In Disappointed's letter accusing me of hypocrisy, the writer seems to have misunderstood my original gripe. I am not saying that it is somehow wrong to use a partisan organisation to bolster your arguments.

Indeed, it's perfectly fine to use any organisation provided you disclose that the organisation, whether left or right wing, is in fact, partisan. I believe that treats your readers fairly.

That was my complaint about Chandra Muzaffar's letter . As is clear to anyone who has read what I wrote concerning the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage etc, I clearly disclosed the fact that these were conservative, right-leaning organisations.

(Although, I will add in the case of the brutal videotape of the Saddam regime, I see no reason why anyone should complain. After all, a tape is a tape. It's a hard copy of facts irregardless of whether it was found by a left or right wing think-tank, right? Unlike reports and findings where you could reasonably claim politics and ideology were involved.)

In his letter, Disappointed also seems to have many of his facts concerning the uranium in Africa story wrong. I quote:

'Who had shamelessly fabricated the story that Iraq tried to buy uranium material in Niger, if not the Bush administration?

A CIA operative who produced findings to dismiss this lie had her identity wickedly exposed through deliberate leaks to the press. Yes, these people still continue to aver that there was an al-Qaeda-Saddam link, despite the 9/11 Commission findings.'

Either the writer has not been following the news, or he is being deliberately misleading. If he has followed this uranium story properly he will know this:

1) It was not a CIA operative (Valerie Plame) who produced the findings, but her husband, Joe Wilson who was sent to Africa to produce the findings. (factual error, I know, but still an error)

2) The story of uranium from Niger was not 'shamelessly fabricated' as the writer believes. This accusation has now been debunked since both the recent bipartisan US Senate Intelligence Committee report and the Butler Report have confirmed the US President George W Bush administration's claims that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium from Niger.

Indeed, the Butler Report found Bush's claim in his State of the Union address 'well-founded' and the Senate report said Wilson's findings actually backed the claim. Hence, Joe Wilson was found to have 'misled' the media when he came out with his false accusations.

3) The 9/11 Commission did not say there was no al-Qaeda-Saddam link, as the writer would have you believe. The Commission found no link regarding the Sept 11 attacks, but did not deny that there were links between al-Qaeda and Saddam.

The commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said there was little difference between their findings and the Bush administration's views on the links between al-Qaeda and Saddam.

As for the rest of Disappointed's letter, I will leave it to readers to judge its merits on their own. I will add this though - if I were to follow his arguments and assumptions correctly, the evil right- wing warmongers of Rumsfeld, Cheney and gang are out to manipulate the Bush administration to eventually dominate and control the world.

What will happen if a Democratic president is elected into the White House? Will these warmongers control the Democrats too? Or is it like an off-and-on switch where only Republicans need apply?

If so, that's not a very good plan is it? After all, there is every chance that Bush will not be in the White House come November.

Another reason people against the US like to bring up is the hypocrisy of US policies. 'The US helped Saddam before, they ignored Saddam's brutality against his own people and so on.' My answer is: shame on the US, but so what?

Does this mean the US should continue doing the wrong thing just to be consistent? Does this mean - as Disappointed pointed out - that because the US didn't help earlier during World War II, it shouldn't have eventually defeated Hitler and Japan?

Or because the police can't catch every criminal, it should free all criminals from prison? What this merely shows is that some people consider hypocrisy a greater crime than other real crimes.

I remain skeptical about claims that Bush is either out to control the world or invade countries for oil, greed or (insert your favorite conspiracy theory here). People who believe this have a naivety about how government works, especially in Washington.

If Bush were doing this for oil or for contracts for his oil buddies or for greed, or for control of the world etc., do you think he could actually say this to the people who make his policy work and the hundreds of policy-pushers? In other words, his government?

His plans would leak. Political opponents in the government would get the word out. Whistle blowers would come out of the woodwork.

In a town where word of President Clinton dropping his pants can get out, President Bush must either be a genius or have the luck of the devil to pull this off.

It can't be the former right? After all, many of the people who think Bush is bad, also think the president is a bozo. I guess it must be the latter then ... maybe the US is 'The Great Satan' after all.