@u-i: I don't think we're coming close at all. The question asked here is the question governments ask routinely. The US gov tried many times to take out Castro—for good reason—and failed. Is the US gov radical? I don't think so. Attempting to eliminate Castro was prudent.
There's a big difference between 1) hating those who don't subscribe to your views and wanting to destroy them en masse and 2) wishing the removal of a tumor that has an injurious effect on your government. I believe that if something had happened to remove Bush and Cheney from office between ~2003–2005, our country would be better off today. The best way to ensure an absence is to manufacture one.
I said in a previous post that I had never thought of Bush as someone I hated until SeeingRed mentioned it but that upon thinking about it I did hate him. I recant. I inaccurately described my feelings. I'm frustrated by his obtuseness but feel no enmity toward him. Maybe we'd get along if we met. Hunting buddies.
But he's not just a good ol' boy anymore. He's lead the country into a lose-lose situation. I believe that when a man becomes president, he becomes his country. Not to the extent that a king becomes his country, but still. It is natural and right for a body to remove that which causes it harm, even if the harmful element is of the body. You don't cuss a tumor or give it a low approval rating or impeach it; you ablate it.
@TS: Most men in this case means men unsuitable for the presidency. I'm not implying that most men are inferior to the president.
Einstein was smarter than me. I'll wager that he was smarter than you, too. It doesn't mean we want him as president. Each of us is suited for different tasks. Bush is inadequate as president. (And Kerry probably would've been more inadequate.)
No, wrong decisions don't make a person stupid. But continual failure to admit or recognize the wrongness of decisions does.
I didn't say that you did directly threaten anyone. All I said was to tread carefully.
^-^ ali m.