I don't think I'm as predictable as you, Rolo. You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to contemporary history. And except for your more civil manner, you write and think just like ol' Vermin Scum. {Gee, I wonder what happened to her -- is it mere coincidence Verm disappears when Rolo shows up?)I think my answers were very clear and understandable. No one else in this forum seems unable to understand them. The premise of your question, "Are you blaming Reagan and Bush for events that started under Clinton?" is like asking a man "When did you stop beating your wife?" and if the man protests that he's never beaten his wife, you accuse him of changing the subject. So, to naswer your question yet again, no, I don't blame Reagan-Bush for things that started under Clinton, I blame them for things that started under Reagan-Bush.What, specifically, in the article do you feel I haven't addressed? What, besides the change in North Korea's policy that accompanied its change in leadership, do you feel never existed under Reagan or Bush but immediately became a problem once that "anti-christ" Clinton took office?Isn't it amazing how this country survived those horrible, horrible Clinton years of peace and prosperity? Isn't it nice to have war and recession back under G.W. Bush? It's almost like his dadday's in the White House again!By the way, you wouldn't be a Great White fan, would you?