Here is what Time magazine has to say about the State of the Union speech:

"Yet the address George W. Bush gave on Jan. 28 was more consequential than
most because he was making a revolutionary case: why a nation that
traditionally didn't start fights should wage a pre-emptive war. As Bush
noted that night, "Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to
consider the state of the union. This year we gather in this chamber deeply
aware of decisive days that lie ahead."
Just how aware was Bush of the accuracy of what he was about to say? Deep in
his 5,400-word speech was a single sentence that had already been the
subject of considerable internal debate for nearly a year. It was a line
that had launched a dozen memos, several diplomatic tugs of war and some
mysterious, last-minute pencil editing. The line-"The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa"-wasn't the Bush team's strongest evidence for the case
that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. It was just the most controversial,
since most government experts familiar with the statement believed it to be
unsupportable.

Last week the White House finally admitted that Bush should have jettisoned
the claim. Designed to end a long-simmering controversy, the admission
instead sparked a bewildering four days of changing explanations and
unusually nasty finger pointing by the normally disciplined Bush team.

That performance raised its own questions, which went to the core of the
Administration's credibility: Where else did the U.S. stretch evidence to
generate public support for the war?

If so many doubted the uranium allegations, who inside the government kept
putting those allegations on the table? And did the CIA go far enough to
keep the bad intelligence out? "

Those are the questions now - "who inside the government kept putting those
allegations on the table?" and "Where else did the U.S. stretch evidence to
generate public support for the war? "

There is also the real question regarding what the decision process was that
led to the decision to go to war against Iraq. It certainly was not based on
any evidence we have been given, nor was is for any of the reasons we have
been given. So what really were the reasons and what really was the
evidence.

Is it true that Bush simply decided God had told him to take out Saddam? Has
our military taken over a 1000 injuries, nearly 200 deaths, sacrificed
businesses and time with their families simply because of a vision that
George Bush had? Is the only difference between George Bush and Osama bin
Laden the fact that Bush has access to a much larger armed force to fight
his religious war?

RR

> Is the only difference between George Bush and Osama bin
> Laden the fact that Bush has access to a much larger armed force to fight
> his religious war?
>
> RR
>
No, that is not the only difference. And your suggestion that it might be
would be laughably irresponsible if it weren't so frequently repeated. Since
it is repeated so often, thinking people have to refute it over and over
again.

-Bush is a Republican; bin Laden is a Terrorist.

This is not name-calling; it is a distinction between their political ideals
and methods.

Some consequences of this difference are that Bush works to minimize
civilian casualties, and bin Laden works to maximize them; Bush respects the
core principles of international law (though he thinks pre-emptive war
conforms to it, and there is no consensus on this), and bin Laden does not;
Bush's ideas about human rights are pluralistic -- rooted in the European
"Enlightenment", while bin Laden's are theocratic -- rooted, as my limited
historical knowledge leads me to conclude, in ancient Egyptian ruler/god
systems.

For kicks, I have given you "religious war" although for some reason Bush
does not attack the peaceful practitioners of the enemy's religion, and bin
Laden does.