Us presidential election 2004

[blackdog~ 0]

seafire6... if I was a girlyman, I would marry you.

[llauma 0]

From reading the posts of those who are opposed to Pres. Bush its pretty clear that there is a great deal of not just disagreement, but also personal antipathy in their arguments which makes a rational discussion of the issues impossible. I suspect  if this forum were open back in the 80's we would likely see those opposed to Bush just as vehemently hating Reagan; and we now see he ended up on the good side of history in spite of being considered a 'warmonger' and was hated by most liberals on both sides of the Atlantic.

Offcourse it's not just disagreement.. Bush is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths all based on lies so it's absurd to just disagree with him. He is a criminal like Pinochet.

But I could be wrong.. Do you just disagree with terrorists or is the feeling something stronger?

Reagan ended up as good because Gorbatchev put him there.. Peace is never onesided so the end of cold war will always be ascribed to both sides. If Both sides would have had a Reagan we would for sure have seen a different outcome.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]but also personal antipathy in their arguments which makes a rational discussion of the issues impossible

Rational discussion ? With billybob ? Haha

Judged by facts Bush should have already left the office in disgrace.

Yah let´s discuss it rational. You make the start.

[seafire6 0]

As a surgeon I am in the position of making life and death decisions based on the information in front of me (ie xrays, blood work, history,physical exam etc.) and often the decision is made with the clock ticking over my shoulder. For instance, if I see a patient with a concern for appendicitis and I have a cat scan concerning for but not conclusive for appendicitis along with other signs of infection and I take the patient to surgery only to find a normal appendix - did Imake a mistake or was I only being prudent ? Was the radiologist reading the cat scan incompetent, or was the cat scan truly difficult to interpret ? To make matters worse what if the patient suffers a significant complication due to the surgery I decided upon based on the evidence before me ? I am accustumed to these scenarios and can idenitfy with Bush making a decision based on the evidence before him. In my experience it pays to assume the worst is/has happened and act accordingly even if it is not easy or popular. I suppose it really all comes down to whether you trust him or not in his description of how he came to his decision.

[denoir 0]

Ok, so you blame it on faulty intelligence and perhaps bad hearing (given the most of the world said very loudly that invading was very premature and that the UN inspections should continue). Let's say that I buy it for a second. How does making bad decisions based on bad intelligence make him a great leader?

What has Bush done for the national security? What has he accomplished?

Mind you that the WMD fiasco is also only a minor part of the overall Iraq fiasco. The country is a complete mess due to an ill-calculated and incompetently executed occupation.

Afghanistan is even worse.

Could you tell me, what exactly has Bush accomplished except for making America really hated around the world? Are you safer? Are there fewer terrorists out to get you? How about future prospects? Do you think that his actions have reduced the probability of people joining the terrorists? etc

In short, what do you base your praise on apart from just empty words and phrases coming from the man?

[Bernadotte 0]

I suspect  if this forum were open back in the 80's we would likely see those opposed to Bush just as vehemently hating Reagan...

Oh really? And how many tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost because of Reagan's decisions?

[Schoeler 0]

As a surgeon I am in the position of making life and death decisions based on the information in front of me (ie xrays, blood work, history,physical exam etc.) and often the decision is made with the clock ticking over my shoulder. For instance,  if I see a patient with a concern for appendicitis and I have a cat scan concerning for but not conclusive for appendicitis along with other signs of infection and I take the patient to surgery only to find a normal appendix - did Imake a mistake or was I only being prudent ? Was the radiologist reading the cat scan incompetent, or was the cat scan truly difficult to interpret ? To make matters worse what if the patient suffers a significant complication due to the surgery I decided upon based on the evidence before me ? I am accustumed to these scenarios and can idenitfy with Bush making a decision based on the evidence before him. In my experience it pays to assume the worst is/has happened and act accordingly even if it is not easy or popular. I suppose it really all comes down to whether you trust him or not in his description of how he came to his decision.

After discovering that the patient's appendix was normal, do you continue to go around insisting it was not and then make every attempt possible to present a different reason for conducting the operation?

Just wondering.

[Schoeler 0]

I suspect  if this forum were open back in the 80's we would likely see those opposed to Bush just as vehemently hating Reagan...

Oh really?  And how many tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost because of Reagan's decisions?  

Actually, I really admired Reagan. He was like a grandfather figure to me. The last real Republican in my opinion.

[Bernadotte 0]

I suppose it really all comes down to whether you trust him or not in his description of how he came to his decision.

Is the surgeon seeking another opportunity to operate, after making such a mess of things the first time?  

At what point does it become necessary to find another doctor?

[Bernadotte 0]

I suspect  if this forum were open back in the 80's we would likely see those opposed to Bush just as vehemently hating Reagan...

Oh really?  And how many tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost because of Reagan's decisions?  

Actually, I really admired Reagan.  He was like a grandfather figure to me.  The last real Republican in my opinion.

Then I'm sure you don't like seeing seafire6 lumping Reagan's opponents into the same basket with Bush's opponents any more than I do.

[seafire6 0]

First, hindsight is always 20/20. The intel wasn't perfect but again dealing with multpile sources basically all saying the same thing, he made a prudent decision. Can you imagine the outcry if a WMD attack came in say 2004 -2006 in the USA and it was found that the source of tyhe weapon was Iraq and he not acted ? He would be derided even more visciously by US citzens than any nonamerican could ever dream. Trust me the monday morning quarterbacks would have had a field day describing the 'excellent' intel he decided to discount.

Second, one of my partners in the practice has just returned from Iraq and before that Afghanistan as a staff surgeon and from his accounts the average citizen in both countries is grateful for the help. He tells stories of opening hospitals/clinics, people thanking him for being there and patients waiting 3 days to see a American physician. Iraqi physicians for the fist time in many years have freedom in treating their patients and actually the meds/tools they need. The Afghans were even worse off before the Taliban were ousted. The biggest complaint he has is with the press coverage of Iraq/Afghan. that covers mainly the negative aspects of a process that is bringing to very poor isolated countries closer to joining the global community where they will have a much greater chance at flourishing.

Third, although no siginficant amounts of WMD were left in the country the predicament of both countries is better with the former regimes removed. The world security is improved as well because countries that languish in poverty/corruption are the major source of instablity in the world; when the per capita GDP of a country is ~ 4000$ the incidence of mass violence drops to nearly zero. In history, only democracies have been able to achieve this level of GDP and a goverment where the per capita GDP is less than ~ 1000$ has never been successful. A stable democracy will not tolerate a terrorst group exporting terror from within its borders - morally wrong and not good for business. A principle way for many poor countries to get started on the good economic road is with direct foreign investment but to get this requires a stable goverment with fair and firm rules in place to protect investors. Brining these countries into the global community is what fears most of the terrorists. If you read their wishes it usually involves with keeping their line 'pure' , going back to ancient laws where the very few wield power over the many and improvement in standards of living is not a concern - only keeping the power. People from chaotic areas will hate the US no matter what we do, their goverments foster these beliefs. Ignoring, appeasing whatever you want to call it will only delay the consequences of letting these places languish, especially in our small world today.I think the US is on the right track in bringing at least the choice of freedom to these countries and in the future it can happen hopefully without a war.

With regard to your empty words comment I am a reseve medical officer in the US Navy and will be proud to deploy when called as I did in 1991. I would miss my wife and two boys very much but as an American I would do whatever it takes. So trust me these words are not empty.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....sition=

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry Enlisting Clinton Aides in Effort to Refocus Campaign

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Former President Bill Clinton, in a 90-minute telephone conversation from his hospital room, offered John Kerry detailed advice on Saturday night on how to reinvigorate his candidacy, as Mr. Kerry enlisted more Clinton advisers to help shape his strategy and message for the remainder of the campaign.

In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is awaiting heart surgery, told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said.

The conversation and the recruitment of old Clinton hands came amid rising concern among Democrats about the state of Mr. Kerry's campaign and criticism that he had been too slow to respond to attacks on his military record or to engage Mr. Bush on domestic policy. Among the better-known former Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg, campaign aides said.

Mr. Kerry's aides emphasized that this was an expansion of the staff for the fall campaign and did not represent another upheaval of the Kerry campaign. Still, several Democrats outside the campaign said the influence of Mr. Clinton and his advisers could be seen over the past few days in Mr. Kerry's attacks on Mr. Bush's domestic policies. They said the Clinton team had been pressing Mr. Kerry to turn up the intensity of his attacks on those policies after a month spent largely avoiding engaging the president.

The installation of former Clinton lieutenants is creating two distinct camps at Mr. Kerry's campaign headquarters on McPherson Square in downtown Washington.

The first is the existing Kerry high command, which includes Mary Beth Cahill, the campaign manager; Bob Shrum, a senior adviser; Tad Devine, a senior adviser; and Stephanie Cutter, the communications director. The second is the Clinton camp, which includes Joe Lockhart, a former White House press secretary; Joel Johnson, a former senior White House aide; and Doug Sosnik, a former Clinton political director. And Howard Wolfson, a former chief of staff to Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined the campaign yesterday.

Members of both camps played down any suggestion of a Clinton takeover of a troubled campaign and insisted there was no tension between the two groups. Still, these days, Mr. Lockhart is stationed in an office on one side of the campaign war room; Mr. Shrum's office is on the opposite side.

On Saturday, Mr. Johnson drew applause from Democrats assembled for a weekly strategy meeting at Mr. Kerry's headquarters when he reassured aides that the campaign had settled on a clear line of attack against Mr. Bush, people at the meeting said. They said Mr. Johnson told the group that the campaign wanted the entire party to heed the new talking points.

"It's very simple," Mr. Johnson said in an interview yesterday, describing what he said would be the template for Mr. Kerry's speeches and advertisements in the weeks ahead. "It's: 'Bush has taken us in the wrong direction. If you want more of the same for the next four years, vote for President Bush. If you want a new direction, John Kerry and John Edwards.' It's not complicated. Failed policies, jobs and the economy, health care."

Officials with knowledge of the Clinton conversation said it came after Mr. Kerry called Mr. Clinton at Columbia-Presbyterian Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital on Friday to wish him well. Mr. Clinton, who was described by advisers as concerned by the direction of the Kerry campaign, thanked him and suggested that the two men talk over the weekend about the campaign, which they did Saturday night.

The telephone conversation, which was described as detailed and expansive, with Mr. Kerry doing more listening than talking, also included Mr. Lockhart, who joined Mr. Kerry's campaign as a senior adviser about two weeks ago. Mr. Lockhart declined to comment on the conversation.

People close to Mr. Kerry said he was receptive to the counsel and was moving to widen his circle of advisers in the face of mounting concern among prominent Democrats about the potency of Mr. Bush's campaign. They noted that Mr. Clinton and his strategists were architects of the only winning Democratic presidential drives since 1976. Even so, some of Mr. Kerry's aides insisted that their seeking help from Mr. Clinton was not a reflection of flaws in their campaign.

Mr. Kerry's aides insisted that the Clinton advisers were augmenting the staff as it headed into a difficult period, and did not represent another instance in which Mr. Kerry was shaking up his campaign staff. Mr. Kerry fired a campaign manager in the primary season. The Kerry aides said that senior advisers, among them Ms. Cahill and Mr. Shrum, remained in their posts.

Still, some Democrats described what was taking place as a slow-motion shake-up as Mr. Clinton's former advisers assume increasingly powerful roles.

Mr. Greenberg, who was Mr. Clinton's pollster in 1992, resigned Tuesday as the pollster for independent Democratic groups that have been running advertisements attacking Mr. Bush so that he would be permitted, under the law, to play a more prominent role in advising Mr. Kerry's campaign.

Mr. Kerry's aides said that a longtime political adviser from Boston, John Sasso, who is working as general manager of the Democratic National Committee, would start traveling with Mr. Kerry as a full-time aide.

Mr. Sasso is said to have history with Mr. Kerry and his respect, enough to be able to give the candidate unvarnished criticism on his performance on the trail.

Mr. Begala, who said he would remain a CNN commentator, said he was delighted with the changes. He added that Mr. Bush had succeeded over the past month in transforming the race from a referendum on an incumbent president to a referendum on Mr. Kerry.

"It was an enormous shift," Mr. Begala said last night. Then, referring to Karl Rove, a top Bush strategist, he added: "And it required the cooperation of the candidate. And you know what? The Kerry campaign is no longer cooperating. Sorry, Karl."

Mr. Clinton's engagement in the campaign is new but hardly surprising. Throughout the 2004 campaign, Mr. Clinton has offered advice to any Democratic presidential candidate who would listen, including Mr. Kerry. And he told Mr. Kerry's advisers before his hospitalization that he would play a major role campaigning for Mr. Kerry this fall. In 2000, Mr. Clinton made no secret of his dismay that his vice president, Al Gore, did not turn to him more for counsel and campaigning help.

The Kerry campaign has become roiled in recent days by criticism - from inside and outside - of its decision to initially resist responding to the attacks on Mr. Kerry's war record by a group of veterans. Members of the Clinton camp as well as some of Mr. Kerry's aides were said to have believed that the slow response hurt Mr. Kerry and contributed to polls in recent days suggesting that he had slipped behind Mr. Bush.

"We talked about this last year, the fact that Republicans would come after his service and the idea that they would come after what he did when he got home," said one midlevel Kerry adviser who is not part of the Clinton camp. "The idea that we got caught flat-footed is just crazy."

Mr. Shrum, in an interview yesterday, called such second-guessing "ridiculous," saying, "We responded within six or seven days.

"I was strongly in favor of responding to the Swift boats when we did or around when we did, and so was Mary Beth," Mr. Shrum said, referring to Ms. Cahill and the advertisements by the Vietnam veterans critical of Mr. Kerry.

While Mr. Kerry's crewmates denounced the advertisements as soon as they were released Aug. 4, Mr. Kerry himself did not address the accusations until Aug. 19.

The notion that the campaign was settling on a new message for the fall came as news to some senior staff members.

"That's really groundbreaking," one senior aide said sarcastically when told about the focus on Mr. Bush's policies outlined by Mr. Johnson. "I think our negative frame should be that George Bush is a liar. He misled the country on Iraq. And then everything else that he lies about, bring it back to that."

Mr. Devine said any lack of clarity of Mr. Kerry's message was due to the campaign's running few advertisements in the past five weeks. He said the polls are showing a downturn they always planned for.

"If you want to deliver a powerful message, you need all the means of message-delivery at your disposal," Mr. Devine said. "Absent those tools and those means it's just harder to deliver that kind of message."

Jodi Wilgoren contributed reporting for this article.

Kerry sat on his ass while the swift folk grew.

That is sad if Clinton, who is getting surgery today, has tell Kerry to stop talking about Vietnam. I wonder how is Marc Rich is doing. Anyway, lets hope Clinton makes it!

[Bernadotte 0]

...

With regard to your empty words comment I am a reseve medical officer in the US Navy and will be proud to deploy when called as I did in 1991. I would miss my wife and two boys very much but as an American I would do whatever it takes. So trust me these words are not empty.

Wife?  Are you a lesbian?

You claim to be female in your profile.

 

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Wife? Are you a lesbian?

You claim to be female in your profile.

Great Scott!!!

[quicksand 0]

seafire6 I could start dismissing your dubious arguments stating that the intelligence was based on exiled Iraqis that haven`t stepped foot in the country for the last two decaded people who had absolutley no knowabouts about the regime but had all to do with craving for power which they recived in the interim government.

I could also go on explaining that the media will more likely cover about the 40 Iraqis that had their body parts metres far from each other rather then the few who got treated at the US field hospital.As unfair as it might seem to you it will also more likely be covering a siege that killed 1,000 Iraqi citizens in the gruesome scene of fighting one year after the war "ended" rather then an Iraqi pedratician that has better tools then under Saddam regime.The reason,well as polls show 80% of Iraqis hate US forces and suport attacks on their forces so it will obviously be unfair to concentrate on the minority of Iraqis who see US military in a better light in their country.

Last of all I feel that I it's only fair to inform you tell that both I and CNN repectfully doubt your freinds claim of "opening many hospitals in Iraq".Most likely because of a CNN reportage last week highliting what the once the most modern hospital in Baghdad was enduring on a daily basis:electricity shortages,no proper tools whatsoever,so many injured that Iraqis hit by sharpnell were forced to seat on the floor,desperate doctors complaining about security and lack of medicine of course this just might be CNN biased in reporting,who knows?

But all this is on the sideline.You seem to be a more educated republican which for me is a rare sighting.So I have just one question that everyone else have been unable to answer:

Bush is a decisive,strong leader that in his own words is set to bring freedom and democracy to the entire world.Well I am faced with quite a predicament.

Here is the profile of a big bad man at the border with China,why even worst seafire6 I am afraid he could be the source of your nightmare of waking up in 2005-2006 hit by the most deadly weapons created by mankind,so:

WMD

-He has admited to be holding a nuclear arsenal and further developing it.

-He has tested his chemical arsenal on his own people

Threat to the safety of USA

-He has threatend to use his nuclear arsenal against USA if it turns out to be necesary

Bringing freedom and democracy

-Human rights organisations accuse him of horrific crimes against humanity

-His countrymen have never had a glimpse not at democracy nor at freedom

The man is Kum Jo Young,the leader of North Korea a threat to the world that Saddam Hussein could have only dreamed of ever being.It's obvious that this should have been the most likely target to show George W Bush "war leadership" against such a menace,yet in reality one could say his big words and ambitions end right here,as can you belive it George W Bush shows a competly diferent face and is negotiating with him.

Would you care to take it from here?

[denoir 0]

First, hindsight is always 20/20. The intel wasn't perfect but again dealing with multpile sources basically all saying the same thing, he made a prudent decision.

The 'multiple sources' were pretty much the sources that took directions and hints from what the White House wanted. You were told by other countries very loud and clear that it was highly questionable that Iraq had any significant WMD capabilities. Inspections were under way and working. Instead of waiting for them to complete, he interrupted them by starting to bomb the country. His argument? He ran out of patience.

Quote[/b] ]Can you imagine the outcry if a WMD attack came in say 2004 -2006 in the USA and it was found that the source of tyhe weapon was Iraq and he not acted ? He would be derided even more visciously by US citzens than any nonamerican could ever dream. Trust me the monday morning quarterbacks would have had a field day describing the 'excellent' intel he decided to discount.

Hardly. It's not exactly like his fan base has been reduced since it became known that right before the WTC attacks he got a report saying that Bin Laden was going to attack the US using commercial airplanes.

Anywyay, how many people are you ready to kill because of what might perhaps happen? Why Iraq? Why not North Korea. They really are developing WMD and have on multiple occasions, unlike Iraq, threatened the US. They are also one of the bigger exporters of various weapons to shady customers around the world. Would it not be 'prudent' to invade NK, or at least to nuke them?

What about Russia? I mean sure, things are looking good now, but you never know. They could turn the US into a parking lot. Are you really willing to risk that? Why not initiate a first strike and make sure?

How many civilians are you ready to kill for what might happen? I'm not asking it as a rethorical question. I want numbers. Obviously, you think that tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians was worth it. Give me a number. 100,000? A million? A billion?

Quote[/b] ]Second, one of my partners in the practice has just returned from Iraq and before that Afghanistan as a staff surgeon and from his accounts the average citizen in both countries is grateful for the help. He tells stories of opening hospitals/clinics, people thanking him for being there and patients waiting 3 days to see a American physician. Iraqi physicians for the fist time in many years have freedom in treating their patients and actually the meds/tools they need. The Afghans were even worse off before the Taliban were ousted. The biggest complaint he has is with the press coverage of Iraq/Afghan. that covers mainly the negative aspects of a process that is bringing to very poor isolated countries closer to joining the global community where they will have a much greater chance at flourishing.

My friend Bob saw a polar bear in the Bahamas. Hence there are lots of polar bears in the Bahamas.

Personal experiences about how the 'average Iraqi' feel means absolutely jack. You have hard data; statistically representative polls that say that the average Iraqi hates your guts and does not mind attacks on US troops. The average Iraqi feels according to the surveys that you should be booted out of the country ASAP.

As for Afghanistan the situation is even more desperate. NATO only controls part of Kabul and the airport. The rest of the country is under the control of various war lords. The best indicator of the situation there is the international help organizations, that have been there for decades, have now evacuated the country. During the Taliban rule there was the Taliban law... but at least it was some form of law. Right now the country is run by drug and war lords which do as they see fit. It is a complete anarchy. No wonder the Taliban are gaining popularity again.

Quote[/b] ]Third, although no siginficant amounts of WMD were left in the country the predicament of both countries is better with the former regimes removed.

Hardly since they both are in a downwards spiral into chaos. The situation in Iraq is not better than it was a year ago. The rebuilding is a farce. In May the IMF reported that of several thousand planned projects, only dozens had even been started. Water, electricity and oil are all down well below pre-war levels.

Quote[/b] ]The world security is improved as well because countries that languish in poverty/corruption are the major source of instablity in the world

Interesting theory, but for the lack of better words: complete nonsense. Most really poor countries (for instance plenty of African ones) are no threat to anybody except themselves.

Quote[/b] ]when the per capita GDP of a country is ~ 4000$ the incidence of mass violence drops to nearly zero.

Define 'mass violence' please. USA for instance has a higher GDP per capita than that while you are busy destabilizing the world by invading other countries. Internally, compared to for instance Europe, you have plenty of violence issues as well.

Quote[/b] ]In history, only democracies have been able to achieve this level of GDP

Rubbish: http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_desc.php

A shitload of dictatorships have a GDP/capita far larger than $4,000

Quote[/b] ]I think the US is on the right track in bringing at least the choice of freedom to these countries and in the future it can happen hopefully without a war.

You do understand that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is heading in a positive direction, do you? Afghanistan is already now a lost cause and Iraq is going very fast down that road.

Quote[/b] ]I would miss my wife and two boys very much but as an American I would do whatever it takes.

"Whatever it takes?" Yeah, I remember some of that rethorics from the 1940's.. can't put my finger on it...

Quote[/b] ]So trust me these words are not empty.

What I am refering to is Bush's words. The point being that he has not delivered on any promises. He has not achieved anything. Those that attacked you are still very much alive, free and planning new attacks against you. AQ has grown into a huge operation. They have more popular support than ever after the Iraq war.

To sum up the overall achievements:

1. Terrorism is up

2. Iraq mess

3. Afghanistan mess

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

All I have to say is 4 more years, 4 more years !!!! and to those who don't understand the way of the world as it exists post 9/11 I suggest reading a book called 'The Pentagons New Map'. Don't let the title mislead you its not some militaristic bone head's blatherings, but rather a self professed "liberal" analyst from the Naval war college view and opinion of the US position in the world. Its very interesting and makes sense of much of what we are seeing in the world today. Bush is far from perfect, but at this time we need his vision and style of leadership. Those who have read the book understand the importance of bringing the 'gap' countries into the global community.

I dont need no analyst to understand that a president tried to cheat the UN into a war. That this war was fought for the president's personal reasons and that YOU as a voter are responsible for thousands of dead civillians!

And he has the arrogance to declare those he lied to as being ungreatful.

Furthermore he considers the worlds effort to protect the environment against the greenhouse-effect as being silly just like the idea to ban landmines, which are the cause of thousands of dead children each year. Mines that had no positive military effect since decades but are a good business.

And finally, he doesnt want to say participate in the campaign against child labour.

Right now I see a freak ruling your country. Highly religious, highly arrogant and lethal like no other western-president on the globe.

The electoral speech was full of polemic statements. I remember one from Giuliani about the freeing of a muslim terorist after the big desaster during the german olympics 1972.

He complained that this specific terorist was released only a few days after they had killed a dozen israeli athletes. Everyone in the room shouted "boo" directed at the german weasels.

What this MF forgot to mention was that a leading american diplomat called Martin Hillebrand forced the german government to release him cause the group still held an american hostage (flight LH615) and it was election time in the US. So how fuxxcking rude and insultive can you be to even mention this desaster? Well you can if you are republican and your voters eat your words like fundamentalists eat those of Bin Laden!

But Fact is we were the first country to LEGALLY put a terorist into jail responsible 911.

Right now the world is waiting. Noone realy cares much about the insults coming from your continent because we know they bark a lot during an election.

But if Bush is being elected again the world will no longer dislike only him but set his attitude and actions equal to the opinion of the american people. From 2004 on Bush=America. Full stop.

I work in the investment sector and I already know several german investors that forget about rationality when it comes to putting their money into american private-equity funds, real estate or whatsoever. They read the newspaper and see new insults basically everyday.

I have to work so I have to keep it short. The isolation you see now is not even comparable to what is gonna come if Bush is being reelected. Be prepared to a different attitude in the world when you open your passport and say "I am american".

I hope for your own sake that Kerry is being elected.

[Bernadotte 0]

First, hindsight is always 20/20. The intel wasn't perfect but again dealing with multpile sources basically all saying the same thing, he made a prudent decision.

But, what was wrong with the foresight:

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction;

he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."  -- Colin Powell (February 2001)

"We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."  -- Condoleeza Rice (July 2001)

Quote[/b] ]Can you imagine the outcry if a WMD attack came in say 2004 -2006 in the USA and it was found that the source of tyhe weapon was Iraq and he not acted ?

Does this mean you are performing pre-emptive surgery on a regular basis?  Do all your patients walk out of your office with their healthy tonsils, appendix, gall bladder and wisdom teeth removed, just in case...?

Quote[/b] ]I would miss my wife and two boys very much but as an American I would do whatever it takes. So trust me these words are not empty.

If you are one of the very few lesbian couples who got a recent Massachusetts same sex marriage certificate then you are also supporting a president who would make your marriage constitutionally illegal.  On the other hand, if you are not female then perhaps you thought it might be worthwhile to misrepresent your gender in your profile when you first came seeking help from the guys in the addons forum.  Like you said, "whatever it takes."  Either way I don't really care, but please don't expect us to trust you.

[Balschoiw 0]

Senator says commander told him of early drain of forces from Afghanistan for Iraq

So now I want those who said that Bush didn´t want to start a war in Iraq prior any other incidents and allegations or made up intel to stand up and take their free ride in the brainless roller coaster...

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON - A former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman asserted Sunday that the general who ran the war in Afghanistan said more than a year before the US-led invasion of Iraq that his resources were being shifted in preparation for taking on Saddam Hussein.

Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, contends that just months into combat in Afghanistan, Gen. Tommy Franks also told him that fighting terrorism in Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere should take priority over invading Iraq.

Graham said Franks told him he thought the United States knew less about the situation in Iraq than did some European governments, and the Bush administration should ask them for advice.

The senator, who is retiring at year’s end, said his conversation with the now-retired general came in February 2002, when Graham was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That was the month that Secretary of State Colin Powell told a House committee that President George W. Bush was considering “the most serious set of options one might imagine†to bring “regime change†in Iraq, including the possibility of doing it alone. At least one European leader, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, said a few days later that Bush had assured him “he harbors no attack plans.â€

The invasion began March 19, 2003, over the vigorous protests of Germany and most other major US allies except Britain, which joined the invading force. Graham opposed the war.

Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press†that his meeting with Franks was at the general’s headquarters, Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

“He laid out a very precise strategy for fighting the war on terror,†Graham said.

“First, we should win the war in Afghanistan. Second, move to Somalia, which as he described was almost anarchy but with a substantial number of al-Qaida cells; then to Yemen. And that we should be very careful about Iraq, because our intelligence was so weak that we didn’t know what we were getting into,†Graham said.

Last week, Franks gave fellow Texan Bush a rousing endorsement in a speech at the Republican National Convention. Franks said he had seen in Bush’s eyes “the courage to stand up to terrorists and the consistency necessary to beat them.â€

In “American Soldier,†Franks’ memoirs published last month, he mentioned none of the points Graham reported in his book. The retired general could not be reached Sunday. There was no immediate response to a message left at Tampa’s Central Command headquarters.

Graham wrote of his meeting with Franks in a book, “Intelligence Matters,†which goes on sale Tuesday.

In an excerpt read on the program, the senator said Franks told him “his men and resources were being moved to Iraq, where he felt that our intelligence was shoddy. This admission was coming almost 14 months before the beginning of combat operations in Iraq and only five months after the commencement of combat in Afghanistan.â€

Graham alleges in his book that the White House stood in the way of congressional investigators who wanted to look into purported ties between the Sept. 11 hijackers and the Saudi government.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s facing Bush in Nov. 2 elections, called for an independent probe of the allegation, saying that if the White House blocked the congressional investigation, then “this would be a massive abuse of power.â€

The Bush re-election campaign responded to Kerry, saying, “John Kerry is flailing about making baseless attacks founded on the assertions of a failed presidential candidate.â€

Get this bastard out of office !  

[Schoeler 0]

First, hindsight is always 20/20. The intel wasn't perfect but again dealing with multpile sources basically all saying the same thing, he made a prudent decision. Can you imagine the outcry if a WMD attack came in say 2004 -2006 in the USA and it was found that the source of tyhe weapon was Iraq and he not acted ? He would be derided even more visciously by  US citzens than any nonamerican could ever dream. Trust me the monday morning quarterbacks would have had a field day describing the 'excellent' intel he decided to discount.

Second, one of my partners in the practice has just returned from Iraq and before that Afghanistan as a staff surgeon and from his accounts the average citizen in both countries is grateful for the help. He tells stories of opening hospitals/clinics, people thanking him for being there and  patients waiting 3 days to see a American physician. Iraqi physicians for the fist time in many years have freedom in treating their patients and actually the meds/tools they need. The Afghans were even worse off before the Taliban were ousted. The biggest complaint he has is with the press coverage of Iraq/Afghan. that covers mainly the negative aspects of a process that is bringing to very poor isolated countries closer to joining the global community where they will have a much greater chance at flourishing.

Third, although no siginficant amounts of WMD were left in the country the predicament of both countries is better with the former regimes removed. The world security is improved as well because countries that languish in poverty/corruption are the major source of instablity in the world; when the per capita GDP of a country is ~ 4000$ the incidence of mass violence drops to nearly zero. In history, only democracies have been able to achieve this level of GDP and a goverment where the per capita GDP is less than ~ 1000$ has never been successful. A stable democracy will not tolerate a terrorst group exporting terror from within its borders - morally wrong and not good for business. A principle way for many poor countries to get started on the good economic road is with direct  foreign investment but to get this requires a stable goverment with fair and firm rules in place to protect investors. Brining these countries into the global community is what fears most of the terrorists. If you read their wishes it usually involves with keeping their line 'pure' , going back to ancient laws where the very few wield power over the many and improvement in standards of living is not a concern - only keeping the power. People from chaotic areas will hate the US no matter what we do, their goverments foster these beliefs. Ignoring, appeasing whatever you want to call it will only delay the consequences of letting these places languish, especially in our small world today.I think the US is on the right track in bringing at least the choice of freedom to these countries and in the future it can happen hopefully without a war.

With regard to your empty words comment I am a reseve medical officer in the US Navy and will be proud to deploy when called as I did in 1991. I would miss my wife and two boys very much but as an American I would do whatever it takes. So trust me these words are not empty.

Seafire6, I'm no surgeon, but I am a political scientist on my way to becoming a damned good attorney.

I have little doubt that if the Bush administration or hopefully the Kerry administration can get the situation in Iraq together, the Iraqi people will be much better off, and I will admit that they are slightly better off now then they were under Saddam.

Where I take isssue is with the Bush administrations' premise for going to war. It wasn't about engaging in a military adventure to free the Iraqi people from oppression, and frankly if the United States did decide to conduct that sort of foreign policy, there are other places in more desperate need of freeing. It was about WMD and the possibility they could be given to an international terrorist organization plain and simple. Now as you say, hindsight is 20/20. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is the administration's use of what every CIA analyst free to speak about such issues calls ambiguous intelligence data at best, and out and out cherry-picking of desired information at worst, all the while that clear and unambigous information existed showing that both Iran and North Korea are pursuing weapons of mass destruction and do have direct links to terrorism. In case you forgot, those are the other two legs of the axis of evil. Now, we are engaged in an unnecessary war in Iraq and spread too thin to address the more real threats, so the whole reason for going to war is now a moot point. Our enemies will develop nuclear weapons and there is nothing we can do to stop them from giving those weapons to Al-Qaeda.

Tell me, how happy does this make you about the adminstration's claims they have protected you and made you safer, or, will it take a mushroom cloud over a major American city to make you see that the Bush adminstration screwed the pooch on this one?

[ralphwiggum 6]

here's how TBA came up with intel.

assume following numbers are intels assessing threat. positive number means no threat, negative number means threat is present.

0 -1 2 4 -6 3 7 -3 3 -7 2 7 9 4 7 3 -4 2 6 8 4 7 4 3 -2 3 4 0

TBA: look at all those negatives! -1 -6 -3 -7 -4 -2!

this is a serious problem in intelligence failure. as the head of state, TBA should have relied on other sources, not just Chalabi. With this kind of incompetence, I cannot entrust my faith in TBA.

i heard that most of the bands at RNC were Christian groups. anyone prove/disprove that?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]i heard that most of the bands at RNC were Christian groups. anyone prove/disprove that?

http://www.billboard.com/bb....0616376

Quote[/b] ]

Brooks & Dunn are among the entertainers set for the Republican National Convention (RNC), which gets underway Sunday (Aug. 30) in New York. Top GOP officials say the duo of Kix Brooks and Ronnie Dunn will perform during the convention at Madison Square Garden, along with country singer Lee Ann Womack, Latin gospel singer Jaci Velasquez and Christian rock band Third Day.

The performers are to be announced today (Aug. 23) by Republican national Chairman Ed Gillespie and convention chief executive Bill Harris.

Other performers expected to appear the convention are Christian singer Gracie Rosenburger, rock band Dexter Freebish, country singer Darryl Worley and gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. They join a list of performers confirmed earlier this month, including veteran country act the Gatlin Brothers and contemporary Christian performer Michael W. Smith.

Other celebrities scheduled to attend the GOP convention are singer Wayne Newton, actor Stephen Baldwin and actress Bo Derek.

[Bernadotte 0]

Too bad this cartoon is over 100K.

         

[SpecOp9 0]

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, intelligence committee chairman in the run-up to the Iraq war, said on Sunday the Bush administration had "taken every step" to shield Saudi Arabia from links to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Florida Democrat in 2002 helped launch a joint inquiry with the House Intelligence Committee that produced a report on intelligence failures related to the Sept. 11 attacks.

He told NBC's "Meet the Press" that his new book, "Intelligence Matters," makes the case on "the extent to which Saudi Arabia was a key part of making 9/11 happen."

"Yet this administration has taken every step to obfuscate, avoid and cover up Saudi Arabia's actions," he added.

Link to the article (Reuters)

Now this is quite a statement, lets see how he can back it up..