d'Artagnan:
Your accuse me of your own failure to comprehend. You sarcasm and style doesn’t bode well when you make errors.
As your lick your pencil lead between notes, take a moment to reflect.

Pretending how I said things doesn’t make it “all better” for you. You, like Kerry and his band of others, would like to pretend its 9/10/01 again.

Your repeated use of the word neo-con, as with some others, unfortunately exposes you as one of the mindless followers. This word was dusted off by the party powers to combat “liberal”. Admittedly effective, as it hints of neo-Nazi and convict. It was fed to you guys heaping, on a long wooden spoon, and you swallowed it all! Impressive! It’s clever sure, but baaaa, baaaa.

Your inability to understand the situation makes you a liability to truth. Although I may like you, you are the type of man who would be ordered to pick up loose ammo during a firefight. Sorry, nothing personal.

As you stretch back your fingers and wiggle your ass in your chair, think - “what would John do?

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

You said; "I lean in support of the war, but I also hold the opinion that this move is one of the riskiest and potentially devastating ones that the US has undertaken. I wonder if our resolve will be as strong if or when people start dying INSIDE the US as a result of the war. "

Leaning on the fence like Kerry.
That doesn’t get the job done. Now Kerry is promising to react to terror attacks.
Nice. How thoughtful.

You may have learned the importance of taking risks. Kerry did take a risk in enlisting. A calculated risk that he erred in. He over plays this hand now. He had lost his resolve then.

I don’t care about your resolve, or Kerry’s, the men whose resolve matters remains strong.

You mean like Bush's resolve? He too took a risk in going to war, a needless risk I might add. Instead of thinking to himself "Say, there ain't no weapons of mass destrucshun here and that there Saddam feller didn't have anything to do with that Bin Laden guy (I gotta look that feller up some day). Now that my good ol' boys are in a position to rake in some big oil profits, well, I guess we can pull out." Oh, wait, that's sorta what he did do. <sarcasm> Yeah, I guess Bush really is the better leader. I mean, he's nothing like Kerry; imagine, heh, heh, trying to avoid getting involved in a senseless bloody conflict. Man, what a dope he is!

Wombat88: Partisanship notwithstanding, both the Senate Committee and the 9/11 both found that Bush did nothing to influence the intelligence, and that our intelligence community, as well the French, German and British intelligence communities, all believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. If you have some evidence to the contrary that isn't generated by Michael Moore, point me to it. I'd like to consider it.

Dripper,

The US was also getting lots of advice from all over the world to let Hans Blix's arms inspections continue. If we were so certain that WMD existed in Iraq, then why not share that information with the rest of the world or the UN?

The 9/11 commission also found that the war was unwarranted, and there was no credible relationship between Osama and Saddam.

So if the 9/11 commission is correct, how can we claim that the world is safer. Yes, we captured Saddam, but he did not have WMD, so he was not such a big threat, no?

But most of all, I resent the ARROGANCE and the CONDESCENDING tone in some of the pro Bush posts. This is my biggest fear. I have never viewed the US as an ARROGANT nation, but under this administration this is our clear direction. And to be honest, nothing good can come from our hubrous and arrogance.

Yeah! What he said!

Well, my understanding of the French and German intelligence was that it indicated Saddam wanted weapons (duh!), not had them. Of course, one could stretch the definition too; Saddam did have such weapons -- gas.

As for US and Brit intelligence, I could be wrong, but don't you think it was rather flimsy? I mean, risk alienating the entire Middle East, and create a whole new crop of terrorists, all based on iffy evidence? Hmm, more likely the puppetmasters saw an opportunity for profit and power.

Gentlemen: If I have been condescending, I apologize. As for the WMD, I remained personally unconvinced that Iraq didn't have them. The world is convinced that there are billions of dollars unaccounted for in the Iraqi national coffers, and yet even though we can't find it, doesn't it mean it doesn't or didn't exist. WMD are portable, and we have found sufficient evidence that they did exist, and the regime certainly failed to comply with most of Blix's requests, and the UN resolution, leading to a natural inference that he had the weapons, an inference that Blix himself drew. Why Saddam played this hand so badly, I cannot imagine. It is equally plausible that he elected for political purposes not to use the weapons, and secrete them away, because he could not win a military conflict under any circumstances, thus moving this very valuable asset to be used another days is an equally credible hypothesis as the one that they did not exist. Don't forget that Saddam paid $10 million to the North Koreans for missles that violated the UN limitations, and the N. Koreans stiffed him. There's no dispute about this. What did he want those missles for? Certainly not to lob love letters to Jerusalem.

As to our differences with the French, a story that is now being investigated by Paul Volker (because it is credible) that the French bureaucracy was in league with Saddam to rake off billions from the Oil for Food program. It is well known that the French were heavily invested in Iraq, and concerned about the consequences of regime change. Any French position on this issue should be taken with as much salt as the anti-Bush contingent pours on Administration policy.

I can't evaluate the quality of our intelligence. But both the Senate and the 9/11 committee concluded that Tenet was absolutely convinced. Unless we conclude that this Clinton appointee was as incompetent as the many posit the neocons are corrupt, I don't think the failures of the intelligence community can be attributed to the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the dismantling of our intelligence capacity began long before, and is probably attributable to post-Vietnam malaise. I see no evidence that the administration manipulated a war in order to line the pockets of its political supporters. Remember that Bush came into office on a campaign pledge that he would not indulge in nation-building, a credo that Clinton had to put in place in the Balkans. Once has to get one hell of a conspiracy theory to postulate that Bush hid his true intentions when he was elected, campaigned on a false platform that the nation would not be a policing power around the globe, and then seized on the opportunity after 9/11. Implict in that idea is that he was complicit in 9/11, or saw political advantage in it.

Lastly, the 9/11 commission attributes equal responsibility to the Bush and the Clinton administration. Clinton had two terms to deal with this problem, and he didn't. Bush was getting settled and setting a new policy, and admittedly perhaps did not devote all of the resources he should have. I have a very good friend who is a political science professor at MIT, working in international strategic relations, very critical of the administration, but he doesn't fault it very much for not preventing or foreseeing 9/11, because he, and most of the other independent experts did not.

I agree that the 9/11 commission discovered many things, and it is unclear even in hindsight whether the 9/11 attacks were preventable by either the Clinton or the Bush administration. But there is one key point.

THERE IS NO TIE BETWEEN THE WAR IN IRAQ AND THE 9/11 ATTACKS. I feel this is a blunder of monumental proportions. Not only are we mired in an almost inescapable quagmire in Iraq, the true perpetrators are still out there running free, making us no more safe, and some would argue less safe. We really missed the mark here. Sure, there might be some ancillary benefits to our invasion of Iraq, but the primary benefit escaped us.

I believe, as do many other countries in this world, that this situation was avoidable. Yes, of course, there was evidence that Saddam was a threat to world stability. But there was also was plenty of evidence pointing to the fact, that the UN sanctions were working, and Iraq indeed was much weaker than the Iraq of the early 90's. Yes, Bush had some bad information, but he also had good information. It is his job and his alone to weigh all the information both good and bad and come to a conclusion.

Dripper: I do not disagree that there is some need for tort reform in this country, particularly in the medical community. I wonder if it is possible to truly reform health care without reforms in this area. However, it seem that you are continually harping on the same points 'same group who brought you the phony breast implant litigation, the Bendectin litigation, the DPT litigation, the recent attack on the use of thimersol (sp?) in vaccine litigation, among others). I am sure that these are excellent examples of your points. You seem to forget that the reason that tort litigation has become so successful is because of years of corporations going unchecked. You also seem to have conveniently left out the many places where tort litigation has caused great benefits to the average citizen.

As for some of the other discussions, we can talk ad nauseam about 9/11. It is quite clear that mistakes were made. The right is going to blame Clinton and the left will blame Bush. Either way it is just political grandstanding because the truth is before 9/11 no one would have ever believed that such a thing could really happen. Bluestraveller makes the real point that there has never been any evidence of a relationship between Al-Quada and Iraq. In fact Bin Laden opposed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq because it was a secular government. We also set a terrible precedence by invading a country that did not pose an immediate threat to the USA, which has cost our position as a world leader a terrible blow. How many Americans have died in terrorist attacks because we invaded Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan? By spreading our troops so thinly we have negatively impacted the situation there and reduced our effectiveness against true terrorist organizations. A case in point is that Doctors Without Borders just pulled out of Afghanistan because of safety concerns.

The unfortunate thing that is happening this election season is that everyone is focusing solely on the Iraq and national security. These are, of course, very important issues but they overpower the many other issues that face the nation. What has Bush done for the USA? Health care has gone from bad to worse. The Democrats offered real health care reform in the Clinton years but could not get anything passed through a Republican House of Representatives. Bush has basically opened up our natural resources to the highest bidder; John Kerry’s record on the environment is one of the best in congress. Bush opposes medical research into stem cells in order to appease a tiny portion of the electorate. Let’s not forget the federal budget. We had a balanced budget when those ‘tax and spend’ Democrats where in the white house. Under Bush the deficit has skyrocketed with current estimates that things will only get worse. Even Reagan admitted that ‘trickle down’ did not work and raised taxes as soon as he got elected to his second term. The unfortunate thing is that the people pulling Bush’s strings our less concerned about the negative impact of the budget deficient and more concerned with lining their own pockets.

I have ranted more that long enough.

Beachbum: I don't think you ranted at all. I'll be brief: (1)If there are abuses in corporate America, the tort system is the least efficient and least democratic way to deal with them. Some mass tort cases were justified (the Dalkon Shield comes to mind) but by far the majority of these cases are scientifically unjustified, and the nation suffers because of it. (2) The Administration never justified the war based on an Iraq/AC link to 9/11. The commission says there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship as to 9/11. There is plenty of contrary evidence. (3)As to the Kerry/Bush comparison, that is a very ambitious topic. Environmental regulation, for instance, puts the country at a tremendous disadvantage as compared to foreign competition, and I think the challenge is to strike a balance between environmental concerns on the other hand, and job formation on the other. I think the Administration as done a good job, and I don't see any evidence that the Administration is corrupt to the point of selling our resources at auction. As to health care: the problem is not the policy of this administration or that administration. Rather it is the unrealistic expectation that as long as we pay insurance premiums we should be entitled to unlimited healthcare without reference to efficiency. Thus the profit margin for most healthcare is razor thin, and when that happens in a service industry, service usually suffers. Finally, as to the deficit: (1) The Administration inherited a recession at the end of the Clinton era. (2) The country suffered a devastating attack on its soil (unprecedented since the British invaded in the War of 1812), impacting many industries, notably transportation. (3) Say what you will about tax cuts, but they have stimulated the economy, and even Kerry advocates them. One final point: the litmus of a new vision for the country is the quality of a campaigns ideas. I see nothing new or novel from the Democratic party. The party blames America because other countries disagree with us. Would you entrust international security to the French (who don't even have a single air craft carrier) or the Germans (who likewise have almost no military capacity)? The French are reflexively anti-American, and when it comes to Iraqi corrupt as well.

No need to apologize, Dripper. Your ability to present your viewpoints in an intelligent and meaningful manner is a welcome relief from some of the incoherent fragments of Administration talking points we've had to suffer from the Parrot Sheep. Although we may not change minds, perhaps we can learn and better understand one another. I do not think most of us here are really that much different, and even if we are, perhaps we can find areas of agreement and compromise.

Your presentation of the potential and "actual" consequences of overzealous litigation is well laid out. I quote "actual" because I give you the benefit of the doubt that you know what you are talking about instead of blindly blathering Fox.

My background is primarily in business, journalism, and information systems with some additional study of philosophy and psychology. For that reason I do not have a similar background knowledge of the cases you bring up and will not attempt to present the other side based solely on some web searches. However, I will say that I do believe there are valid counterpoints to your argument and that the best solution is some kind of balance between corporate interests and consumer protection. Furthermore, I believe that the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates represent that sort of moderation and willingness to listen to both sides, and would not veer to an extreme position as the Republican Right attempts to portray.

I do not agree with your assessment of the Democratic Party, to me it sounds like your opinion is overly influenced by right-leaning media, which truth be told is an impressively well-coordinated machine that too often blurs commentary with news and delivers it reliably and repeatedly, much like advertising of a commercial product. The Clinton years brought the Democratic Party towards the center and more in line with the interests and values of most Americans. Democrats recognized this and adapted to this winning formula. IMHO, it's only through the effectiveness of conservative media and the ingenius legal manuevering of Clinton into a tight spot of admitting adultery or commiting perjury that Bush and Republicans took control of the White House. Had it not been for the blowjobs, Gore would have embraced Clinton and cruised into office with impressive job growth, a balanced budget, and respectable surpluses.

I also do not agree that the Senate Committee and 9/11 Commission sufficiently absolved the Bush Administration of influencing the intelligence. From my own reading and watching of the Democratic perspective, it seemed apparent to me that the Democratics were willing to compromise on narrow definitions of "pressure" and "influence" for the purpose of completing the work of the bipartisan bodies. I don't think it takes much imagination to see how the Administration can create the pressure without explicitly stating "THIS is the information I want." You actually already have examples of this kind of pre-determined intentions and lack of consideration of alternative viewpoints such as Rumsfield's dismissal of required troop levels and other examples provided by insiders O'Neil and Clarke. (If you are open-minded and not already convinced by the Right that these guys are just opportunists, I would recommend reading some of their claims if you have not already. Briefly, here's a CBS article specifically presenting O'Neil's perspective on the buildup to the Iraq War. Excerpt: He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001)

So my opinion, which I believe reflects the general Democratic position pretty well, is that the Bush Administration had already decided Saddam needed to go far before 9/11, but didn't have the proper circumstances to sell an Iraq War before the fateful day in September. We rallied around Bush after that, and patriotic Democrats and Republicans were almost all in support of the war in Afghanistan. But after that successful campaign, we started to hear 9/11 and bin Laden and Saddam a lot at the same time, and some of us began to suspect that Bush was going to ride the emotional wave still being felt by the American people and intentionally attempt to blur the distinction between Iraq and al Qaeda. Emotions were still so high at the time while being prodded by Bush Administration rhetoric that any attempt to encourage calm and rationale discussion was very difficult without being painted as unpatriotic and treasonous. In that respect, I cannot blame anyone in Congress for voting for the war, failure to do so would be political suicide, plus we all wanted to believe that the President would proceed cautiously and wisely and perhaps had more precise information than the rest of us had. Our view now is that the reasons for pause were all there, but largely disregarded as irrelevant and insufficient while intelligence supporting the case for war was encouraged and rewarded.

The preceding passage was based on my own analysis, but in my daily reading of political news and opinion I found that many Democrats came to the same conclusion as I did. In addition, I had other concerns and points of analysis that I posted here, but I haven't really seen reflected elsewhere. My first concern was that we weren't finding any solid evidence while having the benefits of technology such as modern forensics. We can find and match DNA evidence to link a criminal to a crime scene, but we couldn't find solid evidence of nuclear or biological agents while saying they existed?

Another concern was that I didn't believe that these "WMD's" could be both THAT well hidden while being THAT effective and ready for use. I couldn't imagine a situation where Saddam could use them with any reasonable success while inspectors were in Iraq. If the weapons existed, they would be contained while inspectors were present. Plus, I don't think the inspectors would have left nor could any development have taken place while the US was ready to threaten action if the UN inpectors didn't find anything. If the inspectors did leave, the US could then invade with the leverage of being able to say that we were patient and respectful of our alliances and the UN body, rather than being seen as arrogant, dismissive of our relationships, and eager to rush into war.

As for any current existence of weapons, with as many Iraqis we've had in custody with both legal and illegal "pressure" tactics to obtain information, plus the removal of the threat of Saddam coming down on them, and still no significant findings in our own searching, I think the likeliness of them existing and being hidden pales in comparison to the likeliness that they existed but were destoryed or did not exist in the first place. I do not find it very plausible that they were secreted away at this point.

I think the Bush Administration perceived a win-win-win situation and were unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints or fully consider the potential consequences of thier actions. From their perspective, even if the WMD's didn't exist they could rid the world of an evil dictator (which no one disputes) while rewarding their supportors in defense and energy, installing a democratic regime that might have a domino effect on the entire Middle East region, and strengthening our economy with the additional oil, jobs, and military presence in a new Iraq. (Parrot Sheep repeatedly squawk the simplistic view that we don't understand this because of their brainwashing by the Administration)

What's not considered above is the credibility lost by waging war based on false premises, disregard for the need of participation and discussion with the UN and our traditional allies, rushing into a pre-emptive war without the planning and troops needed to win the war and the peace, stretching our economic and military resources too thin, shifting our focus from stateless terrorism of al Qaeda(still an imminent threat) to the POTENTIAL threat of state-sponsored terrorism in Iraq(which was NOT IMMINENT), accelerating the recruitment of al Qaeda and other terrorist networks, weakening the credibility of supporting coalition leaders in their respective countries, draining our reserves and Guard at home because they are needed overseas, ...the list goes on and on...

You know what some of the things that really bother(ed) me are:
* Bush's strong opposition to the 9/11 commission
* Bush's insistence on testifying only with Cheney by his side, and only if not under oath
* The Republicans' insistence that the part of the Senate Intelligence report dealing with the Bush administration's handling of the pre-war intelligence be postponed until AFTER the election
* "Coincidences" such as the terror announcement after Edwards was picked, the Berger leak before the 9/11 report release ,capture of a major al Qaeda player during the DNC, etc...

Imagine if Bush had his way, think about HOW MUCH LESS we would know about the corrections we need to make to our intelligence organization and security measures to make the US safer from terrorism.

It's my opinion that the Bush Administration has and continues to mislead and manipulate the American people into supporting their position on the Iraq War using 9/11, fear of terrorism, blind religious faith, and carefully scripted leaks and planning of events. I consider these tactics deplorable and in opposition to dealing with the Terror threat truthfully and effectively.

News of the day, some of the Iraq WMD intelligence came from captured Al Qaida leaders who simply made it up, presumably to convince Bush to stop looking for Osama and instead go after Saddam, one of Osama's enemies. If this is true, its either incredibly stupid or worse.

Although I am not a big Michael Moore fan, and certainly not really convinced of the links because the Bush family and the house of Saud, I am beginning to think that the actions of Bush since 911 could be explained by a simple principle: 'Do nothing to harm Osama'.

After all, how you can explain the 'mistake' at Tora Bora? The comment by Bush less than a year after 911 that finding Osama was not a priority? Sending 150,000 troops to Iraq instead of using them to unearth Osama in Afganistan?

Osama killed thousands of Americans, and Bush lets him wander around the world free and clear. Unless Osama is in a freezer these days waiting to be popped out right before the election, none of the above actions make any sense at all unless the fix is in.

Bush has "alienated our friends, damaged our credibility around the world, reduced our influence to an all-time low in my lifetime, given hope to our enemies." - Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff during the first Gulf War(and former fighter pilot who campaigned for Bob Dole in 1996 as well as Bush in 2000):

CNN: Retired general: Bush foreign policy a 'national disaster'

The party blames America because other countries disagree with us.
I'm disappointed with this phrasing which is in my opinion a really cheap and hypocritical tactic pushed by the message builders of the Right. The Bush Administration DOES NOT constitute America, so when Democrats criticize BA actions that damage the US credibility, weaken the US economy, further polarize the upper and lower class, and endanger long-term US security, it's a shot to the nuts for us that disagree with Bush to be implicitly referred to as anti-American and treasonous when not explicitly being called the same. Many top Republicans should have looked in the mirror with their treatment and criticism of Clinton before coming up with this inciteful phrasing. In my opinion, one of the main reasons the country is so sharply and aggressively divided is because of the "Blame America first" charges being recklessly and hypocritically thrown around on the Right.

Democrats love our country as much as Republicans and will fight to improve our standing, strength, and security despite the intimidation tactics of the Right in painting our disagreement with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Ashcroft as treasonous.

Disgusting example:
A triple amputee from Vietnam and former U.S. senator, Cleland was defeated for re-election by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who ran a TV ad linking Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and questioning his "courage." Chambliss, who seems the very picture of physical fitness, escaped service in Vietnam with a medical exemption for a bad knee.

A similar viewpoint to mine:
From the start of its ill-conceived war, the Bush administration has used intimidation to silence its critics. No matter how proud your patriotism, no matter how sacred your service, no matter how generous your sacrifice, the White House has tried to smear you if you didn't agree with its policies...Among Bush's top advisers on foreign policy, only one, Colin Powell, has seen combat... But the Bush team's hypocrisy is as bold as its record of sacrifice is thin. They don't hesitate to denounce their opponents as cowards and traitors... But Karl Rove and his minions don't seem to think they can win in a fair fight, so they veer off into McCarthyism -- the cheap shots and bullying tactics that deride their opponents as un-American. - Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Excerpts from When Max Cleland Gets Riled, Republicans Should Watch Out

Saturday 31st July 2004 :
Nancy Reagan to Bush: 'We Don't Support Your Re-Election'   


By TERESA HAMPTON & WILLIAM D. McTAVISH

The widow of former President, and Republican icon, Ronald Reagan has told the GOP she wants nothing to do with their upcoming national convention or the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush.

Nancy Reagan turned down numerous invitations to appear at the Republican National Convention and has warned the Bush campaign she will not tolerate any use of her or her late husbands words or images in the President's re-election effort.

"Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush's re-election and neither to most members of the President's family," says a spokesman for the former First Lady.

Reagan's son, Ron, spoke at the just-concluded Democratic National Convention and writes in next month's Esquire magazine that "George W. Bush and his administration have taken normal mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. They traffic in big lies."

Ron Reagan is joined by his sister Patty in opposing Bush's re-election effort. Only brother Michael Reagan, a conservative talk show host, supports the President and claims Ron is manipulating his mother.

Unlike the other Reagan children, Michael is not Reagan's biological child. He was adopted by Reagan during the actor's first marriage to actress Jane Wyman and often complains that his stepmother, Nancy, likes Ron best.

"He is her favorite," Michael Reagan told Fox News. "Ron can do no wrong. I mean, basically that's it, Ron can do no wrong."

Ron, however, claims George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican Party his father helped build.

"My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself," Reagan writes in Esquire. "His Republican Party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious right."

The Reagans' split with Bush and the party centers around stem cell research which many believe can help find a cure for Alzheimer's, the disease that crippled President Reagan in his final years. Bush and the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party oppose use of new stem cells. The Reagans, with the exception of Michael, support such use.

There's more to the feud than that, however. Nancy Reagan has told close followers she believes Bush and the current Republican leadership have divided America with their extreme views. She has told Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or Bush.

During the week of Reagan's funeral, the former First Lady "went ballistic" when she learned the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads that used Reagan's photos and speeches in an effort to show he supported Bush and his re-election. She personally called Republican Party Chief Ed Gillespie to demand the ads be destroyed.

Republican strategists admit the ads were produced but never ran. They were pulled after scoring poorly with focus groups where viewers found them in "poor taste."

"Mrs. Reagan doesn't care why the ads were pulled. She just wanted to make sure they never went on the air," says a spokesman for the First Lady. "She does care about whether or not the memory of President Reagan is used for political purposes."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4935.shtml

How can a man be elected President who has admitted that he has committed War attrocities and has admitted to breaking the rules of the Geneva Convention? How could the World ever respect a leader of the United States who admitted to these crimes? Especially........ after the World and all the Democrats were outraged at a few naked prisoners in Iraq!!!! Come now.....I am sure you liberals we be able to spin this!

The problem Beachman isn't that we liberals might spin it. The problem is that someone like you, only a lot brighter, might spin it successfully enough to fool enough people to bury us once and for all

Because of the very fact that he did admit to what he did and was genuinely troubled by it. He used those experiences to totally change his outlook on the world and life in general. That kind of man can easily be respected.

Counterpoint is his opponent who has NEVER made a mistake and believes anyone who questions any of his actions is either a moron or a traitor.
No one except the indoctrinated few can respect a man like that.

Is it any surprise that GW is totally dissed in virtually every country in the world ?

BTW --I believe it involved a bit more than a few naked prisoners.

Not to highjack this thread, but a few words on stem cell research.

I believe that America's might is derived almost exclusively from its economic power. When Reagan took office, our economy was not in the greatest shape. What put the American economy back on track was not so much tax cuts, but the emergence of a whole new industry led by American companies. The PC industry, creating American giants such as Intel and Microsoft. Later, the internet boom created other international companies such as Cisco.

In the next 10 years, the PC industry will dwindle, similar to the car and steel industries in the 70's, and new industries will take their place. I believe that it is critical to our economy and our technological leadership for America to lead in stem cell research.

Let's be honest here. If we do not do this research in the US, it does not mean that the research will not occur in the rest of the world. It only guarantees that America will not lead in this critical area. Furthermore, if cures for Alzheimers, diabetes, etc come out of some non American country such as France, who would not buy these new drugs? I know I will. In fact, I am sure that we all will.

It is VERY short sighted of Bush to pander to the religious right on this issue. And the future of America really lies in the balance.

(Message edited by bluestraveller on July 31, 2004)

Good point, BT. You're onto an important point. The "religious right" wing of conservative Republicans, rather than the more traditional economic conservative wing, has taken control of the Administration's policy apparatus. That group of "flat-earth" anti-intellectuals could care less about the economic consequences of their moral positions, and they're capable of seeing only one part of the moral equation. They could care less if they drive the economy into the ground, as long as the purity of their religious vision, shared by only a minority of Americans, is maintained.

I never thought I'd say this, but Bush has made the Reagan days seem like the good ol' days, even to this Clintonite.

Here is the latest poll from Newsweek about how registered voters feel about the candidates and who is best suited to handle these issues.

It is still early, but if I were Bush I would be troubled by these numbers. If Bush gets re-elected, it will be because he has successfully frightened the country into voting for him. The only issue he leads Kerry on is the war on terror. And the only reason he leads Kerry on that issue is because he has been the face of that issue for the past 3 years. Even foreign policy in general Kerry leads Bush.

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. July 29-30, 2004. N=1,010 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you trust George W. Bush or John Kerry to do a better job handling each of the following issues. What about [see below]? Which do you trust do to a better job handling this issue: Bush or Kerry?" Names rotated.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm

On the issue of polling, an issue that seems to crop up every now and then is whether particular polling organizations polls tend to favor the Democrats or Republicans from a methodological standpoint. I don't know the answer to this but would like to have some information on the subject. For example, I have sometimes heard the Zogby poll may tend to favor Democratic candidates while the Rasmussen poll may tend to favor the Republicans. I even remember at one point sometime ago Zogby (prematurely, I think) stated the election was Kerry's to lose, while on Rasmussen's website he argued against this. Rasmussen tends to appear on Fox News (aka Fox Fiction), etc. I'm not suggesting the polls are intentionally biased in a particular direction, but the methodologies may lean in one direction or another owing to honest differences of opinion as to how to conduct the polls. Perhaps Fox prefers to have on Rasumussen, whereas CNN may prefer other polling organizations owing to the biases (again, I'm assuming unwitting) in the polls' methodologies. Anyone have solid information on these issues?

(Message edited by LAguy on August 01, 2004)

Well, it is about time for Bin Laden to pop out of the spider hole (undoubtedly manufactured by Halliburton (sp?) for a handsome fee) he has been kept in these last months in preparation for the election. Perhaps to the tune of "Pop, Goes the Weasel." No, wait a minute: that is the tune that is played when George W. nuts Laura!

What do you guys think about Kerry's comment last week about Bin Laden, Kerry said that he should face trial here in the U.S.

Regarding my "coincidences" point in my 7/31/04 9:37am post, here is more elaborate detail of what I was referring to for those that may have missed the announcement and background about what happened on 7/29/04. HVT = High Value Target.

...But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston....
The New Republic: PAKISTAN FOR BUSH. July Surprise? - Issue date 07.19.04

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, said to be a top al Qaeda operative and one of the world's most wanted men, was in custody in Pakistan on Friday for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa
Reuters: Pakistan Says Captures 'Most Wanted' Qaeda Man - Thu Jul 29

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON & TERESA HAMPTON

Jun 4, 2004, 06:15


President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”

Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

“This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items.”

Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush’s inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration’s war against Iraq.

The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record.

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue

This particular source is of coarse biased but I have been hearing quite a bit about Bush, prozac,depression, temper tantrums and drinking all over the press for a couple of months now.

Calling that source biased is an understatment. The Capitol Hill Blue is a front for an antiwar group based in the Netherlands.

Anybody can write anything they want to, even outright lies.

Roadglide,

Are you saying that nothing in the article is true strictly by looking at the source? They are quoting sources inside the Bush administration. Are you saying that all of these sources are fictitious?

Here is another report from the same news source. Are you saying that all of this is fiction also?

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=2238

I admit I wouldn't bet the farm on everything in that article but I wonder just how far gone Bush is. The
guy doesn't have a lot to fall back on and even he
must suspect his advisors are something short of competent. When all those protesters hit New York
at the end of the month Jr. just might crack.

While it has been my hope for a long time that Bush would have a nervous breakdown during a press conference (maybe this prospect is why he rarely has them) I now fear Cheney will suffer a heart attack or stroke during his debate with Edwards. At that point Bush would probably ask McCain to be his running mate, and if McCain accepted Bush/McCain would be very hard to beat.

Friends: Considering the pronounced anti-administration bias in the main stream media, do you think for one moment if these stories of Bush-madness were the least bit credible they wouldn't jump all over it? Dan Rather would see it as the high point of his career, better than being on the ground in Nam, or being punched in the gut at the '68 Democratic Convention in Chicago. The strongest evidence that these reports are garbage is that they are not being picked up in the major media. The NY Times would love a headline "Bush Nuts," but even it has some shame, particularly after it had to acknowledged completely made-up articles from the Middle East, and less than independent coverage on the lead up to the war. Bush has faults, and is certainly subject to criticism, but he doesn't foam at the mouth.

It would be strange indeed if administration insiders chose to talk about these issues to Capitol Hill Blue but not the mainstream (or semi-mainstream) media in the U.S. On the other hand, I have detected some serious foam around Bush's mouth so I can't agree with Dripper's last point.

Dripper, why did the main stream media not jump all over the fact that the Saudis, including the Bin Laudens, were being flown out of the country right after September 11? That sounds like a pretty interesting story, yet it it went unnoticed. Curious, no?

Personal attacks serve no one in this campaign. I don't care a bit if Bush were on Prozac, as long as his policies are on track.

Irrespective of his policies, I would prefer not to have a President on Prozac. Just my humble personal opinion.

What I really think we should do about this lawyer situation is to take away my right to have a lawyer represent me on contingency, so I have to pay cash the next time that some corporation screws me over. I am confident that I can pay for a lawyer to go toe-to-toe with the squads of corporate lawyers that show up in court these days.

Wombat88: As good as your photography skills are and as exquisite your taste in women, I cannot accede to your political views. The reason that the media didn't jump on the Bin Laden family members story is that there is no story there. A Clinton appointee, Richard Clarke, approved the departure of these family members, after they were interviewed by the FBI. What would be the basis for holding them in the country?

Explorer: I know I am butting up against a stone wall on this point, but I have never said that the contingency system does not have its uses, one of which is to temper wrongdoing by corporations. The problem is not the contingency system, but how some unscrupulous junk science lawyers, including Edwards, have abused it to line their pockets, and damage the country. Surely, you are not an advocate for lawyers who knowingly use bad science to get results for their clients that they know are unjust, and that have wide ranging social consequences.

One man's "junk science" is another man's Nobel prize theory.

However, I do agree that unscrupulous people are a problem, and we should do what is necessary to keep them in check. Among these are corporate lawyers.

Why should I vote for Kerry?

I have seen a lot of Bush bashing here, or Monday morning quarterbacks. Sure it's easy to disect the decision a person has made when we are not in that position of responsibility.

The other day Kerry stated that if he was President he would like to see Bin Ladin on trial in the U.S. I think that's the last place Bin Ladin should be. Why give him the protection of our laws?

Kerry has also gone on record as saying that all Americans should have free medical care. Who gets to pay for that?

So what I am asking here, is what has John Kerry accomplished in the past 20 something years that he has been a Senator?

What bills or laws has he been an author of? What of his voting record?

Don't tell me why I should vote against Bush, tell me why I should vote for Kerry.

Dripper: This really has become quite the brick wall, along with being a dead horse. My difficulty with your thesis, though, is that you seem to not be willing to acknowledge that at times junk science is used on both sides. I agree 100% with your point made a while back about asbestos. But by the same there are numerous cases of corporations arguing that real dangers cause no problems using the same "science."

You stated, I see nothing new or novel from the Democratic party. The party blames America because other countries disagree with us. This is the classic republican statement. I, nor the democratic party, do not blame America. I blame the current administration and there is a big difference.

My statement, Bush has basically opened up our natural resources to the highest bidder was meant as an expression that did not clearly state my point. I cannot understand how you could possibly believe that I think the Administration as done a good job, [balancing job creation and environmental concerns] when every decision this administration has made is pro business. You seem to think that protecting the little bit of remaining natural resource ion this country is making it impossible for American bussiness to compete in the global market. A bigger problem with corporate America's difficulty competing is the obsession with short term profits. An approach that has caused corporations to loose the competitive edge as their processes became more and more outdated.

I am getting to tired to keep typing so that is all for now. We obviously have incredibly different political views.

RoadGlide:

Bush has failed, vote Libertarian, Nader, anyone but the failed incumbent. If the guy doing the jobs fails, fire him, and move on.

Arrrggggghhhh!!!

Drudge is reporting that the information used for today's big Alert in NYC and DC is *years* old.

Personally, I think that Al Qaida is now playing with us, "Hey, Ahkmed, call me back and say 'White House, August' real loud'.

Explorer
Of course it's ancient intelligence. All Bush has to hang onto is being a " Wartime President ". Can't change leaders in the middle of a war now can we ??
So little by little we leak old reports and call bogus threat news conferences by
Old Tom " Pick a Color " Ridge. Gotta keep the enemy close by and ready to attack . They probably are , but I'm afraid the myopic assholes running our country will never know about it until they see it happen on the Fox " News " Channel.

Duck and cover in the schools has to be next. Get to the parents by scaring the crap out of the kids. That'll get a few votes for sure.

Elections for President when an incumbent is running for re-election are rarely, if ever about the challenger. They are a referendum on the incumbent and whether or not the public approves of the policies he has put forth during his first term. Other factors may include his personality, charisma and charm.

It seems ironic to me that the supposed Al-Queda "targets" are mainly in the finance and banking industries, the heart of the nations economy.

As if the terrorists are hell bent on trying to collapse the economy throught the demolition and destruction of buildings that only "house" the banking and finance institutions.

But no matter how much physical damage they could do. It would pall in comparison with how much the economy has taken a hit since George W. Bush has led the nation.

Only this President could do more damge to this economy that several 9/11's put together. By running the largest deficit in U.S. history with the largest number of job losses since Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover and the Great depression, if the terrorist were surely trying to ruin the economy the would ensure the re-election of George W. Bush.

The only terrorist who can attack and damage the nations economy is already sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.


OG

Guys, we need someone to explain why George Bush should be re-elected. Maybe a list of his positive accomplishments.