That's kind of interesting. You continue to claim that particular report is some kind of valid source in spite of the fact that the minority was totally excluded from drafting it, and you seem to be deliberately ignoring the first reports on the same subject from the same committee. Apparently you think now that Harry Reid is in charge it is a much better document. Who's playing partisan politics?

I have watched politics closely for several decades. I have posted on these boards since the month Slate came online. I think Nixon was a crazy, awful man, who not only deserved what he got from Watergate, but deserved even more for favoring price controls. Ford was, well, at best an empty suit and I hold no fondness for the man. Carter was a disaster. Reagan was a hero. Bush I was, as much as I hurt to say it, a liar ("Read my lips."). While I believe he was totally double crossed by the democrats on that deal, there is just no doubt he raised taxes after promising not to. I am fond of the man, nevertheless, because of how well he did in the arena of foreign policy and how kind and decent he appears to me to be in his daily life. But I cannot forget his greatest failing as much as I may admire him and love his son.

Bill Clinton ... I don't have the time, but you can probably assume what you will as to my opinion about him.

This President Bush? I admit, I'd take a bullet for him. Never met him; probably never will. How does he compare to Reagan? That's incredibly difficult for me to say. He certainly doesn't deliver a speech as well, and he has given more room to big government ideas than Reagan did, but in practice, given both of their challenges, I think President Bush has walked the absolute straight and narrow for eight years in office, with all that entails, in an era where the enemy wasn't as clear, and the challenges weren't as obvious. Both men are giants. Many who idolize Reagan as I do disagree with me about this President Bush. But I am allowed my opinion.

You accuse me of attempting to "play" partisan politics. I wonder what that means. It seems to imply I'm being less than candid, or somehow willing to cross boundaries of honesty and ethical discourse. I don't really know how to respond to that. Am I a liar? Apparently, by the new liberal progressive standards they seem to profess, I am. That's fine. What can I say? I have lied and I will lie again in my life. I'm not proud of it. I would like to say I never will ever tell another lie. But I know that's not true.

However, if you really wanted to see me "play" without boundaries I think you might just soil your white toga up there. ;-)