Before I get into my main point I want to diverge a moment and take issue with your phrasing here "...the winner could be the good guys, but it could equally well be Bush and Bin Laden." This would seem to imply that you see Bush and Bin Laden as two people/groups who are on the same side - i.e. they are both bad/evil/etc. That seems a bit extreme, even if you don't like Bush or his policies. One (Bin Laden) has ordered terrorist bombings, killings, etc of thousands of innocents, while the other (GWB) has been trying to protect the nation he lives in from the predatory ways of international criminals. Even if you think Bush is doing so poorly, ill-advisedly, etc, that hardly justifies creating moral equivalency between them. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but it seemed that way.

Back to my Subject Line... Although it is certainly already implicitly understood, I will momentarilly belabor the point that it is "the winner", which is not necessarily "the truth", which will shape the future. As such, the same applies to the past, and how the world has been shaped so far, resulting in our world today.

That being said, that does not mean I don't seek and desire "the Truth" on any/all subjects. However, what I view as the Truth on this issue in relation to GWB is not the same as what you view it as.

As far as critical thinking skills goes, you, I, and every other strong personality on the planet think that we do OK. One's self evaluation is a very difficult thing. Separating personal biases confirmed by someone else's statements from actual fact can be very difficult. As you stated, it's not impossible, but it requires that you read more widely and are well and widely grounded on a subject. A narrow source of info predisposes one to being misled/deceived. My point was that ONLY relying on government sources was too narrow to be accurate, and without less biased sources it is hard to do a thorough job of fact-finding.

I have no intention of being neutral, or posting neutral, but on the other hand posting in a "blindly loyal" or imflammatory manner will result in less of my message being heard and considered (whether accepted or not).

I'm a little unclear on what you mean in your paraphrase of me when you said "...both sides are biased and unreasonable...". Are you talking about the parties involved (GWB vs. anti-GWB) or the supporters of those 2 groups?

I don't agree with everything GWB has done, but for the most part I would say that I support him insofar as his actions agree with what I believe should be done.

I do generally think that the anti-GWB "group" and its supporters are ill-informed.

The only other thing I can think of is that you are referring to my comment on not commenting/debating on the details of these issues. By that I mean I am not bringing up for debate the various pieces of evidence that indicate (to me) that GWB is at least partially vindicated. A discussion to bring them forward might be enlightening, but in general there does not appear to be any desire to see or hear anything that might exhonorate GWB, only things that might indict him. I think that anyone truly seeking the truth will have already seen these pieces, and everyone else chooses/(already chose) to ignore or dismiss them. As such, such a debate would be pointless, and that is why I was trying to stay away from a debate that no one will win or concede, and would diverge from the original TLP.

While I enjoy debating, as it sharpens one's thoughts and challenges one's opinions on a subject, when it will affect or change neither of those, then it is a pointless waste of time.