NationStates Jolt Archive

i am a non partisan.

but you have to feel bad for the "anybody but bush" people cause kerry is screwing up.big time. latest is he is in the works of hiring a couple of clinton advisors to help his campain. which mean he will be changing his positions again. That drives me nuts. at least bush stands behind everything he does right/wrong.

with sept 11th coming up and the debates(which bush has never lost one on any level.) i do and and i am sure many anybody but bush supporters wish the dems had chosen dean or somebody who can "stick to their guns"

am i wrong?

Hey i didnt want to vote for bush either but kerry left me no choice.

1) clinton won
2) your just as stupid as the "any one but bush people" for whining about this
3) only stupid people think kerry flip flops
4) sept 11 is not a holiday
5) capitalizing on a national tragedy SHOULDNT look good for bush

stop trying to bullshit yourself off as a moderate, anyone with half a brain can analyze your post and see you are a bush supporter trying to sneak in more lies and bullshit to convince any stupid person left to believe you

I'll be honest!

I'm a Republican and I wish the Democratic party chose someone else. To me Lieberman would've been the best option.

Though I am a Republican, I as leaning towards Lieberman for President. However, Kerry got the nod. After listening to Kerry, he has not said a thing about How he will do what he promises. He's mentioned what he wants to do but never HOW he will go about doing what he promises to do.

To me this is bad policy and it could cost him in the end. The debates is where he has to shine but listening to him, I don't give him a chance of winning. If he does, it'll be a surprise. People say that Bush cant talk and that he is a bad debator. Ask Gore about this. He lost the first 2 debates to Bush and Barely tied the third one.

I don't like either Kerry, Bush, or Nader

1) clinton won
2) your just as stupid as the "any one but bush people" for whining about this
3) only stupid people think kerry flip flops
4) sept 11 is not a holiday
5) capitalizing on a national tragedy SHOULDNT look good for bush

1. Yes Clinton won but Gore was tainted by Clinton! Hillary wants to run in 2008. If Kerry is elected, that won't happen.
2. You should never resort to insults if your going to make a point. It makes you unintelligent and it could invalidate your arguements. (Tip for the future)
3. Kerry has flipped flopped and I know I am not stupid. If I was stupid, I wouldn't be aiming for a career in Meteorology here at the University I attend.
4. Technically your right it is not a holiday but he/she never mentioned it ws a holiday. All he/she said was that it was coming up.
5. In that case then FDR shouldn't have capitalized on December 7th since that was a tragedy. We still remember December 7, 1941 and I can bet that we'll remember 9/11 the same way.

stop trying to bullshit yourself off as a moderate, anyone with half a brain can analyze your post and see you are a bush supporter trying to sneak in more lies and bullshit to convince any stupid person left to believe you

Any person with a brain can see that you are unintelligent if you continue to call people stupid. Just because they don't agree with your ideology DOES NOT make them stupid. You should listen to the other side and here what they have to say and research what they say. You maybe surprised at just how intelligent they are.

I don't like either Kerry, Bush, or Nader


i think that is the feeling of most americans. and the most common veiw at this point is "the lesseer of 3 evils" it shouldnt be that way. we are way to civilized for that.
yet...what can we do about it?

at least bush stands behind everything he does right/wrong.

People keep saying that like it's a good thing! If the position you took has since become indisputably wrong, changing your mind about it is a smart decision!!

3. Kerry has flipped flopped and I know I am not stupid. If I was stupid, I wouldn't be aiming for a career in Meteorology here at the University I attend.

(a) I have yet to see a single "flip-flop" that was a true change in policy without an explanation from Kerry. Bush, on the other hand...

By the way, good luck in Meteorolgy, just don't ever try to report anything that Bush doesn't like. After all, the environment, weather, body, whatever can only be reported to do what Bush thinks it should do.

5. In that case then FDR shouldn't have capitalized on December 7th since that was a tragedy. We still remember December 7, 1941 and I can bet that we'll remember 9/11 the same way.

Did FDR exploit images of dead bodies without the family's permission in order to win an election? Did FDR go and attack Iraq and say "It's because of the Japanese attacking!" Did FDR purposefully keep the US and Congress in a state of terror to push legislation through? ((We won't talk about how he actually *did* push legislation through, but that was not it)).

People keep saying that like it's a good thing! If the position you took has since become indisputably wrong, changing your mind about it is a smart decision!!

Nope, didn't you know? That's called flip-flopping and it is baaaaaaaaaaaaad!

(a) I have yet to see a single "flip-flop" that was a true change in policy without an explanation from Kerry. Bush, on the other hand...

Kerry has flipped flopped. Give me a break. I guess people don't listen to TV anymore. "Dont vote for the war if your going to vote against funding it" Remember that quote? I know I do. Guess what. He voted FOR the war then voted AGAINST funding it! Also he went from supporting the war to being against it then goes back to supporting it. I wish he makes up his mind on this issue.

By the way, good luck in Meteorolgy, just don't ever try to report anything that Bush doesn't like. After all, the environment, weather, body, whatever can only be reported to do what Bush thinks it should do.

Ok the bush crack was uncounted for and will get ignored. Thanks for the wishes btw. I know I need it. The Weather body is NWS, NSSL, NHC, Storms Prediction center, all fall under the umbrella of NOAA! Forget which Cabinet Position NOAA is attached to.



Did FDR exploit images of dead bodies without the family's permission in order to win an election? Did FDR go and attack Iraq and say "It's because of the Japanese attacking!" Did FDR purposefully keep the US and Congress in a state of terror to push legislation through? ((We won't talk about how he actually *did* push legislation through, but that was not it)).

Kinda hard to do since there was NO tv back then. All he did was use 12/7/41 and by your logic, he shouldn't do but yet won him the 1944 election. As to Iraq, No since it was a british colony but he did go and attack Japan and Germany and Italy but yet those were declared enemies of the USA as was Iraq btw. FDR did something far more drastic. Its called moving all the people of japanese decent into camps for their "protection"! We could debate this if you so wish. So far, I don't see the US Muslim population being rounded up and tossed into them.

True story from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/trail/06TRAIL-MALAPROP.html?ex=1252296000&en=aeeccbb0b41dc233&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Mr. Kerry stepped boldly into the verbal minefield early, arriving at a front-porch session with supporters in Canonsburg, Pa., near Pittsburgh. As he likes to do, he brandished a bit of local color to show he wasn't just any interloping politician blowing through town.

But in so doing he seemed to forget that Republicans have been tearing him down for months as a vacillating, indecisive, finger-in-the-wind politician of the worst order.

"Everybody told me, 'God, if you're coming to Canonsburg, you've got to find time to go to Toy's, and he'll take care of you,'" Mr. Kerry said, dropping the name of a restaurant his motorcade had passed on the way in. "I understand it's my kind of place, because you don't have to - you know, when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling: Ah, what do you want?"
"He just gives you what he's got, right?" Mr. Kerry added, continuing steadily off a gangplank of his own making: "And you don't have to worry, it's whatever he's cooked up that day. And I think that's the way it ought to work, for confused people like me who can't make up our minds."

Turn about is fair play so, here is more from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/trail/06TRAIL-MALAPROP.html?ex=1252296000&en=aeeccbb0b41dc233&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland


Mr. Kerry's lapse, however, was matched by Mr. Bush's seemingly severed synapse of Monday night. At a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo., he was breezing through his domestic agenda when he came to a favorite: what he calls medical liability reform.

"We got an issue in America," he began, in a folksy diction aimed at his small-town crowd. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business."

Mr. Bush then turned to another point he has been making lately to appeal to women - that among those doctors being driven from the business are many obstetricians and gynecologists.

But Mr. Bush seemed to get derailed on the way to his point.

"Too many good OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their" - he paused a split second, as if searching for a word, then continued - "their love, with women all across this country," he said.

Women all across the country might actually be relieved by such a shortage.

Turn about is fair play so, here is more from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/trail/06TRAIL-MALAPROP.html?ex=1252296000&en=aeeccbb0b41dc233&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland


Mr. Kerry's lapse, however, was matched by Mr. Bush's seemingly severed synapse of Monday night. At a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo., he was breezing through his domestic agenda when he came to a favorite: what he calls medical liability reform.

"We got an issue in America," he began, in a folksy diction aimed at his small-town crowd. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business."

Mr. Bush then turned to another point he has been making lately to appeal to women - that among those doctors being driven from the business are many obstetricians and gynecologists.

But Mr. Bush seemed to get derailed on the way to his point.

"Too many good OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their" - he paused a split second, as if searching for a word, then continued - "their love, with women all across this country," he said.

Women all across the country might actually be relieved by such a shortage.

Seems to me, a gynecologist that advertised that he was gonna get busy with his clients right off the bat would attract a LOT of business. :)

True story from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/trail/06TRAIL-MALAPROP.html?ex=1252296000&en=aeeccbb0b41dc233&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Mr. Kerry stepped boldly into the verbal minefield early, arriving at a front-porch session with supporters in Canonsburg, Pa., near Pittsburgh. As he likes to do, he brandished a bit of local color to show he wasn't just any interloping politician blowing through town.

But in so doing he seemed to forget that Republicans have been tearing him down for months as a vacillating, indecisive, finger-in-the-wind politician of the worst order.

"Everybody told me, 'God, if you're coming to Canonsburg, you've got to find time to go to Toy's, and he'll take care of you,'" Mr. Kerry said, dropping the name of a restaurant his motorcade had passed on the way in. "I understand it's my kind of place, because you don't have to - you know, when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling: Ah, what do you want?"
"He just gives you what he's got, right?" Mr. Kerry added, continuing steadily off a gangplank of his own making: "And you don't have to worry, it's whatever he's cooked up that day. And I think that's the way it ought to work, for confused people like me who can't make up our minds."
you're kidding me thats the best you have? he cant make up his mind what he wants for dinner so he is a flip flopper, have you EVER had a hard time deciding between food you want

you have to be UBER stupid to throw this in his face, ...yeah.

Chess Squares'"you have to be UBER stupid to throw this in his face, ...yeah."

Take it up with the New York Times.

Kerry has flipped flopped. Give me a break. I guess people don't listen to TV anymore. "Dont vote for the war if your going to vote against funding it" Remember that quote? I know I do. Guess what. He voted FOR the war then voted AGAINST funding it! Also he went from supporting the war to being against it then goes back to supporting it. I wish he makes up his mind on this issue.

And now you have proven yourself to do nothing but follow Republican propaganda. Kerry voted to give the President the power to go to war. He attempted to get the war funded in a way that would not continue to throw our country further and further into debt, by repealing tax cuts for those who make the most money. Instead, a different bill, which just put the country further into debt, was passed (against his vote, obviously). However, he never at any time voted "against funding it," so you are completely and totally wrong on that count.

Ok the bush crack was uncounted for and will get ignored. Thanks for the wishes btw. I know I need it. The Weather body is NWS, NSSL, NHC, Storms Prediction center, all fall under the umbrella of NOAA! Forget which Cabinet Position NOAA is attached to.

The Bush comment was unfounded? You think so? You obviously haven't been keeping up with Bush's policies on science. He fires any science advisor who might tell him something he doesn't like and instead hires yes-men that have no standing in their field. He also is known for restricting researchers from publishing their findings. So, while you may think your own field is in no danger, you are probably being naive to do so.

Kinda hard to do since there was NO tv back then.

There were newspapers. But I have never seen any old newspaper clippings in which FDR paraded dead bodies to further his cause, especially after promising not to use such images.

All he did was use 12/7/41 and by your logic, he shouldn't do but yet won him the 1944 election.

I'll admit I don't know much about the '44 election, but I do know that FDR was a well-liked president, I highly doubt that his entire campaign was "Asians Asians Asians!! War War War!!! Pearl Harbor Pearl Harbor Pearl Harbor! Vote for me or be unpatriotic!!!"

As to Iraq, No since it was a british colony but he did go and attack Japan and Germany and Italy but yet those were declared enemies of the USA as was Iraq btw.

Germany and Italy had a much clearer connection to Japan than Iraq did to 9/11.

i am a non partisan.

but you have to feel bad for the "anybody but bush" people cause kerry is screwing up.big time. latest is he is in the works of hiring a couple of clinton advisors to help his campain. which mean he will be changing his positions again. That drives me nuts. at least bush stands behind everything he does right/wrong.

with sept 11th coming up and the debates(which bush has never lost one on any level.) i do and and i am sure many anybody but bush supporters wish the dems had chosen dean or somebody who can "stick to their guns"

am i wrong?

Hey i didnt want to vote for bush either but kerry left me no choice.

oh darlin, kerry aint NOTHIN'
i had to vote for both walter mondale AND michael dukakis

now THATS pain

i am a non partisan.

but you have to feel bad for the "anybody but bush" people cause kerry is screwing up.big time. latest is he is in the works of hiring a couple of clinton advisors to help his campain. which mean he will be changing his positions again. That drives me nuts. at least bush stands behind everything he does right/wrong.

with sept 11th coming up and the debates(which bush has never lost one on any level.) i do and and i am sure many anybody but bush supporters wish the dems had chosen dean or somebody who can "stick to their guns"

am i wrong?

Hey i didnt want to vote for bush either but kerry left me no choice.first of all sticking by your guns when your dead wrong is hardly something thats admirable.Secondly thats a crock of BS since Bush has flip flopped more in 4 years then Kerry has in 18. Thirdly, Kerry taken campaign advice from Clinton is an ingenious manuever. If you vote for Bush based on this crap then your being a dupe.

Bush has flip flopped more in 4 years then Kerry has in 18.
Bush has accomplished more in >4 years than Kerry has in 18.

am i wrong?
Yep.

i am a non partisan.

but you have to feel bad for the "anybody but bush" people cause kerry is screwing up.big time. latest is he is in the works of hiring a couple of clinton advisors to help his campain. which mean he will be changing his positions again. That drives me nuts. at least bush stands behind everything he does right/wrong.

with sept 11th coming up and the debates(which bush has never lost one on any level.) i do and and i am sure many anybody but bush supporters wish the dems had chosen dean or somebody who can "stick to their guns"

am i wrong?

Hey i didnt want to vote for bush either but kerry left me no choice.

uh...yes he did. Kerry sucks, big time, beleive me I know. But hes not bush, and thus, this should be the easiest election choice in the history of mankind. Lets rewind a second, make a comparison.

Hmmm...who to vote for...Jimmy carter or Stalin...

Bush has accomplished more in >4 years than Kerry has in 18.

he killed 9000 Iraqis and 1000 americans , got a record deficit from a record surplus, crippled the economy, passed the alien and sed...I mean patriot act (nazi bastards) angot a man who lost to a corpse to be his attorney general.

Bush has accomplished more in >4 years than Kerry has in 18.
correct--and it was all destructive and negative

correct--and it was all destructive and negative
I wouldn't call his five innefective bills destructive. Kerry has been very indestructive, to coin a word. He has done nothing.

he killed 9000 Iraqis and 1000 americans , got a record deficit from a record surplus, crippled the economy, passed the alien and sed...I mean patriot act (nazi bastards) angot a man who lost to a corpse to be his attorney general.


Bush has also appointed more convicted criminals to his staff than any President in history, reneged on more international treaties than any president in history, presided over the loss of more jobs than any time since the depression, and has allowed world opinion of the U.S.A to drop to it's lowest levels ever. Who cares about the rest of the world, you say? Hmmm, it might matter when we're trying to renegotiate failed trade deals, get international assistance on our war with terrorism, and for many other reasons. I mean, tourism from abroad is good for American business, isn't it?

Bush doesn't make us safer, as he's doing more of the things that pissed off the terrorists in the first place. Terrorists hate us for our freeoms, Bush says. Do terrorists hate Russia for their freedoms too? Perhaps Bush supporters would like to come down from the trees and start thinking that it is in part to our policies that cause the middle-east hatred of us. IF it is our policies that are pissing everyone off, then Bush is the last person who will make us safe.

I'm sorry, but Bush supporters are either blindly loyal, or are, while not necessarily stupid, completely devoid of critical thinking abilities.

I wouldn't call his five innefective bills destructive. Kerry has been very indestructive, to coin a word. He has done nothing.

If you believe Kerry has done nothing, then you are guilty of failing to do anything more than sit on your ass in front of the TV. TV doesn't try to educate you, it's there to get ratings. Try to actually read up on Kerry's accomplishements, and you might be astonished at what you haven't been shown. Happy hunting!

I'm not holding my breath that you will actually try to learn anything positive about Kerry. Your mind is obviously already made up, and without the necessary facts to do a good job of it either.

Kerry once advocated abolishing the inept CIA long before it became popular to do so. We need foreward thinking men like him in power and not the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate

Kerry once advocated abolishing the inept CIA long before it became popular to do so. We need foreward thinking men like him in power and not the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate


It's funny, the "small government" conservatives are trying to attack Kerry for trying to reduce funding to obsolete weapons systems and a seriously compromised CIA...things they themselves were trying to do at the time as well.

uh...yes he did. Kerry sucks, big time, beleive me I know. But hes not bush, and thus, this should be the easiest election choice in the history of mankind. Lets rewind a second, make a comparison.

Hmmm...who to vote for...Jimmy carter or Stalin...

It won't be the most easiest election CRACKPIE! Reason? look at the polls. All of them are close towards one candidate or another. However, I do believe that the debates will decide this. If that is the case, then Kerry needs to be supurb because Bush is very good at debating. He beat Gore in 2 out of three and the third one was a draw. Bush has got to be the most underestimated person in American History.

It's funny, the "small government" conservatives are trying to attack Kerry for trying to reduce funding to obsolete weapons systems and a seriously compromised CIA...things they themselves were trying to do at the time as well.
its also funny how reps claim to "support" vets while AWOL cowards continually bash vets war records for political advantage

It won't be the most easiest election CRACKPIE! Reason? look at the polls. All of them are close towards one candidate or another. However, I do believe that the debates will decide this. If that is the case, then Kerry needs to be supurb because Bush is very good at debating. He beat Gore in 2 out of three and the third one was a draw. Bush has got to be the most underestimated person in American History.
Bush is an intellectual pigmy-he doesnt win debates thru pure knowledge but only on cheap calculated emotional appeals to peoples base instincts

its also funny how reps claim to "support" vets while AWOL cowards continually bash vets war records for political advantage

MKULTRA, be advised that Bush was not AWOL! There is no proof to back this up. And in all honesty, the Democratic Campaign has dropped this because frankly, there is no proof of this.

Bush is an intellectual pigmy-he doesnt win debates thru pure knowledge but only on cheap calculated emotional appeals to peoples base instincts

HAHA!! Ok MKULTRA, if you truely believe this then you REALLY have bought the Liberal Farm!

Look at the first debate of Bush V. Gore. Gore CONTINUOUSLY interrupted GWB! Bush basically let Gore Self-Destruct in that first debate and he did masterfully well at that. Gore was better in the Second one but still lost it. The third ended in a draw. Fair and simple.

I watched ALL THREE DEBATES and I can tell you that Bush DID NOT use emotional appeals to peoples base instincts. I advise you to take a government class!

MKULTRA, be advised that Bush was not AWOL! There is no proof to back this up. And in all honesty, the Democratic Campaign has dropped this because frankly, there is no proof of this.
But there is proof that Bush destroyed the evidence to cover it up.If Bush had nothing at all to hide then why is information missing from his war records? This is a news story I just read today in my local paper (Newsday)

Any person with a brain can see that you are unintelligent if you continue to call people stupid. Just because they don't agree with your ideology DOES NOT make them stupid. You should listen to the other side and here what they have to say and research what they say. You maybe surprised at just how intelligent they are.

Go read about web board trolls and let me know if there is one definition that chess does not meet. Ignore them and they go away.

MKULTRA, be advised that Bush was not AWOL! There is no proof to back this up. And in all honesty, the Democratic Campaign has dropped this because frankly, there is no proof of this.

Actually a 527 named Texas Voters For Truth (or something like that) has apparently uncovered new evidence that proves Bush was AWOL. The commercials are to air soon. I, like a good intellectual, will take whatever they say with a hefty grain of salt. Unfortunately, those who blindly support Bush, will ignore it completely, while still lapping up the SBVT nonsense

It won't be the most easiest election CRACKPIE! Reason? look at the polls. All of them are close towards one candidate or another. However, I do believe that the debates will decide this. If that is the case, then Kerry needs to be supurb because Bush is very good at debating. He beat Gore in 2 out of three and the third one was a draw. Bush has got to be the most underestimated person in American History.
Well, that wasn't CRACKPIE's point, but okay. I have to say though, Corneliu, that only in the bizzare world of lowered expectations did Bush "win" those debates with Al Gore. He won by showing up and not droolig on himself on camera, because his campaign did a good job of lowering expectations that well, and because the media let them do it. But he didn't beat Gore in the realm of ideas--it wasn't evne close.

But there is proof that Bush destroyed the evidence to cover it up.If Bush had nothing at all to hide then why is information missing from his war records? This is a news story I just read today in my local paper (Newsday)

Care to prove it MKULTRA? Are you talking about that fire at the records place. Some of my mother's records where lost too! You going to blame her for covering something up? Please MKULTRA, I don't know what my sister sees in you as a friend but whatever.

Go read about web board trolls and let me know if there is one definition that chess does not meet. Ignore them and they go away.
Chess may flame alot but he does make valid points

Well, that wasn't CRACKPIE's point, but okay. I have to say though, Corneliu, that only in the bizzare world of lowered expectations did Bush "win" those debates with Al Gore. He won by showing up and not droolig on himself on camera, because his campaign did a good job of lowering expectations that well, and because the media let them do it. But he didn't beat Gore in the realm of ideas--it wasn't evne close.

Care to prove this too Incertonia? Bush was by far the better candidate in all three debates. I did watch them and he did well. I found Gore to be well Gore. He had no tact. If I registered ontime, I would've been able to vote in that election. I could tell you who I was going to vote for but you already now.

If it was Lieberman running, who stands by his voting recording, I wouldn't have given any odds at re-election. Kerry is indesisive and has no plans. In Bush's acceptence speech, Bush spelled out clearly what he will do if he is re-elected.

Chess may flame alot but he does make valid points

If he does then I must've missed them between all the insults he lobs!

Ummm, where did you get this information? Gore won all the debates on point. People though found him arrogant and stiff and found Bush likable and the kind of guy they'd like to go have a beer with. If the debates are nothing but a popularity contest to you, then yeah, I suppose Bush won. However on the issues all pundits to this day agree Gore won the debates on point.

FYI ;)

Bullshit! Gore constently interrupted Bush when Bush was giving his points. He did that throughout the 1st debate. The 2nd debate he did better but was unable to basically get his point across. Bush did! The third debate was what his 1st debate should've been. If Gore won the debates, Gore would be president right now and not Bush. Hell if Gore won his home state of Tennessee, he would be president now.

People say that Bush cant talk and that he is a bad debator. Ask Gore about this. He lost the first 2 debates to Bush and Barely tied the third one.

Ummm, where did you get this information? Gore won all the debates on point. People though found him arrogant and stiff and found Bush likable and the kind of guy they'd like to go have a beer with. If the debates are nothing but a popularity contest to you, then yeah, I suppose Bush won. However on the issues all pundits to this day agree Gore won the debates on point.

FYI ;)

Care to prove it MKULTRA? Are you talking about that fire at the records place. Some of my mother's records where lost too! You going to blame her for covering something up? Please MKULTRA, I don't know what my sister sees in you as a friend but whatever.Im not talken about the fire-this is another story about missing pages from Bushs records--its at Newsday.com *btw where has your sister been?

Actually a 527 named Texas Voters For Truth (or something like that) has apparently uncovered new evidence that proves Bush was AWOL. The commercials are to air soon. I, like a good intellectual, will take whatever they say with a hefty grain of salt. Unfortunately, those who blindly support Bush, will ignore it completely, while still lapping up the SBVT nonsense
There are articles from the AP popping up (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-usguard073958649sep07,0,1876461.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines) about the story. The stories don't talk about whether or not Bush as absent so much as they talk about missing records. I made a thread about it a few days ago--it was promptly ignored and fell into the mists of the server, but this article covers the basics.

Care to prove this too Incertonia? Bush was by far the better candidate in all three debates. I did watch them and he did well. I found Gore to be well Gore. He had no tact. If I registered ontime, I would've been able to vote in that election. I could tell you who I was going to vote for but you already now.

If it was Lieberman running, who stands by his voting recording, I wouldn't have given any odds at re-election. Kerry is indesisive and has no plans. In Bush's acceptence speech, Bush spelled out clearly what he will do if he is re-elected.
Bush didnt talk about an exit stratgey for Iraq nor did he mention his pending plans to invade Iran

Im not talken about the fire-this is another story about missing pages from Bushs records--its at Newsday.com *btw where has your sister been?

Studying! She should be sleeping by now! Something I should be doing. I do have a 9:00AM class tomorrow! LOL!!

At the risk of sounding hypocritical, anyone can have missing pages in his folder. I'm sure that Kerry does too. Not everyone keeps every single sheet of paper. Just because there isn't a paper there does not mean he was AWOL!

Bush didnt talk about an exit stratgey for Iraq nor did he mention his pending plans to invade Iran

Because we have no plans to invade Iran. That was too easy. :P

Exit strategy is when they are able to hold free and fair elections and is able to defend themselves. The Iraqi police is starting to take over protection duties and the Iraqi National Guard is doing some missions on their own and joint missions with us.

Studying! She should be sleeping by now! Something I should be doing. I do have a 9:00AM class tomorrow! LOL!!

At the risk of sounding hypocritical, anyone can have missing pages in his folder. I'm sure that Kerry does too. Not everyone keeps every single sheet of paper. Just because there isn't a paper there does not mean he was AWOL!
I always need to get up early too but I can never train myself to go to bed which is why I prolly always am mad all the time, heh.

Bullshit! Gore constently interrupted Bush when Bush was giving his points. He did that throughout the 1st debate. The 2nd debate he did better but was unable to basically get his point across. Bush did! The third debate was what his 1st debate should've been. If Gore won the debates, Gore would be president right now and not Bush. Hell if Gore won his home state of Tennessee, he would be president now.

Sorry kid, it's true.. Gore was informed, Bush wasn't. It's not even a well kept secret. Every one knows that Gore won the debates (except you I suppose) I think I'll take the word of every single political pundit I've heard since the debates (when the subject comes up) over you.. Oh and I watched them too. ;)

Care to prove this too Incertonia? Bush was by far the better candidate in all three debates. I did watch them and he did well. I found Gore to be well Gore. He had no tact. If I registered ontime, I would've been able to vote in that election. I could tell you who I was going to vote for but you already now.Your opinion that Bush was the better candidate, but when it came to answering questions of substance, even republican pundits admitted that Bush wasn't "a detail guy," that he was "a big picture" kind of person. Gore had specific proposals, and made strong specific points. If you want a look at the kind of things the media did to Gore in the 2000 election, including the post-debate spin, go check out The Daily Howler by Bob Somerby--the archives are chock full of stuff. And just so you don't accuse me of sending you to a partisan site--he hammers journalists regardless of who they're talking about, although he gets a bit more grief from his readers when he says nice things about conservatives.

If it was Lieberman running, who stands by his voting recording, I wouldn't have given any odds at re-election. Kerry is indesisive and has no plans. In Bush's acceptence speech, Bush spelled out clearly what he will do if he is re-elected.If Lieberman were the candidate, I'd be making plans ot move to Canada right now. Of the ten Democratic candidates, Lieberman was tenth on my list. I would have sat the election out and found a way to get out of the country.

Sorry kid, it's true.. Gore was informed, Bush wasn't. It's not even a well kept secret. Every one knows that Gore won the debates (except you I suppose) I think I'll take the word of every single political pundit I've heard since the debates (when the subject comes up) over you.. Oh and I watched them too. ;)

Sorry Canadian, but its false. Gore may have been informed but he interrupted Bush all the time. That is not what you want in a leader. A child and that was what Gore acted like. I'm not the only one. I've talked to teachers and other adults, and they say that Gore lost the debates. You think he won because he was Clinton's poster boy. I've heard some democrats talking one time and they said "thank god Gore was not in office when this happened." If some dems are saying that, that makes me think. I don't know what pundits your listening to because what I've read in my local paper, both conservative AND liberal, they both said that Bush won the 1st and 2nd debates and tied the 3rd. Besides this was 4 years ago and I really don't care. Right now, I'm looking forward to this year's debates.

Because we have no plans to invade Iran. That was too easy. :P

Exit strategy is when they are able to hold free and fair elections and is able to defend themselves. The Iraqi police is starting to take over protection duties and the Iraqi National Guard is doing some missions on their own and joint missions with us.
Bush wants to invade Iran next tho. He never meant to stop at Iraq. He only invaded the 100% disarmed Iraq to first get a foothold in the region before he went on to attack other nations in the region.

Your opinion that Bush was the better candidate, but when it came to answering questions of substance, even republican pundits admitted that Bush wasn't "a detail guy," that he was "a big picture" kind of person. Gore had specific proposals, and made strong specific points. If you want a look at the kind of things the media did to Gore in the 2000 election, including the post-debate spin, go check out The Daily Howler by Bob Somerby--the archives are chock full of stuff. And just so you don't accuse me of sending you to a partisan site--he hammers journalists regardless of who they're talking about, although he gets a bit more grief from his readers when he says nice things about conservatives.

If you heard his acceptence speech on Thursday, you would've said differently. They sure as hell did. Bush was detailed in what he plans if he's reelected. I will not deny that Gore had specific proposals and points but most of those probably would've been tossed out the window. Remember, Gore would've had a Republican House to Contend with.

If Lieberman were the candidate, I'd be making plans ot move to Canada right now. Of the ten Democratic candidates, Lieberman was tenth on my list. I would have sat the election out and found a way to get out of the country.

I wish he was the candidate because I was leaning towards voting for him. I'm sure Canada would love to have you. I would've trusted Lieberman on National Security. That is a big issue with me. That is why I'm supporting Bush.

Bush wants to invade Iran next tho. He never meant to stop at Iraq. He only invaded the 100% disarmed Iraq to first get a foothold in the region before he went on to attack other nations in the region.

I don't think we will invade Iran personally. It'll self destruct from the inside IMHO. If you want to talk about Iraq, we could say the samething about Afghanistan since Iraq AND Afghanistan border Iran. However, this will not happen.

I always need to get up early too but I can never train myself to go to bed which is why I prolly always am mad all the time, heh.

Probably. I'll let her know that you inquired though when I hear from her.

If you heard his acceptence speech on Thursday, you would've said differently. They sure as hell did. Bush was detailed in what he plans if he's reelected. I will not deny that Gore had specific proposals and points but most of those probably would've been tossed out the window. Remember, Gore would've had a Republican House to Contend with.

Well, I was having a root canal from a dental student, so I missed it--came out on the winning side I think--but I read it later, and failed to see any of those specific proposals, at least any of them I think he'd actually try to implement, assuming he had the money to do so.

I wish he was the candidate because I was leaning towards voting for him. I'm sure Canada would love to have you. I would've trusted Lieberman on National Security. That is a big issue with me. That is why I'm supporting Bush.I look at it this way--I don't think we're safer as a result of Bush's policies. In fact, I think we're less safe, because we've made more enemies. Lieberman agrees with Bush and most of the Republican party on foreign policy as far as Iraq is concerned, and if I wanted to vote for a Republican, I'd vote for Bush. Why vote for a Republican who calls himself a Democrat when you can vote for the real thing?

Uh huh..

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/12/debate.judges.ap/index.html

and CNN is for the democratic candidate :P

As I said it was 4 years ago and I'm focusing on this debate though I know you'll say that Kerry won them all even if he doesn't :P

Sorry Canadian, but its false.

Uh huh..

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/12/debate.judges.ap/index.html

I think the fact that the U.S. is building the biggest military base in the world in Iraq is a good indication that they haven't finished with their plans in the Middle East. This is also a way to appease Bush's buddies the House of Saud, as concentrating American forces in Iraq moves a lot of the unpopular U.S. military out of Saudi Arabia (in a way, Bush is doing Osama's bidding on this issue.)

Probably. I'll let her know that you inquired though when I hear from her.
Ok thanks

and CNN is for the democratic candidate :P

As I said it was 4 years ago and I'm focusing on this debate though I know you'll say that Kerry won them all even if he doesn't :P
Well, Bush won't be able to win all of them if he doesn't show up for all of them--or haven't you heard that Bush wants to dodge one of them (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html?nav=hcmodule)?

Well, I was having a root canal from a dental student, so I missed it--came out on the winning side I think--but I read it later, and failed to see any of those specific proposals, at least any of them I think he'd actually try to implement, assuming he had the money to do so.

How could you NOT see them. He spelled them out clear as crystal. I guess because you have your eyes set on Kerry and support him you won't see them. I've seen them. I suggest you look again because frankly, if you don't see them then you gotta be blind.

I look at it this way--I don't think we're safer as a result of Bush's policies. In fact, I think we're less safe, because we've made more enemies. Lieberman agrees with Bush and most of the Republican party on foreign policy as far as Iraq is concerned, and if I wanted to vote for a Republican, I'd vote for Bush. Why vote for a Republican who calls himself a Democrat when you can vote for the real thing?

I think we are safer. Two tyrants gone. No terror attack against us soil in 4 years. Something the Clinton never managed to achieve. And as for calling Lieberman a Republican, this does him a disservice because he's a moderate democrat

and CNN is for the democratic candidate :P

Oh come on, you're doing it again.. Those University debate coaches weren't on CNN's payroll.. admit when you're wrong! Don't make me get Zeppistan ;)

I think the fact that the U.S. is building the biggest military base in the world in Iraq is a good indication that they haven't finished with their plans in the Middle East. This is also a way to appease Bush's buddies the House of Saud, as concentrating American forces in Iraq moves a lot of the unpopular U.S. military out of Saudi Arabia (in a way, Bush is doing Osama's bidding on this issue.)
if someone wanted to get really cynical then can even make a case that Bush and Osama are secretly working together ;) I find it a little strange that Osamas name wasnt mentioned ONCE during the GOP hatefest

I think we are safer. Two tyrants gone. No terror attack against us soil in 4 years. Something the Clinton never managed to achieve. And as for calling Lieberman a Republican, this does him a disservice because he's a moderate democrat

After the WTC attack in 1993, where exactly were there attacks on US soil until Sept 11th 2001?

How could you NOT see them. He spelled them out clear as crystal. I guess because you have your eyes set on Kerry and support him you won't see them. I've seen them. I suggest you look again because frankly, if you don't see them then you gotta be blind.
I saw them--I don't believe them. Why? Because 1) they go against everything Bush has ever done as an executive, whether in Texas or as President and 2) because we already don't have the money, and Bush wants to cut taxes even more. How are we going to pay for it? Shoot money out of your asses?

I think we are safer. Two tyrants gone. No terror attack against us soil in 4 years. Something the Clinton never managed to achieve. And as for calling Lieberman a Republican, this does him a disservice because he's a moderate democratCorrection--there was never a foreign terrorist attack in the 50 states. If you want to start talking about embassies being US soil, etc. then Bush is still way ahead in failure to protect the US, since every attack in Iraq adds to the total. The single terrorist attack on US soil during Clinton's time was in Oklahoma City, and that was domestic terrorism. Also, your calendar reading must be sorry if you think it's been four years since the attacks on 9/112001.

And as far as Lieberman is concerned--in my eyes, he's as much a Democrat as Zell Miller. Maybe not that bad, but damn close.

Clinton also created an entire infrastructure to deal with terrorism after these incidents all of which Bush totally ignored prior to 911...

No terror attack against us soil in 4 years. Something the Clinton never managed to achieve

Lets see, before 9/11 the last terrorist attack on US soil was 1993 the 1st WTC bombings.. now wait, let me do the math.. Clinton held office till Jan/00 that makes a 7 year difference.. Oh wrong again. Come on Corneliu, you aren't even trying any more. You're no fun! :p

Lets see, before 9/11 the last terrorist attack on US soil was 1993 the 1st WTC bombings.. now wait, let me do the math.. Clinton held office till Jan/00 that makes a 7 year difference.. Oh wrong again. Come on Corneliu, you aren't even trying any more. You're no fun! :p

Ha, beat you to it Stephistan! Corneliu has washed his brain, and now can't do anything with it.

I think the fact that the U.S. is building the biggest military base in the world in Iraq is a good indication that they haven't finished with their plans in the Middle East. This is also a way to appease Bush's buddies the House of Saud, as concentrating American forces in Iraq moves a lot of the unpopular U.S. military out of Saudi Arabia (in a way, Bush is doing Osama's bidding on this issue.)

Do you have proof of this Gymoor? I have an uncle in the Air Force and he's heard nothing of this!

Ok thanks

Your welcome.

Well, Bush won't be able to win all of them if he doesn't show up for all of them--or haven't you heard that Bush wants to dodge one of them (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html?nav=hcmodule)?

He'll show up for all three of them! He's said he will too and I will believe it.

Your welcome.
can you tell Zooke Im sorry for performing an exorcizm on her too?

Oh come on, you're doing it again.. Those University debate coaches weren't on CNN's payroll.. admit when you're wrong! Don't make me get Zeppistan ;)

HAHA!! Don't make me get my dad who is a tad more politically astute than you are. Unforntunately, he's 5 hours away from me and frankly, I don't want to waste time on Cell phones when I could be studying and sleepping!

can you tell Zooke Im sorry for performing an exorcizm on her too?

I don't think you performed one on her. I think she performed one on you. :D

I don't think you performed one on her. I think she performed one on you. :D
LOL

Do you have proof of this Gymoor? I have an uncle in the Air Force and he's heard nothing of this!

Can I be proof? Hehe, Yes, the US is not only building the largest US embassy in the world in Iraq they are building quite a few VERY LARGE bases. Do you really believe Bush is done waging war on countries that haven't done any thing to you personally (meaning America) if he gets elected to 4 more years? You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. He'll see it as a mandate to do so.

After the WTC attack in 1993, where exactly were there attacks on US soil until Sept 11th 2001?

Embassies count as US Soil! Warships count as US Soil!

Can I be proof? Hehe, Yes, the US is not only building the largest US embassy in the world in Iraq they are building quite a few VERY LARGE bases. Do you really believe Bush is done waging war on countries that haven't done any thing to you personally (meaning America) if he gets elected to 4 more years? You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. He'll see it as a mandate to do so.

Where's the proof? Just because we are building the largest embassy in Iraq means crap. Now where's the proof of this airbase?

Okay, hardware and building are just that.. hardware and buildings, lets look at human lives, since any reasonable person would consider human life more important then a building.. Hmm how many Americans were killed on Clinton's watch and how many Americans have been killed on Bush's watch? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it! :headbang:

WE"VE HAD A MASSIVE ATTACK LADY! Two Towers, 2 secondary buildings and part of the Pentagon. What did you think? I wish you used your head when you typed this :headbang:

Embassies count as US Soil! Warships count as US Soil!

Okay, hardware and building are just that.. hardware and buildings, lets look at human lives, since any reasonable person would consider human life more important then a building.. Hmm how many Americans were killed on Clinton's watch and how many Americans have been killed on Bush's watch? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it! :headbang:

WE"VE HAD A MASSIVE ATTACK LADY! Two Towers, 2 secondary buildings and part of the Pentagon. What did you think? I wish you used your head when you typed this :headbang:

.....And Iraq had what exactly to do with that? Oh right! NOTHING! :rolleyes:

Embassies count as US Soil! Warships count as US Soil!

Oh friggin please! Then These count too!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C129462%2C00.html

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/08/02/003.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/03/21/peru.embassy.blast/

and several others

Okay, hardware and building are just that.. hardware and buildings, lets look at human lives, since any reasonable person would consider human life more important then a building.. Hmm how many Americans were killed on Clinton's watch and how many Americans have been killed on Bush's watch? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it! :headbang:

The problem with what you just said is that the buildings and hardware contained Americans. Hundreds of which died during attacks.

I don't know the exact figures of how many Americans died under Clinton - and I don't feel like taking hours out of my life to compile data. Far fewer than under Bush, but that's because Clinton never retalliated.

To set the balance of things right, you strike at your enemies when they attack. When we were attacked in Somolia, Clinton ordered the troops home instead of wiping out Aidid's militia. When the Cole was hit, no effort was made to hunt down the bad guys. Same when the embassies were hit.

The reason more Americans have died under Bush is that when our enemies hit us this time, we hit them back instead of running away like we did during the Clinton years. And that causes war. And war causes death.

The reason more Americans have died under Bush is that when our enemies hit us this time, we hit them back instead of running away like we did during the Clinton years. And that causes war. And war causes death.


But can you justify war on a concept that can never be beaten (terrorism, in this case) by retaliating against a country (Afghanistan) based on the actions of a few extremists?

I mean, the same logic could be applied to us. Look at the actions of a few American extremists for a moment. A few Americans tortured enemy soldiers, and the pictures got out. What would happen if a Middle Eastern country took up arms against us for the actions of a few extremists?

To make a point of my own...I understand that Bush very likely had poor intelligence leading him to attack Iraq, but to be very honest - I feel that he didn't want to see the good intelligence that had been piling up since Clinton's time...the intelligence that found no weapons - mass destruction or otherwise. His reasons (some would say excuses) for staying in the Middle East and for fighting in Iraq seem to be wearing thin. I really think it's a case of none being so blind as those who will not see.

Of course, the Democrats don't see to be exploiting that - and regardless of reason (nobility, stupidity...whichever) - it'll probably cost them their best shots at election.

About the whole 'flip-flopping' [I REALLY hate that phrase] thing...

If you don't learn from your mistakes, you're doomed to repeat them. If you make a decision and hold to it for too long, you're bound to create problems. I hardly think Bush's 'stick to my guns' policy is effective in doing little more than aggrivating both national leaders and domestic voters.

Really makes you think about what we'd be arguing about if not for those attacks, huh?

There was a point in there somewhere, but I'm sure I lost it around the fifth word...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5926893/

personally, i don't see why you'd base your campaign on your vietnam record, boasting about your purple hearts with no major injuries to show for them. I don't see Kerry rolling around in a wheelchair or any noticeable scars or anything publicized about him being injured seriously during the war(oh..he got nicked using one of his guns..oh no).....I know alot of Vietnam Vets that have suffered severely(physically and mentally)...they don't have purple hearts...but i don't see them bragging about their time in Vietnam...hell-half of them won't even talk about it.

he's a democratic...demo's..let's cut down the size of the military-if we go to war again in the future...what's gonna happen? a draft? is that what we want?

and i don't know if anybody knew this....but this one is thrown in for fun..but ck it out...and i did not make this up...wait til the page loads and scroll to the bottom of the family tree that loads....

http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm

and i don't know if anybody knew this....but this one is thrown in for fun..but ck it out...and i did not make this up...wait til the page loads and scroll to the bottom of the family tree that loads....
http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm

Interesting... Still, how bored do you have to be to begin researching that?

Interesting... Still, how bored do you have to be to begin researching that?


i wasn't, it was on the msn homepage the other day.. ;) and still on the ancestry.com link off of msn homepage....

i wasn't, it was on the msn homepage the other day.. ;) and still on the ancestry.com link off of msn homepage....

I was referring to the guy who built that family tree.

I was referring to the guy who built that family tree.


oh sorry...i hope i didn't sound defensive... i gotta a kick out of the fact it goes back to what? the 1500's? lol hey...it's like 4am here...maybe i'm having a serious brain fart..but in a previous post...9/11- the WTC, the pentagon and the plane that crashed in PA...what are the two secondary buildings he's talking about?

oh sorry...i hope i didn't sound defensive... i gotta a kick out of the fact it goes back to what? the 1500's? lol hey...it's like 4am here...maybe i'm having a serious brain fart..

Nah, don't worry about it. Just wanted to make sure you understood me, and I know how you feel. It's 3:00 am here. I work the night shift at a hotel, and I generally finish all my work by 1:30. I set up breakfast at 4:00. The time in between is pretty much mine to read and/or surf.

but in a previous post...9/11- the WTC, the pentagon and the plane that crashed in PA...what are the two secondary buildings he's talking


Sorry, but I'm not really paying attention to that thread.

WE"VE HAD A MASSIVE ATTACK LADY! Two Towers, 2 secondary buildings and part of the Pentagon. What did you think? I wish you used your head when you typed this :headbang:


ok... WTC-two towers.. the plane crash in PA...AND the pentagon... what are the secondary buildings? i'm confused... :(

[QUOTE=Arcadian Mists]Nah, don't worry about it. Just wanted to make sure you understood me, and I know how you feel. It's 3:00 am here. I work the night shift at a hotel, and I generally finish all my work by 1:30. I set up breakfast at 4:00. The time in between is pretty much mine to read and/or surf.


woohoo.. what's for breakfast?? :D I stayed at a Ramada this weekend..it was a pretty crappy experience.. :( I don't think the lady at the desk liked me too much...I tried not to be a bitch, but my AC didn't work in my room....so I can't imagine working in a hotel and dealing w/ people like me all the time...KUDOS to you....especially working the night shift.. ;)

woohoo.. what's for breakfast?? :D I stayed at a Ramada this weekend..it was a pretty crappy experience.. :( I don't think the lady at the desk liked me too much...I tried not to be a bitch, but my AC didn't work in my room....so I can't imagine working in a hotel and dealing w/ people like me all the time...KUDOS to you....especially working the night shift.. ;)

Just the usual: bagels, bread, cereal, fruit, hard boiled eggs (ick), coffee, tea, water, poptarts, oatmeal, english muffins, danish, waffles, milk, juice, and a random hot dish. I quit at 6:00 am, and the breakfast guy comes in at 5:45. He actaully serves breakfast and prepares the hot stuff. I just prep all the usual stuff.

Anyway, the night shift isn't so bad. I can work a 40/hr work week, and work never gets in the way of my astronomy class (Intro to astrophysics, Astonomy 700). I'm looking for a part-time job during the day, though.
*shakes fist at student loans*

Oh friggin please! Then These count too!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C129462%2C00.html

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/08/02/003.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/03/21/peru.embassy.blast/

and several others

Two out of three ain't bad!

I never discounted the first two to be honest, even though in actuality they were minor but terrorist attacks none the less.

However, the third one regarding the Embassy in Peru. If you read it. it took place OUTSIDE the embassy. It was not on embassy grounds. It took place near it but was not on Embassy grounds. So if you use my logic. That one does not count as a terror attack on US Soil.

ok... WTC-two towers.. the plane crash in PA...AND the pentagon... what are the secondary buildings? i'm confused... :(

WTC Building 4 and WTC Building 7 I believe were also casualties of the terror attack. Collateral damage when WTC Fell but was still part of it.

But can you justify war on a concept that can never be beaten (terrorism, in this case) by retaliating against a country (Afghanistan) based on the actions of a few extremists?

I mean, the same logic could be applied to us. Look at the actions of a few American extremists for a moment. A few Americans tortured enemy soldiers, and the pictures got out. What would happen if a Middle Eastern country took up arms against us for the actions of a few extremists?

To make a point of my own...I understand that Bush very likely had poor intelligence leading him to attack Iraq, but to be very honest - I feel that he didn't want to see the good intelligence that had been piling up since Clinton's time...the intelligence that found no weapons - mass destruction or otherwise. His reasons (some would say excuses) for staying in the Middle East and for fighting in Iraq seem to be wearing thin. I really think it's a case of none being so blind as those who will not see.

Of course, the Democrats don't see to be exploiting that - and regardless of reason (nobility, stupidity...whichever) - it'll probably cost them their best shots at election.

About the whole 'flip-flopping' [I REALLY hate that phrase] thing...

If you don't learn from your mistakes, you're doomed to repeat them. If you make a decision and hold to it for too long, you're bound to create problems. I hardly think Bush's 'stick to my guns' policy is effective in doing little more than aggrivating both national leaders and domestic voters.

Really makes you think about what we'd be arguing about if not for those attacks, huh?

There was a point in there somewhere, but I'm sure I lost it around the fifth word...

It's not really a war against an "idea". It's really a war against Al Qaeda, who has consolidated a large portion of the active, worldwide Islamic terrorists. This was the whole point of Al Qaeda - linking all the groups together. And taking them out will reduce the reach and effectiveness of these terrorists.

Afghanistan was attacked because they were harboring bin Laden, and when we asked them to extradite him, they refused. We warned them and gave them a deadline. They ignored it. Again - had they simply turned him over, the Taliban wouldn't have been attacked. The responsibility for their removal of power was in their own hands.

But the difference between your second scenario and what happened here was that by the time those pictures got out, the US military had already investigated and took action against those responsible - we weren't sitting around acting like nothing happened. The Taliban were fully aware of bin Laden's activities, and they allowed him use of their facilities in return for his aiding them in consolidating their control over the country. That's in the 9/11 report, by the way.

On the question of intelligence, Clinton was receiving the same reports on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and he made public statements indicating his belief that Saddam still maintained WMD:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

So Clinton was faced with similiar intelligence - and had he not been hindered by the Lewisnky scandal, there is ample evidence that he would've acted on it.

And on the contrary, the Democrats have been hitting Bush very hard on his reasoning behind us going to war - Kerry's "I will never mislead us into war" quote from his convention speech was pretty powerful.

And I agree - flip-flopping is an annoying term. I liked waffling better, but it makes me hungry. And while changes in policy positions are expected from a government official with a tenure as long as Kerry's, it's the major shifts that have been occuring since he actively started pursuing the presidency that are the most damning. His inability to maintain a consistent position on the War in Iraq, for example, aren't the result of "learning a mistake". Well, maybe they are, but the mistake was "I won't ignore my polling ever again", rather than "This war is wrong".

And frankly, I'd strongly prefer to be arguing anything but the reasoning behind going to war. I hate the fact that this country spends so much time second guessing and not as much time thinking ahead of time. Nothing seems to be an issue until it's a crisis. It's frustrating.

It's not really a war against an "idea". It's really a war against Al Qaeda, who has consolidated a large portion of the active, worldwide Islamic terrorists. This was the whole point of Al Qaeda - linking all the groups together. And taking them out will reduce the reach and effectiveness of these terrorists.

Afghanistan was attacked because they were harboring bin Laden, and when we asked them to extradite him, they refused. We warned them and gave them a deadline. They ignored it. Again - had they simply turned him over, the Taliban wouldn't have been attacked. The responsibility for their removal of power was in their own hands.

But the difference between your second scenario and what happened here was that by the time those pictures got out, the US military had already investigated and took action against those responsible - we weren't sitting around acting like nothing happened. The Taliban were fully aware of bin Laden's activities, and they allowed him use of their facilities in return for his aiding them in consolidating their control over the country. That's in the 9/11 report, by the way.

On the question of intelligence, Clinton was receiving the same reports on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and he made public statements indicating his belief that Saddam still maintained WMD:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

So Clinton was faced with similiar intelligence - and had he not been hindered by the Lewisnky scandal, there is ample evidence that he would've acted on it.

And on the contrary, the Democrats have been hitting Bush very hard on his reasoning behind us going to war - Kerry's "I will never mislead us into war" quote from his convention speech was pretty powerful.

And I agree - flip-flopping is an annoying term. I liked waffling better, but it makes me hungry. And while changes in policy positions are expected from a government official with a tenure as long as Kerry's, it's the major shifts that have been occuring since he actively started pursuing the presidency that are the most damning. His inability to maintain a consistent position on the War in Iraq, for example, aren't the result of "learning a mistake". Well, maybe they are, but the mistake was "I won't ignore my polling ever again", rather than "This war is wrong".

And frankly, I'd strongly prefer to be arguing anything but the reasoning behind going to war. I hate the fact that this country spends so much time second guessing and not as much time thinking ahead of time. Nothing seems to be an issue until it's a crisis. It's frustrating.Bushs arrogant and reckless warmongering has turned terrorism into a global epidemic

Bushs arrogant and reckless warmongering has turned terrorism into a global epidemic

Terrorism has already been a global epidemic.

Terrorism has already been a global epidemic.

Then:

Since terrorism is global, how exactly does the drastic lowering of America's approval rating in the world help us? How does weakening our ties with our allies help us? Bush, after all, has backed out of more treaties than any President in history.

How exactly does attacking a country that had no collaborative ties to the specific terrorist group we were after help our Global War on Terror?

Bushs arrogant and reckless warmongering has turned terrorism into a global epidemic
reading your quote of what he said, i feel my ignoring of him was duely earned, that was the most inane bullshit i have ever heard, he should sign up for the bush propaganda team, he can say the most obviously bullshit thing i have ever seen and make it look like hes telling the truth

Then:

Since terrorism is global, how exactly does the drastic lowering of America's approval rating in the world help us? How does weakening our ties with our allies help us? Bush, after all, has backed out of more treaties than any President in history.

How exactly does attacking a country that had no collaborative ties to the specific terrorist group we were after help our Global War on Terror?

How does it hurt us? When was the world a popularity contest?

How does weakening our ties with our allies hurt us?

Which treaties has he backed out of?

We aren't only after a specific terrorist group. We are after terrorists in general. Al Qaida is target #1, but terrorism in general is what we are attempting to irradicate.

There is one less state sympathetic to terrorists, providing them with overt assistance. That's how it aids the global war on terror.

reading your quote of what he said, i feel my ignoring of him was duely earned, that was the most inane bullshit i have ever heard, he should sign up for the bush propaganda team, he can say the most obviously bullshit thing i have ever seen and make it look like hes telling the truth

I'll take that as a compliment.

Ignoring me doesn't make my arguments less compelling or true. But if it makes you feel better, than more power to you.

How does it hurt us? When was the world a popularity contest?

How does weakening our ties with our allies hurt us?

Which treaties has he backed out of?

We aren't only after a specific terrorist group. We are after terrorists in general. Al Qaida is target #1, but terrorism in general is what we are attempting to irradicate.

There is one less state sympathetic to terrorists, providing them with overt assistance. That's how it aids the global war on terror.

Okay boyo, here's a simple question. Does the full cooperation of the people and government of a foreign country make it easier or harder to find terrorists and terrorist ties there?

Does open the enmity of the people and government of a foreign country make it easier or harder to find terrorists and terrorist ties there?

What treaties has he backed out of? What planet are you from? Try looking it up. I'd suggest Googling for

There's one less stte sympathetic to terrorists? [B]The Iraqi people hate America more than ever! If they do elect a leader democratically, it'll be a on a platform of American hatred. Unless, of course, we interfere in their elections...which makes our whole democratic sortie into the region a lie.

You normally have fairly strong arguments, but you dropped the ball big time here.

Okay boyo, here's a simple question. Does the full cooperation of the people and government of a foreign country make it easier or harder to find terrorists and terrorist ties there?

Does open the enmity of the people and government of a foreign country make it easier or harder to find terrorists and terrorist ties there?

What treaties has he backed out of? What planet are you from? Try looking it up. I'd suggest Googling for

There's one less stte sympathetic to terrorists? [B]The Iraqi people hate America more than ever! If they do elect a leader democratically, it'll be a on a platform of American hatred. Unless, of course, we interfere in their elections...which makes our whole democratic sortie into the region a lie.

You normally have fairly strong arguments, but you dropped the ball big time here.

Of course cooperation is better than enmity. But what state (other than Libya) voluntarily quit sponsoring terror after September 11, but before the Iraq War? None. What makes you think that if we make nice, don't offend them, and pull back that terrorists would take this as anything more than we're weak?

Bin Laden didn't expect the response he got from us after 9/11 - why should he? There had been little to know substantive response to anything that he did before 9/11 - why would he expect us to grow a backbone? But we did, and we came after him, and we came after others who support terror, and we've made progress.

I know we've backed out of a number of treaties - I just wanted to see what you considered to be a "treaty". Do you consider the Kyoto Protocol to be a treaty? I don't. Do you consider the World Court and ICJ to be treaties? I don't.

The START II and ABM treaties are outdated - and they technically were unenforceable because they were signed by a state that no longer exists (the Soviet Union). All of the ballistic missile reduction treaties were really a waste of time anyway, because anyone familiar with how those talks worked will tell you that all either side has ever been willing to do is give up the weapons that were old, obsolete, or difficult to maintain - and they they throw a party because we could only destroy the world 11.9 times over, rather than 12. The ABM treaty was outdated, and since we're not locked in an arms race, and we do have ample evidence of rogue states attempting to purchase and develop ballistic missile technology, we needed to be able to develop some kind of defense.

The Iraqi people don't hate us at all - most of them are thankful for what we've done, and recognize the work we're trying to do. They aren't happy that they were being occupied, but who would be? And I don't expect us to interfere in their elections at all.

Sorry if that post wasn't up to my normal standards. I need coffee

The Iraqi people don't hate us at all - most of them are thankful for what we've done, and recognize the work we're trying to do. They aren't happy that they were being occupied, but who would be? And I don't expect us to interfere in their elections at all.

...and conservatives accuse us liberals of living in a happy fantasy-land. Sheesh. The Iraqi's don't hate us? Then why do we have both pro-Saddam and anti-Saddam forces fighting us? Are they more likely to listen to our propaganda, or the propaganda of their fellow Arabs? With fewer people having potable water, electricity and jobs than the pre-Iraq War era, how could they not see us as hateful occupiers? With the majority of the population being Shi'ites, aren't they more likely to create an Islamic state? Wouldn't said Islamic state automatically be more open to terrorists? How do we stop this from happening without interfering with their democracy? How do we stop civil war when those in power inevitably go after the urds again?

Iraq is a nasty, nasty place, and we should never have stuck our noses in it.

Then:

Since terrorism is global, how exactly does the drastic lowering of America's approval rating in the world help us? How does weakening our ties with our allies help us? Bush, after all, has backed out of more treaties than any President in history.

We eliminated two terror supporting nations! Saddam supported terror groups in the region. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda! Both regimes are gone. This will benefit the people!

As for treaties, the only treaty that I can think of that we backed out is the ABM treaty. If you bring up Global Warming, we never RATIFIED it so how can we back out of a treaty that we never ratified as REQUIRED by the Constitution of the United States?

How exactly does attacking a country that had no collaborative ties to the specific terrorist group we were after help our Global War on Terror?

He had ties to terror groups in the region. He also had contacts with Al Qaeda. Though they never had direct relations. Also, Al Qaeda approached Hussein to establish terror camps though Hussein said no but and I stress this, he supported Hamas and other terror groups attacking Israel who is an US ally.

We eliminated two terror supporting nations! Saddam supported terror groups in the region. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda! Both regimes are gone. This will benefit the people!
Look at Iraq and tell me that we've eliminated the terrorist threat from there. You're crazy if you think that.

And as far as the Taliban is concerned, if we've eliminated them,why is Karzai negotiating with them? (http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/042604/new_042604019.shtml)

Look at Iraq and tell me that we've eliminated the terrorist threat from there. You're crazy if you think that.

And as far as the Taliban is concerned, if we've eliminated them,why is Karzai negotiating with them? (http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/042604/new_042604019.shtml)

It's no use Incertonia. They take the word of the Bush administration as gospel. They see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as finished. They think unbridled agression makes friends.

How about getting rid of the terror groups in the US first though?

You know, the Militias against the govt, the people that end up being Timothy McViegh, the Pro Lifers who bomb and murder people...

Ask Cheney who a terrorist is and he'll say 'Nelson Mandela'.

I love the Ultra Right wing version of reality.

Look at Iraq and tell me that we've eliminated the terrorist threat from there. You're crazy if you think that.

And as far as the Taliban is concerned, if we've eliminated them,why is Karzai negotiating with them? (http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/042604/new_042604019.shtml)

Is there another link that is closer to America and not some paper I never heard of? If this story is true, I'm not doubting but since its from a european source..., maybe is trying to bring peace to his nation? He can negotiate to bring peace to Afghanistan you know since he is the leader of a free Afghanistan.

It's no use Incertonia. They take the word of the Bush administration as gospel. They see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as finished. They think unbridled agression makes friends.

Worst case of stereotyping I've think I've ever seen!

I for one don't take Bush's word as gospel. Some do however and that is idiotic. I on the other hand, don't! Anyone that takes ANYONE'S word as gospel is stupid. I don't care if its Michael Moore or GWB Or John F Kerry or Bill Clinton or a teacher for that matter!

I know that the first phase in Iraq was accomplished. That was ousting Saddam from power. That is done. Now Iraq has an Interim Government who is calling the shots in Iraq. You have election coming in Afghanistan and in January, in the nation of Iraq.

As for thinking that unbridled agression makes friends, I know of several people that are my friends because I took out the school bully and we've remained friends too. However, I know that in the international world of politics this is not the case. However, I believe The Iraq War was the proper thing to do and I believe that Afghanistan was the proper thing to do.