-=jd=- wrote:



Oh, it gets worse for the loser - I heard on the radio today that (S)Kerry
had worse grades than Bush while at Yale. It is believed that that is one
of the big reasons why he wouldn't release all of his records during the
campaign - he had plenty to hide...

So if the libs like to define Bush as a moron, then by their own
definition, would that not make (S)Kerry a sub-moron?


Not sure this has anything to do with any leader's or wannabe leader's
marks. I don't think, though you can correct me if you think I'm wrong,
that there would any difference between Kerry's approach to Uzbekistan or
other bad dictatorships than Bush's. This is not a political party issue,
it is a general country direction issue. You may be able to point out some
subtle differences, e.g., a particular dictator or despot being more
popular with one president or party than another, but the general issue
still remains. A democracy cannot support tyranny in another country for
very long. I'd rather see the Uzbeks free, paying taxes, importing and
exporting, and maybe offering tourism than what's going on presently.