Some Guy

Sting, Orton, Rude, and Hall were/are all above average in ring work and the latter two in mic skills. Mike Enos and Test actively sucked and were far below average. Same goes for Billy Gunn who was mentioned earlier. The rest I agree with.

These are paraphrased. Rick Rude on ECW TV: Will Mahoney beat the Sandman or will the Sandman lick Ballz? Austin on Raw in 97: One of these days Bret, I'll be walking through the cemetary and see your grave. And it will say "here lies Bret "The Hitman" Hart, the biggest piece of trash who ever lived. And he lies here today because Steve Austin whipped his pink and black ass" and that's the bottomline because Stone Cold said so! Austin to Faarooq on Raw in late 97: It's not a white thing, it's not a black thing, it's a me kicking your ass thing! Austin to Rock before WM 17: I roll down Know Your Role Blvd. make that turn on to Jabronie Drive, check into the Smackdown Hotel and then spead up Route 3:16 and burn that son of a bitch to the ground!

I agree, they killed the "deadman" gimmick in 1999 when Taker started with all the wierd human sacrifice shit and had that "He's only an actor playing an evil dead guy" deal around WM 15. Plus the never-ending feud with Austin and Kane sucked. One thing about the Invasion nobody has mentioned is DDP as the stalker and Taker beatign the ever livign shit out him every time he got near him. I don't think Page got a single punch in that Taker sold in any meaningful way. The whole thing made no sense. The stalker thing was totally out of character for DDP and the promo he cut about always wantign to be in "the show" (WWF) was sort of strange if he was supposed to be representing WCW. And as a result of this WCW wasn't seen a cohesive unit. Granted Page is nothing special in terms of drawing power or ring work but he was a three time WCW champ and had name regonition. They could easily have portrayed him as a equal to the WWF's top guys. Another thing that coincides with the WCW purchase that was a horrible decision (which both Austin and Ross admit in Austin's book) was the heel turn at WM 17. If you're WWF and you know that Rock is leaving to make a movie and have no other credible ME faces, and you know that you just bought WCW and were planning an invasion angle where WCW would be the defacto heels why would you turn you're top face heel? And then leading up to the Invasion PPV make the return of "the old Stone Cold" the focal point rather than the threat ofr WCW, what that threat was exaclty was sort of unclear because there was no "if WCW wins they get Raw" stipulation or anything. And then after having him turn face and destroy every WCW guy all by himself basically burying them, have him turn heel again and join WCW because Vince hurt his feelings when he hugged Kurt Angle. That was the reason given, Austin didn't join WCW because he thought they were better or the future of wrestlign he did it because Vince hugged Kurt. Austin then went on to bury the Alliance guys (Tazz being most notable "Unless Booker T got real fat and real short, you ain't Booker T" and then he whipped the shit out of Tazz). The whole focal point went from WCW vs WWF to Austin vs Vince again. Then you have Booker T job clean to Rock and then have Rock beat both Booker and Shane cleanly in a handicap match at the next PPV, but they never put Booker on any level that would indicate that he should have a chance in hell. Portraying him as a Rock wannabe was just stupid. One really sits back and wonders how anybody could think that this shit was going to draw money. The whole thing makes no sense.

My personal hatred for the sport since I was in elementary school notwithstanding (I have no use for all that fucking running and kicking, I prefer using my hands), I don't think Soccer will ever be popular in AMerica because it's rather boring, wasn't invented here, and it's a girl's sport. In my town, which is a "soccer town", soccer is still conseidered to be a sport for girls or guys who aren't big or tough enough to play football.

Fenway Park certainly isn't an excuse for Pedro's HR rate. It increased because of Martinez. Fenway does allow less home runs than the average park. But Shea Stadium allows even less home runs than Fenway. The point is that Martinez's home run rate should decrease in Shea Stadium. True enough, but that doesn't mean that he isn't striking out fewer batters and giving up more hits and BB per 9 ip than he has been. Gammons had the stats in his Pedro column. Putting more balls in play and allowing more baserunners is not a good sign. Plus pitching to Piazza (who is a horrible catcher, especiall when compared to Varitek), dealing with the aditional stressers of NY, and the fact that he has a shoulder injury won't make him better than he was in the last year and certainly won't allow him to recapture the off-the-charts abilities he had in his prime. Keep in mind that we're talking about a 33 year old guy who is past his prime, well past his prime. Since the shoulder injury he has barely sniffed his previous level of greatness. He's just not the stopper or the dominater that carried the Sox to the post season in 98 and 99 and kept them in the hunt in 2000 and 01. He wasn't even the ace of the staff in 2004, a 37 year old guy with a gimpy ankle was. As much as it may sound like sour grapes coming from a Red Sox fan, it really isn't. If I were Theo and the Trio I wouldn't have committed to 4 years either and would have been just as relucant to give him 3 as they were. But Pedro is no longer Boston's cross to bear anymore. Noe he's NY's whipping boy when the team finishes fourth in the NL east again.

Trot Nixon? Johnny Damon? Doug Mirabelli? Are all still with the team, Damon and Mirabelli being aquired by the Duke and Nixon being a Lou Gorman draft pick. Both Nixon and Mirabelli were resigned and Damon (despite the trade rumors last year, won't be traded this year most likely). If you look at the successful players who the new Sox ownership has traded, tried to trade, or let go to free agency you have three. Manny, Nomar, and Pedro. Manny was a money issue and he said many times that he wanted to play for the Yankees and didn't really care for Boston, Nomar was offered $16 million over three years and turned it down, Pedro had his $17.5 million dollar option picked up at his public behest a full 7 months before it had to be done and showed little gratitude, he was offered a ton of money to stay and choose to take more. To claim that Henry wants nothing to do with players aquired prior to his ownership may be true, but he has not acted in that way. If he really wanted Manny out of town he'd have given Texas the money and gotten A-Rod, if he really wanted Pedro out of town he never would have paid him $17.5 million this season and then offered him $14 million a year for 3 years, if he really wanted Nomar out of town because he was not aquired by his ownership group then he never would have offered him such a huge contract. Nomar is gone because he wanted to be gone, Pedro is gone because he wanted to be gone. That's that. The Henry group is obviously doing something right, they did bring a WS to Boston. I agree with the Sox on this one, despite being upset to Pedro go, offering a guy who has attitude and arm problems a four year contract is not a particularilly good idea, especially at that type of money. If Pedro gets hurt and has to retire the Mets still have to pay him and they won't get a very good issurance policy on that contract because everybody knows that Pedro is already injured and will not have surgery because he is scared to end up like his brother. Al, you said that the big problem with Pedro is that he gave up 26 hrs, or more than he had given up in the last three seasons combined. But excused that to some degree by calling Fenway a hitter's park (which it is, however it is not really a HR park, this was one of the factors that Schilling mentioned as a reason for coming to Boston). Pedro pitched in Boston each of the four seasons, so using the park as an excuse for him allowing that many hrs is not a valid argument. He also walked and hit more batters than he has in years and struck out fewer. he's not the same guy who went 24-3, struck out 313, and pitched several shutouts in 1999, while making less money then he was offered by the Sox or the Mets. I just don't see how this deal makes sense for the Mets or how it really did for Boston. Too much money for too much risk and potenially little reward. I could be wrong and Pedro might find his 95 mph gas and tighten up his curve and change again, but at 33 years old and after injury, I doubt it.

When one plans to go off on some "self-rigteous" tangent about something, having correct spelling is often a good idea. Anyway, first I'd like to say that I think the main goal of the liberals isn't to have one, all-inclusive group... instead I believe its to do away with the idea of a group. Its not a "big tent" my friend, its "no tent." Macy's can do whatever the hell they want, if they want to set up a Nativity scene in their lady's undergarments section, they can do that. Macy's is a private business, and they can decorate however they please. If they're going to make this move, I'm sure theres some sort of economic incentive, or at least the prospect of one, waiting in the wings. As far as public institutions go, when the matter is religious, the lowest common denominator sets the pace. If nobody complained, a giant driedal could be set up on top of the Washington Monument. I think its petty to complain about whether or not a school should have Holiday decorations up, but if one person cares, then it becomes an issue. The seperation of Church and State is an idea that the country is strongly rooted in, and unfortunately, you have to take the good with the bad. As far as Christmas being a relgious holiday anymore, I have to side with the secular camp. There are plenty of people who still attend church, and celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ, but the majority is families like mine. We're Jewish, but we still get a tree and pass out presents on Christmas morning, because now its about family and friends, and coming together to exchange gifts, eat a big dinner and spend some quality time with your loved-ones. As far as I'm concerned, its a far more logical reason than some dead guy's birthday. My bad about the typo. But anyways... First off, I never said anything about Macy's right to decorate their store anyway they see fit. I don't care. I was arguing about the fact that such a small minority of people in this country hold so much power over others. I think it's wrong in this case that about 15% of the population can control whether the other 85% can publically celebrate their holiday. I don't recall too many stories about Kwanza decorations being protested, this is for the most part a one way street where anti-Christians are trying to suppress religious freedom. I am not a Christian and I don't believe in God. I do however believe in people's rights to be free to express their's. I wouldn't have anymore problem with a dradel being put on top of the Washington Monument then I would a X-Mas tree or whatever. The only problem I'd have with it is if my tax money went to pay for it. The "Big tent" phrase is one that is directly pulled from Democrat talking points and I think it's a bunch of shit. I do agree with your point that the Democrats don't want an all inclusive group. If we had one in this country they'd go out of business. It is not in the Dems best interests to do away with divisions in society. That is what they run for election based on, they run on a divisive ticket of race, religion, and class warfare. On one hand you seem to be arguing that people shoudl be able to do what they want but on the other they just can't do it publically. I think that students shoudl be allowed to decorate their schools and citezens their town common or whatever with religious holiday decorations, regardless of what it may be. That would be freedom, what is being argued (primarilly by the left) is suppression of religious freedom. Separation of shurch and state is intended to prevent the government from promoting a given religion, if all are allowed representation then there is no conflict. Being allowed representation is different from having though. By that I mean it is entirely possible for a school to have no one who celebrates Kwanza in it(I'd be willing to bet that my high school didn't have any, but we did have Kwanza signs [put up by the multi-cultural club] and were not allowed X-Mas decorations). And furthermore destroying positive holiday signs and decorations should not be tolerated.

We've gone from a tyrany of the majority to a tyrany of the minority on the Christmas deal in America. And there is no compromise that either side seems willing to make. I have no problem with X-Mas decorations, Kwanza decorations, or any other holiday's decortaions being put up in public. I just don't care. People are supposed to be free to worship whatever or whoever they do or don't want to. These whack jobs who feel it is their moral mission to control everyone else's lives because they are offended by something should be lined up and shot. I;m sick and fucking tired about hearing how "inclusive" the Left is and about their "big tent" because it's a bunch of horseshit. There is nothing inclusive about banning X-Mas decorations. Being inclusive would allowing those and other decorations to be put up. What you have here is a handful of resentful biggots who can't handle the fact that their holiday is not number one and/or want to pretend that X-Mas doesn't exist. My advice to them is to stop obstructing every fucking thing that you don't like, cut out the rigteous indignation routine and go on with your lives. You'll be a whole lot happier that way. Running around and being upset all the time is not a good way to have a happy life, that is, I suppose unless you truely enjoy bothering people and forcing your will upon them.

Breaking baseball rules, and breaking the law are two different things. If breaking the law is cheating in baseball, then let's exclude Willie Mays and Hank Aaron from the record books for taking recreational drugs. Hell, why not ban Babe Ruth for drinking during prohibition? Recreational drugs, if anything would hinder an althletes ability to perform. Steroids would help a player's ability to perform. You are comparing two totally different things. Otis Nixon, Strawberry, and Doc Gooden all saw their careers and reputations take a huge hit when they fell into recreational drugs. Bonds saw his career soar even higher when he began taking steroids. I have a friend who took steriods for about 6 months. He gained about 30 lbs of muscle mass, which would otherwise be impossible without chemical enhancement and he was 22 at the time. Barry Bonds packed on that amount or more and he did it in his mid to late 30s. True, but he was always a great player who outperformed most of his peers. Now he's a great player who felt it necessary to cheat to become even better. Whether it was greed or ego or whatever, it still doens't change the fact that he cheated. And this has what to do with the argument at hand? One cannot excuse someone's cheating by pointing out another's. They and everyone else who took steroids were all wrong and put themselves ahead of the game that provided them with millions and betrayed the fans who cheered them on. Some of us are unwilling to compromise our morality because a member of our team is a cheater. If a member of the Red Sox was exposed as a cheater, I would feel cheated. I would be leading the charge to get his ass the fuck out of town. I have no use for it. Jeremy Giambi, admitted to cheating while he was a member of the team. I used to think that he was just a poor player, who was grossly over-rated by the sabermetricians. Now I think that he is a poor player, who was grossly over-rated by the sabermatricians who cheated and still sucked. I;m glad that he was dumped after the 2003 season and now that I know he is a cheater I hope he never gets another AB in the Majors. I wouldn't care if it was Manny, Ortis, or whoever else. If they cheated they should be punished.\ So far you haven't provided one reasonable defense for Bond's, the Giambi's, or whoever else's actions. Bonds already had the ability to make contact with most pitches, now he has the ability to hit those pitches out of the ballpark. Steroids provide strengh and speed. Strengh and bat speed are what cause balls to travel farther. The argument that steroids don't help make contact is false because it would increase bat speed and as such make it easier to catch up to a fastball or wait longer on a breaking ball. The aruement that steroids don't help with hand-eye coordination is true but inconsequential to the debate at hand. No one argued that Bonds couldn't make contact before he took steriods, what is being argued is that he could not hit 73 HRs before he took them. Coming up with excuses, that are unrelated to the debate is pretty foolish. You seem to be grasping at straws to defend someone who cheated. That I cannot understand.

Being legally perscribed drugs by a doctor to help recover from injury/surgery is slightly different from purchasing and taking illegal drugs from a personal trainer in order to help you hit more home runs. For some reason I didn't think that I need to clarify that in my prior post. the fact that you point that out (apparently without any hint of irony) further erodes my faith in the Balco boy's rumpswabs. Just to make it a little more clear I'll repeat it slowly. C-h-e-a-t-i-n-g i-s w-r-o-n-g. B-o-n-d-s c-h-e-a-t-e-d.

So, your supporting Max Kellerman's argument that is in essence: "Since other people have cheated in the past and didn't get caught/punished for it, it is therefore unfair to pick on someone who is cheating in the present." Umm.... This is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's like saying, "Since OJ Simpson wasn't convicted of murdering his wife then Scott Peterson shouldn't have been either. Excusing someone's actions based on the premise that it isn't really wrong because other people have done it is really weak. Barry Bonds cheated. Period. End of discussion. He and others have done a huge diservice for the game of baseball, the game that made him rich, the game that made him famous. But he doesn't care about that. He only cares about himself. He's a typical self indulgent, ego-maniacal athlete. I actually beleive that he truly feels that he is telling the truth, though. I think he has deluded himself into believing his own bullshit. He, the Giambi's, Sosa, McGwire, and whoever else may have cheated have forever stained the very thing that that they cheated to establish and that is their legacies and their reputations. As far as people saying, "well it wasn't illegal in baseball when these guys were doing it": This is another foolish point. Takign steriods is against the law. Last I checked the laws of America and her states trump MLB rules. These men were not only cheating, they were breaking the law (rather brazenly in some cases). But, I suppose that since MLB didn't have "the clear" on it's banned susbstance list then it was OK to take it. Hell, to listen to some of you it almost sounds like you feel that Bud Selig bent these guys over and stuck a needle up their asses himself. I hope that Bonds, the Giambi's, and whoever else turns up is suspended formt eh game for life. It's time for baseball to take an unwavering stand and cut this shit out.

Where is the place? Providence?

Well 60 hours a week for $331.79 after taxes to make sandwiches (for a family business when you're not a member of the family and have to deal with all their bullshit and your bosses refusal to accept that it is 2004 and not 1974) when you have two degrees isn't really very good employment. Combine that with dealing with my girlfriend of two years breaking up with me for whatever reason she decides it was on any given day and I've had a lot of shit to put up with and it time to move on. I'm sort of re-organizing my life right now. This is probably a cameo appearance,to be followed, no doubt by others over time. I've pretty much lost interest in wrestling (I can't really seem to find much reason to watch a horrible product. And that's saying something for a guy whose been a fan for 15 years or so) and the political debates tend to bore me. It's the same arguments over and over. What are you doing at "the wrestling place"?

I've been pretty busy. Working 60 hours a week and such. But that shit stops Dec. 23, because I fucking quit! And I've never been happier to have quit anything (besides drugs) in my life. How's life, Zack? I noticed that AS got banned and CWM doesn't seem to be around (unless he changed his name or something.)

So, am I a Fall of Haimer? Or do I have to vote myself in? Because if the latter is true then someone is getting a lot of PMs. I need love and it doesn't matter if it has to come from me.

So, the kid had a knife and presumably the girl had burned hair. If hte little son of a bitch had a lighter or matches then that is more than enougg circumstantial evidence to suspend him and have criminal charges pressed. I could understand sending the girl home for the day but for the rest of the year? That's nuts. What the fuck does "don't worry about the tests" mean anyway?

I was born in 1981 and remember watchign the news with my dad and always liking the President. As it has been said in this thread he was impossible to dislike. The man was so affable and charismatic that one couldn't help but feel close to him, even though you'd never met him. As I've gotten olfer my adimiration for him has increased. He was a great man and a great president, the 3rd best ever by my count (behind Lincoln and Washington). I have two DVDs dedicated to Reagan (one being all snippets of his most famous speeched and the other an indepth biography. I still love the "Challenger" speech that was quouted earlier and his first inaugural, that may or may not still be in my sig (I've forgotten if I changed it). But I prefer the bio DVD, there are tons of people verbally felating the man (I mean that in a good way), but my favorite story was when he got shot. The bullet hit the car first and spun down the side, cauing it to round out and sharpen like a blade and then hit him. He was rushed tot he hospital and demanded that he walk in under his own power, which he did in all his presidential glory and then collasped from the pain when he got through the door and away from the cameras. This told me all I needed to know about the man. He was such a believer in strength in the face of adversity that he felt he had to demotrate it to the American people and the world. To the person who asked I believe his last appearnce was at the '92 GOP convention, where he took a shot at Clinton, "I knew Thomas Jefferson, and you are no Thomas Jefferson." In 94 they had the big tribute to him, where Nancy came out gave a speech. I some ways I'm actually relieved that his and his family's suffering has ended and in some ways I feel that it had gone on too long. There was much consternation during one of his campaigns when he was here, in MA and help up a beer and toasted a group of people. Here's a toast to you, Mr. President. You helped shape my life with the values that you extolled and helped inspire me to try to reach happiness. Thank you.

I am number 447, 448 is not a winner, and 449 nobody remembers.

Wrong Pres, it was Carter who let them out. What they should have done was just fix the places up and keep the lonnies in there, but that wasn't compasionate enough for the libs, so they let them live on the street instead. You are corect in that the vast majority of bums are crazy, achoholics, drug adicts, or any combonation of the three. There are very few of these "invisible homeless" or homeless families (I have never heard of a husband, wife, and child who were homeless) that the left loves to drone on about.

I misread the post. Teh guy originally complaiming was from DR. I assumed they were the same person (didn't bother to check the names) and only saw the pesos to dollars thing. My bad.

Yes it was successful. But it is NOT a documentary. I was thinking the same thing. I might go out and rent the fucking thing just to see the thing after I've read so much about it. My sister watched it and started telluing me about it and after I told of several things that were not true or misrepresentations she gave me the typical liberal response that it was the the point that it made that was important. To which I replied, "but if it's not true doesn't that make any "point" moot? Moore is a liar and a polemicist. It is really no suprise that he lied about Disney's deal with him, he has apparently lied throughout all of his movies. I've always wondered why people feel the need to lie about things in order to get peopel to agree with them, rather than realizing that if they need to lie about it, chances are that it doens't need to be changed.

LOL. The Bush Doctrine could be what causes this country to be stuck in endless battle for 50+ years. Going after the guys that bloodied our noses is fine, but when he went into Iraq he pretty much made the US a player in Middle East affairs, which is the most brutal and most unforgiving political scene on the planet. What we need for a democratic Middle East first is a President that might not be loved universally, but is mostly liked by those in America outside of the close party circles. Heck, even *I* can say nice things about Reagan, even if I disagreed with how he handled this or that. The second thing is that we need a President who's honest, which is going to be hard to find with these constant races between the two guys who pander the most out of any particular group. Reagan won because he said he'd put an end to the whole thing, and he did. AFAIC, Bush is Evil Mirror Universe Reagan. Ronnie would let you know what he's going to do, how much he's going to need for it, and then go do it. Bush keeps secrets, told us he was going after Al-Qaeda and wound up in Iraq, and keeps escalating the cost as things deviate more and more away from the plan. Let's not even compare spending records. Hah. I did say that his policies MAY lead to greatness, I didn't say that they would, because I didn;t want to start a different debate(for once). As much as I love Reagan, he didn't win (the first time) because much fo anything that he said, he won because Jimmy Carter was a bumbling idiot when it came to being President. Carter's apporval ratings dropped lower than Nixon's ever did. Just about anyone the GOP threw up there would have beaten Carter. Raegan became great because of the things he did and said. The costs thing was Reagan forcing the Soviets to keep up with our military spending, which he knew they couldn't do for very long. That is very different from what Bush is doing now. In fairness, I think the president believed that there al Queda was in Iraq. I said the examples were different and you are retorting as though I said they were the same or was defending Bush. I was merely stating things as I see them. Had a democrat started this or any other thing, I'd say something similar. History judges people differently, but it is often predicible (given hypothetical situations of what will or won't happen) and occasionally logical. I gave multiple examples of what circumstances Bush would be judged great or poor in the future. It is really impossible to say, while putting partisanship aside how history will judge him because the war is not over. If you asked just about anyone after 9/11 they'd have said that Bush was great and would go down in history as a great president and would cruise to victory in 2004, ask them now and see what they say. Things change. Look at this quote from Naibus: That's quite possible assumming that the ship was/is sinking and that Bush did not right it himself.

Well, the Cold War ended under Bush 41. It was Reagan who really turned up the heat on the Commies and he gets the credit from the right. Gorbachev gets the credit from his fellow left wingers, although in truth he fucked up and caused the downfall of the USSR. When he let Germany go without a fight, he though the his people who think he was nice and would continue to live under tyranny; he was wrong. And the Soviet Union was doomed to fail from the start, any socialist country is. America's Cold War policies, the (predictably failing) Soviet economy, Gorbachev's naivite(SP?), and Reagan forcing them to spend themselves to death, caused the end of the Cold War. Reagan was in essence the closer who came out throwing heat, FDR the starting pitcher and everybody else the middle relief. Bush got virtually no credit because everybody with half a brain realized it was just something that happened on his watch, not something he had done much to cause. The hypothetical that SoCal threw out is different in that Bush 43 started the war and has implemented policies (the Bush Doctrine and such) that may very well lead to a democratic Middle East. If those policies are followed and the Middle East is righted then Bush should get the credit, not the guy who is there when it happens. This is off topic but I thought it was funny, my girlfriend just called me and told me the story. My girlfried lived in Israel at one point (by way of Russia) and her father, who served in the Soveit military (by force) avoided Israel's military by showing up, uncalled upon at the drafting office and asking why he ahdn't been called, demanding a gun so that he could go out and kill Arabs and then jumping on a table and making gun noises while pretending to shoot people. They thought he was nuts and told him to go home. It's funnier if you know the guy, he's 6'2" and 220lbs or so.

Does a "vehicle" belong in a crosswalk? Were you walking the bike or riding it? If you were riding it, di you have the right of way? Seems to me that you bikers want to regonized as both vehicles and pedestrians. BTW, I've been hit by a car twice while riding a bike (I was too young to drive). The first was my fault, I crossed the street on an angle and the woman couldn't see me when she turned onto the street. The second was whole I was riding on the sidewalk and someone backed out of a driveway into me. I, nor the bike were hurt in either. Rather than getting mad at the people who hit me, I realized that I did not belong on the road on a bike. Because they are not safe when you're up against an automobile. And no, I was certainlynot wearing spandex. To whoever posted the pictures of the Pres, he was not on a bike, he was tryign out one of those two-wheel electric things that Justin Timberlake was riding around on at the MTV awards. They are ghey, but he was playing around. I agree with Jobber on this one. It is misleading. If the ad said that Kerry voted for tax increases on gas that add up to 50 cents, it would be more acurate. The way it is said it seems as though he voted for one massive tax hike. I think the truth is actually better in this case (well the truth is better in every case, but you know what I mean), they could easily portray Kerry as a guy hell bent on raising gas taxes, that's better than one vote. One vote could be an aberation, multiple votes are not.

Well, considering it'll take at least 20-30 years to straighten the whole place out, Bush should get the credit. A few generations will have to pass before the vast majority of the country embraces freedom and democracy. Look at our country for an example. It took over 100 years for a substanial amount of our population though that slavery was a bad idea and then another hundred for them to decide that segregation was not such a good one either. Installing a democracy can be done in months, changing the way people think takes years. If Bush's game plan is tha one that is followed, then he deserves the credit. If his plan fails and another's works, that person deserves most of the credit, while Bush would get credit for getting the ball rolling. However if Iraq is s success 20 years from now and more Islamo-facist dictatorships fall, then Bush should get virtually all of the credit. It will be he, whose actions started changing the world for the better.