And here I thought you regarded that armchair - at - a - distance psychoanalyzing as rather spurious hooey.

I feel no guilt at regarding the venomous virulence spewed at Clinton from day one and before as improper, nor do I feel any guilt for having held that a man's sex life is not worth $40 million of public investigation -- except maybe if he were the Pope -- Clinton didn't take a vow of chastity, and if you recall, the Anti-Clinton folk were, at first, publicly insisting that he MUST have divulged state secrets whilst in the throes of passion.

I despise Bush for other reasons, altho hostility toward those who flung such virulent feces at Clinton helped my disaffection.

I despise him because I see him as the consummate know-nothing schoolyard bully, kissing up and kicking down, and doing it all on his Daddy's money and his mommy's ferocity.

I despise him because he takes his power from the lowest of the low -- the Neo-Cromwellians who can not let anyone outside their own belief structure enjoy their lives as THEY see fit. Because he kisses up to the people who throw rocks at terrified 16-year-old girls going into Women's clinic for a pregnancy test, and then tells us oh how he disapproves of such behavior while having his minions encourage it.

I despise him because he let the man who planned the destruction of the twin towers and destroyed all those people's live (both in the towers and those whose lives were intertwined with them) get away while he used the attack for political purposes and to settle some imagined grudge against the man his own officials placed in Iraq.

Bewcause he brought about the deaths of thousands for his own political advantage (having said repeatedly after his dad lost re-election that he hadn't let the war last long enough) and for showing his Daddy "Hah -- look at what I can do better." And He didn't -- he did worse, perhaps because he is motivated by fear, anger, resentment, and seems to have no sense of proportion.

But this supercilious, arrogant, and dismissive attitude your correspondent seems to have toward people who have a different point of view is not making anything better.

Saintperle, you do a fine job of making Gerard's point. Your rhetoric is so over-blown it becomes a parady.

You go beyond criticism, beyond demonization, to the vast realms of paranoia. I sincerely hope you find your way back.

I don't necessarily agree with Gerard's analysis, but I don't blame BDS on Bush. Only those infected with it do that.

What Bill said.

Saintperle, I sincerely hope that you did not hear Rush today (11/02/05) because today he defined the mental state of the left exactly as exemplified by “Dingy Harry’s” actions yesterday and your rant here. You need help and I strongly suggest you get back on your medication quickly. If not medicated, please seek medical help – there are wonder drugs to get you through this and you will need to be medicated for the November 06 election results.

Saintperle:

Thanks to the man you hate, millions of Iraqis have been able to freely elect their own government, and to have a referendum on a constitution, events unprecedented in the Arab world. Thanks to the man you hate, women in Afghanistan have freedoms they were previously denied by religious fascists, and children (girls as well as boys) are attending schools that are trying to teach them something other than an 8th century interpretation of the Koran. Thanks to the man you hate, we are confronting people who don't just throw rocks, but who literally stone homosexuals and adulterers to death. The fact that liberals refuse to take the slightest iota of pleasure in these facts is just bizarre, and serves as evidence of an overwhelming and irrational personal hatred. This man is actually accomplishing all the things that you and your friends have always claimed to be in favor of.

As for Clinton, it should not need to be repeated, but it does, because your side always willfully ignores the crucial facts so as to attempt to trivialize what happened. The man was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones, a case that the Supreme Court had allowed to go forward. In such a lawsuit, quite clearly the plaintiff's attorneys can reasonably seek to ask people about the defendant's behavior with other women. The issue that Starr ended up investigating was not the President's sex life, as you put it, but whether he had suborned perjury and obstructed justice in that lawsuit. Yet again, another situation where liberals would normally have been aghast -- a powerful man, sued for sexual harassment, possibly getting other people to lie on his behalf (and possibly lying himself).

When you put all of this together, it's not unreasonable to surmise that perhaps indeed liberals are suffering quite a bit of cognitive dissonance since 1998. First, their partisanship forces them to have to defend a pretty loathsome cad (and to try to distort the facts of what it is he's actually being investigated for), and then they find someone from the other side of the spectrum actually doing something to accomplish all of the high-minded ideals they have always thought they had a monoply on.

Yeah, Saintperle, stop paradying the left and get some of Rush's medication! Remember women in Afghanistan briefly had some freedoms after we chased out the Taliban; it's not our fault that we were too busy in Iraq to make sure that turned out all right. And Clinton's purjury was so much worse than Bush's because it, well it just was. So there. You liberals never argue good.

Seems to me your claim of "Bush's Perjury" is not only well ahead of any facts in that regard, it doesn't even rise to the level of reality.

But perhaps it is all just a 'parady.'

Saintperle, "get a life" Alcades to ALL previous contributers.