My hope is always to inspire some thoughtful conversation but I believe I played a part in reducing us to screaming bullshit at eachother. I apologize and will try to put more effort into giving a reasoned thoughtful response next time. I know we don't agree but we should be able to have a peaceful discussion about why.

I have not yet read the 9/11 Commission report so I don't have any comment at this time. I don't think that has anything to do with military record keeping though. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

As far as calling Bush a liar...I think I responded to that earlier when I said that I don't know and would not try to guess what was going through his head. I think that he was misled to tell you the truth. That seems to be the gist of what most insiders say. It could be true that he was making his decisions based on what was presented to him but what was presented to him was a lot of bad information and it was intentionally promoted to him that way. So, at this point I would not call Bush a liar just a real lousy leader. The second part of that would be that it is the job of people around the president to protect him from knowing certain things. That way if something turns bad he is free from prosecution. This is with any president not just Bush and presidents know this.

So certainly a case could be made for Bush being "honest" about what he personally said or did. Everybody else is meant to fall on their sword before he has to. Also, I don't think the commission was ever going to level hideous charges at Bush. They were only meant to try and look at what happened and most importantly make recommendations to prevent it from happening again. It would be a problem all the way around if they wrote anything that was intended to make the president look bad and I think they would take steps to avoid that at all costs. I don't have an issue with that.