military support. They were slaughtered because of his perfidy.

Eisenhower ("Ike") was proof that this country could get along just fine without a President. He did little to distinguish himself and much to bring shame upon his tenure.

Those who doubt my commitment to my oft-stated political independence have obviously never seen my statements expressing my admiration of Harry S. Truman as a President. He was a man thrust into a position of greatness by circumstance.

Truman was never supposed to be President. The Democrats only ran him as a Vice Presidential candidate because they HAD to have one... then be damned if he didn't step into the breach left by the untimely death of FDR and claim his own place in history.

He ignored the "popular" thing to do the "right" thing and it didn't matter what the polls or professional politicos indicated he should have done. He brought the war in the Pacific to a crashing and immediate end with the courage it took to order the use of the nuclear genie... twice.

When North Korea invaded neighboring South Korea, Truman stood tall and told the Chinese communists to back off or pay the price. And, they did back down. Everything they did in support of PyonYong after his ultimatim to them was done secretly. They did not dare bait the tiger in his own cage. They knew he had the courage of his convictions.

Our troops went to Iraq for exactly the reason you stated, Ron... to end Hussein's regime. Whether Saddam is ever found, or if he was reduced to a blob of jello after eight thousand pounds of explosives provided the dinner mints for his meal and meeting, the IMPORTANT thing was the true mission... the return of Iraq to its people.

Despite all the lies about President Bush and his administration being motivated solely by a desire for Iraq's oil, he has acted in a way that proves those people to be exactly what they have been all along... bitter losers who have yet to accept the fact that he won in 2000 and their whiny airhead did not.

They are also still in painful denial over the 2002 midterm elections that set the message from voters in stone for BOTH PARTIES. Repoobs... here's your chance. Waste it and we will send you home in 2004. Dumbocans, STOP your obstructionism NOW! If you continue to follow the lead of the Nancy Pelosi wing of that group and the Tom Daschle negative posse, you will see a REAL blood- letting in 2004!

There are some things about parts of the Bush administration's programs that bother me greatly. We can discuss those in greater detail when the last American service man or woman in Iraq has to worry about being shot at or put in harm's way.

And, I did not get a chance to post in response to Honey's post because I wasn't here to do so before now. Now I have replied to her and you, Sir Ron.