Us presidential election 2004

[bn880 5]

Hi all

Once again the bulge was visable. This time right at the end of the debate after the wives were on stage just before George Bush Left the stage we saw his back this time closer and there was the square object between George Bush's Shoulder blades.

I also noticed severa instances of George Bush Junior staring off into space before and blinking and nodding before answereing.

The oddest moment though was the one where George Bush Junior started laughing at a joke before started to tell it, wierd.

I am still totting up the scores and need to check the facts; as per last time points per question and facts cross checked. Bushes final speech came over as pleading especialy the vote for me bit. Kerry landed several telling blows on the economy and on Iraq and did an an excelent and rousing presedential final speech.

Does anyone know the address where the debate is recorded?

Kind Regards Walker

Ian, I agree about the feed wire as well.

Watch especially the question on vaccines, Bush did not expect that one, and you could see he talked in turns, as if waiting for a point/reminder to come in.

I also saw the bulge, and Bush made sure not to face a back to the camera, nor his side... until they withdrew to the panned out views.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]But when she dies she's going straight to hell.  Just ask billybob, m21man, sputnik_munroe, ogre_h, and all the other Bush fan boys who values all innocent human life - unless of course they are innocent Iraqi humans.

Yes, you got me... I'm a souless bastard... I think all cripples and tards should be shot....

Anyway, Bush and Kerry dodged questions...Kerry loved to point out the 3 trillion dollar promises but what about his promises total....

You notice how Kerry at the end rubbed Bush's back....

[walker 0]

Hi all

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

I also got a chuckle when Bush said he'd forgo his flu shot this year so that someone more vulnerable could have it.

Why doesn't he forgo one of his health check ups so that someone without health care can have it?

Why doesn't he forgo some of his personal armor so that some soldier in Iraq can have it?

What utter bullshit.  The most powerful and protected man in the world is not going to forgo his flu shot.  Trust me!

[Bernadotte 0]

You notice how Kerry at the end rubbed Bush's back....

No. I was even looking for it and Kerry only managed a slight tap on the side of the left shoulder.

[ogre_h 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, a progressive tax system is where the percentage is raised relative the income.

And that is different from our current system exactly how? Break out your 1040A, and look at the tables for calculating tax, the more you make the higher percentage you pay in taxes. Why do you think IRA's and 401K &3bs all lower pre-tax income? It puts you in a lower bracket.

And you may find this article interesting

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991826

& http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42761,00.html

Basically you don't have to kill someone to have a medical breakthrough. And the idea that it is ok to kill someone so that another can benefit from their bodies(cells) quite frankly is repugnant.

Oh, and the moral equivalence: deliberate murder to accidental war casualties. Excellent sophistry.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why doesn't he forgo some of his personal armor so that some soldier in Iraq can have it?

His "personal armor" would not stop the rounds fired in Iraq....

[walker 0]

Hi all

Well the polls are in and they all show Kerry won the third debate posibly even more decisivley than in the first.

Not only that but the CNN polls are saying Kerry won on Defense, National Security, and Iraq as well as the issues of the economy, jobs, healthcare and education.

Kerry even won on the issues of faith where Bush came across as wishwashy and a bit of a flip floper.

The majority of voters now say that John F. Kerry's views concur with their own.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi all

Well the polls are in and they all show Kerry won the third debate posibly even more decisivley than in the first.

Not only that but the CNN polls are saying Kerry won on Defense, National Security, and Iraq as well as the issues of the economy, jobs, healthcare and education.

Kerry even won on the issues of faith where Bush came across as wishwashy and a bit of a flip floper.

The majority of voters now say that John F. Kerry's views concur with their own.

Kind Regards Walker

You are not talking about this poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2004-10-14-poll.htm -that is the CNN/Gallup/USA Today Poll

A lot of that shit (except Health care and debate winner bah bah) falls in to the margin of error...

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]All results are based on telephone interviews with 511 Registered Voters, aged 18+, who watched the presidential debate October 13, 2004. Respondents were first interviewed October 11-12, 2004, when they indicated there was some chance they would watch tonight's debate and were willing to be called back. For results based on the total sample of debate watchers, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.

Hmm, the USAToday poll sounds a bit strange, for instance according to it Kerry has overwhelmingly "better understanding of the issues, shows that cares people like you, expressed himself more clearly"....but the believeable factor is only 48-45 for Kerry. So I guess understanding of the issues counts little when it comes to being believeable

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]His "personal armor" would not stop the rounds fired in Iraq....

It's called irony.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]His "personal armor" would not stop the rounds fired in Iraq....

It's called irony.

I though it was called kevlar.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]But when she dies she's going straight to hell.  Just ask billybob, m21man, [sputnik_munroe, ogre_h, and all the other Bush fan boys who values all innocent human life - unless of course they are innocent Iraqi humans.

   So I'm a Bush fan boy huh? Where did you get that from? Because I don't like Kerry I must be for Bush. I've always wondered what it's like to live in a 2D world. Perhaps you can tell me some time.

    Well this may be my last post in this inflamatory thread (not like I've been a regular to this thread any way).  I don't have a high enough post count so my odds of being PRed or banned for questioning members of the  kliq or not towing the Kerry line are too high.

PS... Argh I can't help it I got to say one more thing. Walker and bn880 you really need to get off the ear piece conspiracy. It's just so ridicules, next I bet you'll claim the Freemasons put it there.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]But when she dies she's going straight to hell.  Just ask billybob, m21man, [sputnik_munroe, ogre_h, and all the other Bush fan boys who values all innocent human life - unless of course they are innocent Iraqi humans.

   So I'm a Bush fan boy huh? Where did you get that from? Because I don't like Kerry I must be for Bush. I've always wondered what it's like to live in a 2D world. Perhaps you can tell me some time.

    Well this may be my last post in this inflamatory thread (not like I've been a regular to this thread any way).  I don't have a high enough post count so my odds of being PRed or banned for questioning members of the  kliq or not towing the Kerry line are too high.

PS... Argh I can't help it I got to say one more thing. Walker and bn880 you really need to get off the ear piece conspiracy. It's just so ridicules, next I bet you'll claim the Freemasons put it there.

instead of whining about what's going to happen, post something more constructive, that is more in tune with the thread topic.

[theavonlady 2]

instead of whining about what's going to happen, post something more constructive, that is more in tune with the thread topic.

Have you no shame?!

[walker 0]

Hi all

A CNN Pole has 88% of people thinking Bush has an electronic device on his back.

http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/paula.zahn.now/

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

The staff of a Republican candidate has admited his using a teleprompter during a live debate.

Quote[/b] ]Bunning used prompter

By Michael Collins

Post Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Jim Bunning's re-election campaign conceded Tuesday that the senator used a TelePrompTer during his opening and closing remarks during a television debate with his Democratic opponent, Daniel Mongiardo.

Bunning campaign manager David Young said the TelePrompTer use was permitted under the terms of a debate agreement worked out in advance between the two campaigns. Mongiardo's campaign, however, called the device "an outrageous violation of the agreement."

"Jim Bunning is so out of touch with Kentucky voters that he has to use a TelePrompTer as a crutch to address their concerns," said Mongiardo campaign manager Kim Geveden. "Jim Bunning cheated in the debate, just as he is cheating Kentucky's working families."

http://www.kypost.com/2004/10/13/bunn101304.html

Quote[/b] ]The two-page agreement outlining the guidelines for the debate doesn't directly address the use of TelePrompTers. It says only that candidates could not rely on "props, signs, charts, graphs, photos, audio or video playback, or other demonstrative items."

There is increasing talk about a senior member of GOP staff who is asking for a book deal and exclusive payment from a news outlet to blow the gaff on the promptergate affair.

I am guessing someone is looking for retirement plan.

Kind Regards Walker

[Blake 0]

A CNN Pole has 88% of people thinking Bush has an electronic device on his back.

Can't believe any tailor would be that bad at least  

But could it be some kind of 'tension-relief' device which are sold on TV sometimes...

Then again it's likely he is joystick-guided android.

[denoir 0]

Slate has a review up on the debate. It's much more positive to Kerry's performance than the last time, and I tend to agree:

Grand Slam [slate]

Quote[/b] ]

By William Saletan

Posted Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004, at 4:07 AM PT

A week ago, I compared the debates to the final inning of a postseason baseball game. The Democrats trailed entering the ninth. John Kerry led off with a single. John Edwards singled him to third. I'll need a couple of pinch runners to keep the metaphor going, since Kerry came to the plate again Friday and struck out, leaving runners at the corners. The Bush campaign liked my headline so much—"Strikeout"—that they sent it around to the rest of the press corps.

They won't be sending this one around. Because tonight President Bush walked the bases full, and Kerry hit a grand slam.

I counted one exchange that Bush won tonight and another that Kerry lost. The topic Bush aced was Social Security. His answer was brave and thoughtful. He pointed out that "the cost of doing nothing, the cost of saying the current system is OK, far exceeds the costs" of taking painful steps to fix it. Kerry responded with a shameful dodge: "If, later on, after a period of time, we find that Social Security is in trouble, we'll pull together the top experts ... and we'll make whatever adjustment is necessary." Bush promptly nailed him: "I didn't hear any plan to fix Social Security. I heard more of the same."

The exchange Kerry lost was on affirmative action. He chose to defend its worst form—minority-owned business set-asides, which compensate the wealthiest blacks and Latinos for wrongs suffered primarily by the poorest. He also falsely accused Bush of never having met with the Congressional Black Caucus. When Bush corrected him, Kerry stared down at his podium with an expression of fear that he might well have screwed up.

If you're one of those Bush supporters who just want the good news, you'd better stop here, because the rest of the night was Kerry's. Let's start with body language. Kerry's was excellent. He has improved on this score in every debate. I don't know why it took him 20 years in office and two years on the presidential campaign trail to look into the camera. Maybe that guy with the tax question in the second debate got him over the hump. Whatever the reason, Kerry is now doing it in the debates and in his ads, and he turns out to be damned good at it. Tonight he explained in simple terms the good things he would do and the bad things he wouldn't. "Medicare belongs to you," he told the viewer. "I don't force you to do anything. ... You choose your doctor." I caught him shaking his head just once. Another time, he grinned inappropriately when Bush was talking about abortion. The rest of his performance was flawless. His answers were crisp. His smiles recalled the good-natured confidence of Ronald Reagan.

Half an hour into the debate, as Kerry spoke about respecting gay people, a look of sincere attention passed across Bush's face. I remember that look, because it was the only time I saw it. The rest of the night, Bush labored unconvincingly to look as though he was listening. He seemed to be trying to rectify his listless, annoyed performance in the first debate. Eventually, he confirmed that his wife had told him "to stand up straight and not scowl." But tonight he overcompensated, as Al Gore did after getting bad reviews in the first debate of 2000. Bush blinked, bubbled, giggled, and blurted at odd moments. He grinned strangely as he talked about tax increases, entrenched special interests, defeat in Iraq, and contaminated flu vaccines. He held his chin up and tried to smile each time Kerry rebuked him, but the expression on his face was that of a fraternity pledge struggling to look like he was having a good time in the midst of a spanking. The picture of the senior and junior Bonesmen cried out for the caption: "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?"

The sound bites both men brought were awful. Bush's snort about Kerry being on the "far left bank" was dumb; Kerry's analogy of Bush to Tony Soprano was dumber. Bush hammered tax relief, tort reform, government-run health care, and No Child Left Behind. I could swear he said 277 times that Kerry voted to bust the budget 277 times. But Kerry got in more licks, repeating that five million people had lost health insurance, that Bush was the first president in 72 years to lose jobs, that he had turned a huge surplus into a huge deficit, that he had blocked prescription drug imports from Canada and bulk drug purchasing for Medicare, and that Democrats would cut taxes for the middle class and raise the minimum wage. Kerry also invoked John McCain three times.

After the last debate, I chided Kerry for failing to rebut Bush's attacks effectively. Not this time. Bush said Kerry would raise taxes; Kerry made clear that he would raise them only for the rich and would cut them for the middle class. Bush said Kerry's health care plan was government-controlled and would deprive patients of choices; Kerry made clear that it wasn't and wouldn't. Bush said Kerry would let other countries veto American security decisions; Kerry made clear that he wouldn't and that the "global test" he had embraced was simply the "truth standard." The more Kerry explained himself, the more I came to understand his recovery in the polls. For seven months, Bush buried Kerry under negative ads. Now tens of millions of people who saw those ads are seeing Kerry for themselves. The debates are washing out the ads.

After the last debate, I chided Kerry for failing to point out Bush's evasive answers. Not this time. Three times tonight, Bush ducked tough questions—on unemployed workers, the minimum wage, and affirmative action—by changing the subject, absurdly, to educating children. Kerry nailed him: "I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education." When Bush said young people should be allowed to shift their retirement contributions to "a personal savings account," Kerry replied, "You just heard the president say that young people ought to be able to take money out of Social Security." And when Bush dodged moderator Bob Schieffer's question as to "whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade," Kerry pointed out, "The president didn't answer the question. ... Clearly, the president wants to leave an ambivalence or intends to undo it."

Kerry also won the honesty contest. All politicians distort their opponents' views. The practical test is whether they're capable of shame and self-correction once their distortions are exposed. Tonight Bush repeated his widely debunked insinuation that Kerry considered terrorism no more serious than prostitution. In the evening's most revealing exchange, Kerry complained that "America now is paying already $120 billion—up to $200 billion before we're finished, and much more probably"—for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Until now, Kerry has used the $200 billion figure to describe the war's current cost. He backed off because independent fact checkers calculated that only $120 billion had been spent so far, though $200 billion would probably have to be spent before our troops could get out. How did Bush respond to this concession? By repeating, contrary to the analysis of independent fact checkers, that in the first debate Kerry had said "in order to defend ourselves, we'd have to get international approval." One candidate yielded to the truth. The other did not.

My favorite moment was Bush's answer to a question about partisanship. Fifteen minutes in, he joked, "When you're a senator from Massachusetts, when you're a colleague of Ted Kennedy, 'pay-go' means you [the taxpayer] pay, and he goes ahead and spends." Later, Bush told Kerry, "Your record is such that Ted Kennedy, your colleague, is the conservative senator from Massachusetts." A bit later, Bush scoffed, "Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough." Finally, Schieffer asked the candidates what they would do "to bring the nation back together." Bush replied, "My biggest disappointment in Washington is how partisan the town is. ... The No Child Left Behind Act, incredibly enough, was good work between me and my administration and people like Sen. Ted Kennedy." Pose with Kennedy, punch Kennedy, pose with Kennedy again. Two presidential campaigns—the uniter of 2000 and the steady, principled leader of 2004—self-discredited in 90 minutes.

I lost count of Bush's goofs—his unexplained allusion to "pay-go," his recollection of "the buggy and horse days," and his dead-end, mumbling defense that "Mitch McConnell had a minimum-wage plan that I supported." When Schieffer asked whether the Bush administration was responsible for the rising cost and declining availability of health care, Bush blurted out, "Gosh, I sure hope it's not the administration." And after Kerry observed that "two leading national news networks have both said the president's characterization of my health care plan is incorrect," Bush replied, "I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations about—oh, never mind."

Really. The president of the United States said that.

All the strengths and themes Kerry had failed to clarify in two years of campaigning, he clarified tonight. He spoke frankly and comfortably about his faith. "We're all God's children," he said as he defended the right of gays and lesbians "to live [as] who they were, who they felt God had made them." He defended his Catholicism against bishops who opposed him. "My faith affects everything that I do," he said, but "faith without works is dead. ... That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. ... God's work must truly be our own." He spoke about family values and rewarding those who "play by the rules." "Five hundred thousand kids lost after-school programs because of your budget," he told Bush. "That's not in my gut. That's not in my value system."

After the last debate, I chided Kerry for expressing his abortion position poorly. Not this time. "It's between a woman, God, and her doctor," he said. "I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade. The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he's tried to appoint to the court [that] he wants to." Kerry went on: "I'm not going to appoint a judge to the [supreme] Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment or some other right. ... The right of choice is a constitutional right."

Kerry patched up his troubles with women voters, noting his efforts to get them equal pay for equal work. But his most important assurance to them—and to men—came in his answer to the debate's sole question about national security. He spoke fluidly of the military's overextension and the additional special forces and active-duty divisions necessary to alleviate it. He described how he would deploy the National Guard to protect the homeland. He reminded the audience that he was a gun owner and former prosecutor. He paraphrased a terrorism handbook captured from al-Qaida. Everything he said, and the facility with which he said it, conveyed a man ready to assume the presidency in wartime.

By the time the clock had ticked down to 15 minutes, the balance of power onstage had shifted. Kerry was the one talking like a president. He complimented his opponent as a leader and father, pledged to work across the aisle, admitted with a twinkle that "I can sometimes take myself too seriously," and joked to Schieffer, "The president and you and I are three examples of lucky people who married up." The audience laughed, and Kerry, growing looser by the minute, took another poke at himself: "And some would say maybe me more so than others." The audience laughed again, and Kerry relaxed into the smile of a man who has been humbled by the toughest campaign of his life and believes that despite it all, he is about to win. "But I can take it," he shrugged, beaming through a goofy grin. Bush, sensing that everyone else was having a good time, tried to smile along, but all he could do was twist up one corner of his mouth. His eyes darted around the room as though trying to make sense of a nightmare.

The closing statements confirmed the tide of the race. Kerry spoke like a man closing a deal. He recalled his service to his country, promised "tested, strong leadership that can calm the waters of the troubled world," and vowed to protect the nation in the tradition of FDR, JFK, and Reagan. Bush spoke like a man pleading for a second chance. He fumbled his opening sentence. He talked about the hard times we'd been through and the good things he'd do in a second term that he hadn't done in his first. He called for faith and optimism. Kerry ended with the words of a president: "Thank you, goodnight, and God bless the United States of America." Bush ended with a plea: "I'm asking for your vote. God bless you."

I wasn't surprised when the instant polls showed Kerry winning the debate handily. I bet Bush wasn't, either. All night long he looked like a pitcher who knew his stuff wasn't working and was stuck out there, alone on the mound in front of millions of people, with no idea what to do next. Now he's given up four runs and the lead. But he's still got the home field. And he's got half an inning—the bottom of the ninth—to turn things around.

[Bernadotte 0]

Basically you don't have to kill someone to have a medical breakthrough. And the idea that it is ok to kill someone so that another can benefit from their bodies(cells) quite frankly is repugnant.

In the words of   Ronald Reagan Jr speaking at the Democratic National Convention:

Quote[/b] ]"It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings -- that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person -- parent, a spouse, a child."

Oh, and the moral equivalence: deliberate murder to accidental war casualties. Excellent sophistry.  

Murder?  How many fertility clinic operators do you suppose will end up serving prison sentences for the "murder" of hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos that will be routinely discarded during the course of their operations?  Please give us your definition of murder that still allows the state to electrocute a living citizen on the basis of circumstantial evidence - often proven flawed after that citizen's life has been taken.

Now place yourself in the US military's Qatar HQ on 7 April 2003.  The leadership has just received 'time sensitive intelligence' about some senior Iraqi officials, possibly including Saddam and his two sons being seen in an apartment building in Baghdad.  Do they seal off the area?  Do they surround and evacuate the building?  Of course they do, but not before dropping four 2,000 lbs bombs on it killing 9 residents - all of them innocent Iraqis.  And with their blood on your hands you justify their deliberate killing, not as murder, but as necessary to benefit your security while denying and holding repugnant the use of embryonic stem cells to benefit millions less healthy than you.

You remind me of some of those Christian leaders in the 19th century who stood in the way of medical research autopsies, insisting that a person could not enter heaven without all his body parts intact.  However, with WWI and the advent of mechanised warfare that left many soldiers blown to bits, those same Christian leaders re-wrote their edicts so that conscripts could not use faith as an excuse against becoming cannon fodder. And suddenly medical research autopsies were ok.

Oh the hypocrisy.  

[theavonlady 2]

In the words of   Ronald Reagan Jr speaking at the Democratic National Convention:

Quote[/b] ]"It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings -- that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person -- parent, a spouse, a child."

Just to balance "Doctor" Reagan's opinion:

Quote[/b] ]“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point constitutes a termination of a human life.â€

– Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome)

“Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.â€

– Prof. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conceptionâ€

– Dr. Landrum Shettles, discoverer of male and female producing sperm

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.â€

– Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

[DanAK47 1]

Quote from another forum:

Kerry is like a chocolate easter bunny. Tempting on the outside, but hollow on the inside.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point constitutes a termination of a human life.â€

– Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome)

“Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.â€

– Prof. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conceptionâ€

– Dr. Landrum Shettles, discoverer of male and female producing sperm

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.â€

– Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

Nobody denies that human embryos are alive.  However, would any of those distinguished people you quoted argue that an individual ceases to be a human life when it happens to share an apartment building with Saddam Hussein?  If Saddam had been hiding in an embryo storage facility would Bush have been against the bombing?  Of course not.  He would not have hesitated to sacrifice those embryos to find Saddam's WMDs more quickly.

Talk about screwed up priorities.  

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point constitutes a termination of a human life.â€

– Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome)

“Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.â€

– Prof. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conceptionâ€

– Dr. Landrum Shettles, discoverer of male and female producing sperm

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.â€

– Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

Nobody denies that human embryos are alive.  However, would any of those distinguished people you quoted argue that an individual ceases to be a human life when it happens to share an apartment building with Saddam Hussein?  If Saddam had been hiding in an embryo storage facility would Bush have been against the bombing?  Of course not.  He would not have hesitated to sacrifice those embryos to find Saddam's WMDs more quickly.

Talk about screwed up priorities.  

Sounds like the Iraqi adaptation of "The Boys From Brazil".

[DanAK47 1]

Those embryos could be birthed and put up for adoption.