There is a trailer of the banned film at

[url]http://www.VideosOnWeb.com/Demos/911.html/url

Don’t you realize that such partisan papers and magazines as the Left York Times, the Herald(a European publication,) and Time Magazine, can hardly be called critics of Moore’s or even objective. If you read the language used in any article, including these reviews, their leanings are self evident!
Using words such as; “clever”, “enthralling”, “powerful”, (and funniest of all) “disciplined”, and phrases like; “passionate expression of outraged patriotism”, “moving and invigorating documentary”, “unexpectedly moving” and “the boldness and relevance of which few could deny”, CANNOT be called an even-handed manner of reviewing anything!
Of course, anyone who calls a publication with which he disagrees “the vehemently ????-wing news rag” can be counted on to be a partisan hack himself!
Oh, By the way it has NEVER been banned, the company that had the first rights to the film, Disney/Miramax exercised its right of refusal to distribute. It has since been on its way to alternate ways of release! This included a showing for Move-on.org just the other day which could not have been done if it had been banned!!!!

Hi all. I’m really not sure about Michael Moore. As passionate and undeniably clever a documentarist as he is, with Fahrenheit 9/11 i feel he has bitten off a rather too large chunk of the cake (so to speak) and while he may be lauded for it worldwide, the large proportion of those people will be saying it for all the wrong reasons. Far too many people who bandy around their opinions have any idea what they’re talking about. I don’t think people really appreciate how dificult a job Bush has. He has been shoved under this umbrella label of being a total moron, and it is nigh-on impossible for him to escape from beneath it. In reality, the US is still in good shape, market recovery notwithstanding. College figures are the highest in history, unemployment is improving and finally he is pushing for energy conservation legislation to improve the american public’s shameless consumption. George Bush is not the antichrist, and i think people should step back a little bit, give him some room to manoeuvre and if he still merits whatever stigma has been attached to him, then fire away, but to have a hate campaign started against a guy who took a decision regarding Iraq based on the knowledge in front of him (and please don’t try and say you wouldn’t have done the same) is insane. The guy isn’t stupid (he came ninth in his class at Harvard Business School) and for hypocrites to sit there taking what are in reality cheap potshots to feed the frenzy, is morally reprehensible. Moore is a talented guy but his new documentary may be powerful, but is too far-fetched to be taken seriously.

Tom, I’d respectfully disagree. First of all, neither of us has seen the film (ergo I don’t review it), so you might want to reserve judgment–you might learn some things about Bush that you hadn’t known before. As you say, one shouldn’t bandy about opinions without knowing what they speak of.

As for the good points about Bush you mention, they truly pale in comparison to all of the negatives. College attendance is great, but useless when the jobs they must take are burger-flipping or taxi-driving. College is supposed to lead to a well-paying job, and Bush isn’t delivering. Already there are armies of college grads out there working jobs at minimum wage–a level Bush himself would like to see abolished so wages could go down even more, under the broken-down trickle-down philosophy that lower wages would be better for business and that would translate into better jobs.

Which leads to unemployment improving–a deceptive figure, since it leaves out millions of people simply because they’ve been unemployed for so long. There are still far more people out of work than there should be.

On the other hand, we have someone who fumbled national security and allowed 9/11 to take place because they wanted to de-emphasize terrorism to better sell Star Wars; he took America from being the most sympathetic and best-loved and -respected nations to being an international pariah, took us from amazing surpluses to record-high deficits (and no, it was not the fault of 9/11, it was the tax giveaway to the rich), lied to the people to bring us into an unwise and potentially catastrophic was which was not necessary, has been chipping away at civil rights, giving huge amounts of welfare to megacorps, and while pretending to fix the economy with his tax cuts, really has just sat by while we have suffered one of the longest down-times in the economy in many decades, and that’s just the beginning of the list. Rampant corruption, lawbreaking in the White House (we’re talking national security and budgetary crimes, not lying about sex), and a more divisive, hateful partisan environment created by almost any other president in living history…

I don’t think the man is an idiot. But he is an exceedingly bad president, and worse, an exceedingly dangerous president. I look forward to seeing Fahrenheit 9/11–I expect it will have far more truth than hyperbole.

And by the way, Tom, congrats on being the 1000th comment poster on the blog! Sorry, no door prize…

By the way, FYI–if the real number of people unemployed (instead of just those laid off recently), the unemployment rate is about 9.7%.

But if you want to see relative to Clinton, the current “non-real” 5.6% rate compares to 4.0% in 2000, and wage growth under Bush at 2% pales to about 5% under Clinton.

For those who preemptively denounce the “unbalanced” reviews from the NY Times and The Herald without actually having seen the film, why not read the fresh review from the conservative Fox News website. Long story short: Just go see the movie.

Michael Moore may over-exaggerate at some times and present one sided arguments once in a while, but he gives some weight (about 300lbs) to the left and progressive side. He’s not nearly as wacked as the “devils” on the Right, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Fox and it’s affilates.

I’m interested in what the right’s reaction to the film will be when it comes out. We can really get a good idea at what lengths they’ll go to when they’re presented with views that differ from theirs. I predict a vicious aggressive attack that will be highly publicized. Do you think the left ever could or has done something to that extent?

Cheers to Michael Moore.

Heard of a little movie called “The Passion”?

I have not seen the movie and I won’t, for ONE REASON, and this is a FACT.

With creative editing you can make any series of newsbites, interviews, video footage, etc fit your message and make it appear to be an uncontestable fact, when in fact it is a blatent lie.

Michael Moore has openly stated his political ideals, as well as his quest to get President Bush defeated in November.

A similar situation in regards to “bending the truth” happened in my hometown a few months ago.

A news columnist in the Houston Chronicle, our only mass distributed paper (i.e no chance for opposing views/reports)reported a story about a family whose son was killed in Iraq. The report quoted the family as making the typical anti-war statements. I.E. Bush lied, our son died for nothing, we shouldn’t be in Iraq, War for Oil, Our son was only there because he was trying to get an education, etc.

Turns out the family said the exact OPPOSITE. They went to any and all outlets they could find to get the truth out, as is were, the only outlet who would get their message out was local talk radio. When the Columnist made his explanation, he said (Paraphrased) No, the ****** family did not say that, but there are people out there that feel that way, so its ok.

He was not fired. However, the Chronicle lost over 15,000 subscriptions in less than 2 weeks.

Only the crazy right wing types who listen to Talk Radio were (other than word of mouth)the only people to know the truth from the mouth of the family themselvs live on AIR.

MY POINT is that there are many people who never heard about the lie, and that article was the deciding factor in their voting decision.

I have a feeling that Farenheit 9/11 is an attempt at the same thing, and that is reprehensible.

I found this blog while Googling for reviews of F9/11.

For what it’s worth, I did see a trade screening of this movie yesterday and it is truly a powerful document that I’m sure is going to make a difference in the debate and peoples’ decisions in the coming US elections. Moore is not shy at all about his partisanship, he never has been; and he preaches to the choir here a lot, especially in the first half – though I think many are going to be surprised at some of the things revealed. Once he gets the country to Iraq Moore mostly steps back and lets the players tell the story – and its a devastating story, on many levels. He makes it personal for average Americans and it is clear he is trying to reach people who might be a little unsure about how things have gone and what we should do next. He speaks to people like Tom above who may still be willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt but are beginning to worry they may have been sold a fraud.

This is going to draw a lot of people because of all the publicity over Cannes and Disney’s bailout on distribution. It’s also going to bring in thousands who are curious or might still be wondering how or whether to vote. It will further energize the Democratic base who will be able to use it to recruit and convince voters. They are releasing it early enough in the summer to insure a DVD release in October. The screaming on the right is just a small measure of their fear of this thing’s impact.

My mind’s been made up for a long time and I knew about most of the information conveyed in the movie but the documentary form is great for getting all the various points out and tying it all together cogently.
Reserve judgment of the movie until you’ve been able to see it. I’m betting it won’t be people’s opinion of the movie that matters so much but instead their reaction to what they learn.

It seems that this blog essentially is boiling down to the same common theme. WHO ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR.

Ask yourself this question
WHO WOULD A TERRORIST VOTE FOR, BUSH OR KERRY?

“WHO WOULD A TERRORIST VOTE FOR, BUSH OR KERRY?”Boy, are you a Kerry supporter or something? Because that question so obviously works against Bush, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Let’s see….

Given that Bush’s actions have sent a tidal wave of eager applicants to the doors of al Qaeda (whose ranks swelled to 18,000), that Bush has overseen a dramatic record-breaking surge in terrorist acts around the world, has opened up an entire country for terrorists to swarm to and kill Americans (837 and counting) without having to go far from home, and has gotten terrorists incredibly effective media coverage all over the world…

And on the American front, they get a president who has horribly underfunded local and state efforts to prevent and fight terrorism domestically so that it has become a macabre, ugly joke, who has a history of dropping the ball and ignoring his top intelligence and counter-terrorism officials when they warn of terrorists planning to attack–and they get a president who kindly obliges their wishes to frighten the American people and deprive them of their liberties, whilst making America a pariah around the world, after the entire world had boundless sympathy and friendship for the U.S. after 9/11. A president who takes the greatest advantage of the terrorist attack and pisses it away to the outrage of the world and plays right into the terrorists’ hands.

Not to mention a president who approved of a policy of torture and humiliation which sent millions of Arabs ballistic, unspeakably furious that such a thing could happen even if the president had not known of it directly (as it now seems certain he did). Not to mention a president who is best buds with Saudi Arabia and is willing to cover for them while they remain one of the world’s leading supporters of terrorism–and has abjectly failed to catch the one man held most responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Forgotten-by-Bush.

Al Qaeda is far better off now than it was the day after 9/11. There is no question whatsoever that these guys are hoping, fervently praying with every fiber of their being that Bush gets re-elected. That would be their greatest victory.

And Bush is probably hoping that Osama helps him out by pulling off a terror attack within a month of the election–that way he could stoke up the people’s fears even more, scare them into voting for him, but best of all for Bush, he could simply ignore Kerry and claim that it was an election between himself and al Qaeda–yes, if al Qaeda attacks, Bush will feel like giving Osama a big wet one right on the lips.

So, thanks Rob, good question.

“–yes, if al Qaeda attacks, Bush will feel like giving Osama a big wet one right on the lips.”

Thanks Luis, good answer.

One of the things that I don’t think Moore gave enough emphasis to in the movie is the American media’s complete laziness, lack of integrity and culpability is this whole damn mess. You know, people like Rob have only to go on the information they get from the government and the press, the fact is there are really no other sources for the vast majority of the public and it is the reason people repeat idiotic statements like “a vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama.” When the press is parroting campaign slogans, or passing on lies without investigating them or cheerleading for the war effort it makes it impossible for anyone to get a clear idea of what is really happening. I think, along with the huge ratings and profits gained from “the war on terror,” they need to start taking some responsibility for the thousands dead and maimed, the 200 billion spent and the subsequent spread of terror throughout the world.

This morning the NYT had the gall to recommend Bush and company apologize for spreading the LIE that al Qaeda plotted with Saddam to attack the US on 9/11. This after three years of printing the LIE in their paper every goddamn time it was said by anybody in the administration. This was one of the main excuses to attack a weak country that never threatened the US and those bastards at the NYT and every alleged journalist in this country knew it was a LIE. They still printed it over and over and over until you couldn’t find 3 people in 10 who didn’t believe it.

By the way, I just noticed that both “Eric” and “Rob” just happen to have the same IP Address. Roommates perhaps?

Rob is a co-worker of mine. And yes we are supporters of President Bush. We also work with a Major General,2 Stars, in the Texas National Guard, so we get to hear first hand whats going on in Iraq. I’d just like to address a few of the things LOUIS said.

1st
“Not to mention a president who approved of a policy of torture and humiliation which sent millions of Arabs ballistic”

You know this as fact??? Even if he did, so what, I witnessed worse things in College, by the way, another American was BEHEADED today by the enemy.

2nd
“that Bush has overseen a dramatic record-breaking surge in terrorist acts around the world, has opened up an entire country for terrorists to swarm to and kill Americans (837 and counting)”

“Bush has overseen….”??? Is he a terrorist mastermind??? yea right, its all a part of his evil plan

Key phrase “around the world” THAT MEANS NOT HERE!!!!
You may not agree with me on this, but HOME COMES FIRST, ALL OTHERS SECOND if at all.

3rd
Also, while I pray for the families of the 837 dead, put that # into perspective. We lost thousands of men on D-Day alone. We have been in Iraq over a year.

Personal Note: I wish the media would publish the number of enemy killed, according to the General it is between 20 and 30 THOUSAND, the rest gave up.

25,000avg/837=29.86, Were killing almost thirty of them for every one of ours, I’d say thats pretty good.

I’m sure that none of this is going to sink into y’alls brain and thats ok, for every point that is believed to be based in fact, there is a rebuttal equally valid and also based in what is believed to be fact.

And as much as I would like to believe that we could agree to disagree, we are both polarized on our respective sides and thats not going to change.

That last one was from me

You know this as fact???You have memos being written by the counsel to the president who wrote Bush that the War on Terror? “renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions,” telling the president that he is not beholden to laws that forbid torture and murder, followed by a Defense Department finding:A March 2003 draft of a Defense Department report, leaked to the Wall Street Journal last week, argued that the President had the authority to approve almost any physical or psychological tactic, including torture, in the name of national security.Add to that the fact that Bush knew of the torture in January and not only did not make it public, but did not act to discipline anyone involved–and for all we know, allowed the torture to continue. I think that gives me every right to say, as I did, that Bush approved of the policy.Even if he did, so what, I witnessed worse things in College, by the way, another American was BEHEADED today by the enemy.Ah, the typical Rush Limbaugh defense: the torture and killing was just like a college prank; further they are thugs, so that justifies our thuggery. News flash, pal: we’re supposed to be better than they are. Bush said Saddam was evil because of things like torture in prisons. If Bush does it, then he is either just as evil or he is a lying hypocrite. Take your choice.

And by the way, if you saw, in college, worse things than wiring electrodes to people’s genitals and shocking them, putting them in prone positions for a dozen hours or more, keeping men naked for days and forcing them into homosexual acts while women stand and point and laugh at them and people take photos, sodomizing men with all manner of items, raping women, and even the torturing of people to death–then please give me the name of your college, so we can warn people not to go there. At the very least, that is quite some party school you have there.

Now, I am further tempted, tongue in cheek, to suggest that this kind of torture in college probably is responsible for your views today, but in all serriousness I find it likely that you simply never really found out what was happening at Abu Ghraib, and are instead just parroting Rush Limbaugh without actually checking the facts you claim to champion.”Bush has overseen….”??? Is he a terrorist mastermind???Nice try. You know full well the intent of the words (or you are rather limited in reading comprehension), that “oversaw” meant that Bush was leading the War on Terror? and on his watch all of those things happened. It is a general rule of thumb that when you twist the meaning of words to mean something they clearly do not (“straw man”) and argue against that, it is usually because the argument you push is weak.

Even if you do not hold Bush personally culpable for the torture, he is still president and so is responsible for what happens on his watch–and that plays into what the terrorists do or do not want, as your friend laid down as thesis for this part of the discussion.Key phrase “around the world” THAT MEANS NOT HERE!!!! You may not agree with me on this, but HOME COMES FIRST, ALL OTHERS SECOND if at all.You must have forgotten:Thursday, May 27, 2004: Citing “disturbing” evidence that al Qaeda plans to attack the United States in the next few months, Attorney General John Ashcroft yesterday put the nation on the lookout for seven terror suspects and announced stepped-up intelligence-gathering efforts. … “Credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months,” said Ashcroft. “This disturbing intelligence indicates al Qaeda’s specific intention to hit the United States hard.” This followed by, “Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller said they had no details on when, where or how a terror attack might occur, and had no immediate plans to raise the terror threat level.”

So as a result of what Bush has done, we not only have the Middle East swarming with terrorists, but now al Qaeda is ready to strike at the U.S. and we have no idea where or when or how. Isn’t that swell?Also, while I pray for the families of the 837 dead, put that # into perspective.So, because it’s not as bad as one of the most horrific wars in centuries, 837–excuse me, 838 now–dead is acceptable? I’m sure your prayers are comforting to their families. The point, of course, is that Iraq was not necessary, that it was a diversion away from fighting terrorism, that it was driven by political agendas and not for the good of the country, and that as a result of that, people who would not have been terrorists if not for Iraq had not been invaded, are now terrorists and are now killing Americans.

Despite your arguments that the result of Bush’s actions are acceptable because the number of people killed does not exceed one of the bloodiest battles in history and that it is happening on someone else’s doorstep, not ours, the fact remains that Bush’s foray into Iraq has played directly into the hands of the terrorists, flooding them with eager terrorist wannabes, turning the world against us, and providing a more accessible way to kill Americans.I’m sure that none of this is going to sink into y’alls brain and thats ok, for every point that is believed to be based in fact, there is a rebuttal equally valid and also based in what is believed to be fact.It seems that some things have not sunk into y’all’s brains over there; it is a common deceptive argumentative tactic to focus only on carefully chosen, limited parts of the opposing argument and then pretend that you have won the whole thing. But these points still stand from my original argument:

Bush’s actions have sent a tidal wave of eager applicants to the doors of al QaedaBush has (ahem) overseen the War on Terror? while there has been a dramatic record-breaking surge in terrorist acts around the worldBush has opened up an entire country for terrorists to swarm to and kill Americans–whoops! Sorry, you see this as a GOOD thing. Instead: al Qaeda still threatens America with attack and Ashcroft doesn’t know squat to stop it.Bush has gotten terrorists incredibly effective media coverage all over the worldBush has horribly underfunded local and state efforts to prevent and fight terrorism domesticallyBush has a history of dropping the ball and ignoring his top intelligence and counter-terrorism officials when they warn of terrorists planning to attackBush kindly obliges terrorists’ wishes to frighten the American people and deprive them of their libertiesBush has made America a pariah around the worldBush has approved of–OK, been responsible for and likely approved of–a policy of torture and humiliation which sent millions of Arabs ballisticBush is best buds with Saudi Arabia and is willing to cover for them while they remain one of the world’s leading supporters of terrorismBush has abjectly failed to catch the one man held most responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Forgotten-by-Bush.So if we accept your arguments and amend my argument to suit, I still have ten or eleven points standing that prove Bush would be the candidate of choice for terrorists. Argue each one of these on their merits, citing sources, and I’ll be impressed. I doubt that you’ll be able to do that, however.

Comment?

Well, well. It seems I’m not the only one who feels this way by a long shot:A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America’s counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an “avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked” war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden’s hands.

…

“Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq.”

In his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on surrogates who proved to be unreliable.

…

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies’ Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

“I’m very sure they can’t have a better administration for them than the one they have now,” he said.

“One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president.” Pretty strong stuff. But when senior Bush administration intelligence officers start saying that Bush is the choice of terrorists, one might want to start thinking very carefully about that.

Louis

You obviously are an intellegent person, and your points are well taken. And we could cite sources for our positions all day long and it would never end. So I will respond to your previous answers with a few points and 2 questions so I dont lexus-nexus my day away to validate my counter points. Here goes.

1.The people who have and are planning attacks are doing so not for money, land, or power. But simply because we are “Infadels” according to their religious beliefs, and they believe that we should be wiped off the earth. (they have tried this all throughout history) And if they get killed while doing this, they go to heaven and are meeted by virgins. I don’t have all the “perks” to marterdom with me, but you get the idea.

2.These people have no specific country of origin, nor do they have any major identifying characteristics to spot them. The absence of any uniform skin color, nationality, language, dress, etc..

You obviously are well versed in your research and I would like to pose a question to you. Hindsight is 20/20 so..

What would you have done differently?

and, for the future effort…

How do you fight an enemy with no discerable characteristics, does not care if you are a civillian or in the military, has no regards for “rules of engagement”, and welcomes death? Especially when the coalition has the exact opposite characteristics.

Personal note: Right or wrong, President Bush is doing exactly what he said he would from the beginning. I happen to agree with him, you don’t and thats ok, you’ll come around eventually.

Other than taking my shoes off a the airport, the Patriot Act hasn’t infringed on me a bit.

And as much as everyone bashes the President.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE 9/11

Is that fact due to the terrorists not trying, or because the “Evil Bush Administration” is actually effective in stopping terrorism in the USA, underfunded agencies or not.

Y’all (colloquialisms are great, aren’t they) still haven’t changed my mind, but keep trying.

Eric

It’s 3 am here now and I will give a more detailed answer later, but for now, just this one point:And as much as everyone bashes the President.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE 9/11

Is that fact due to the terrorists not trying, or because the “Evil Bush Administration” is actually effective in stopping terrorism in the USA, underfunded agencies or not.After the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993, al Qaeda did not strike again for eight years. They did not even attempt a major attack for seven years.

So either you have to say that Clinton was 2-3 times the effective president as Bush is in stopping terrorism despite having no major nationwide alert or anti-terror wars overseas–which is the OPPOSITE of what Republicans have been claiming–or you have to admit that it usually takes terrorists a bit of time to reload as far as operations in the U.S. are concerned. That there has been no attack in the past few years is nothing surprising–and note that we have not heard of any major plots foiled, which the Bush administration would have IMMEDIATELY jumped on.

In other words, the fact that al Qaeda has not attacked us yet does not mean that Bush is effective in stopping terrorism.

Let me know something: if al Qaeda successfully strikes before the election, will you vote against Bush on the grounds that he failed to stop the terrorist attack? After all, a Democrat stopped them for eight years, and DID stop a major planned attack (on the millenium). If Bush fails, that means he will not really have been effective.

Just one point of many, but thought I’d shoot that out before hitting the sack.

Louis

I know your sleeping right now but I just had an interesting thought.

“After the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993, al Qaeda did not strike again for eight years. They did not even attempt a major attack for seven years.

So either you have to say that Clinton was 2-3 times the effective president as Bush is in stopping terrorism despite having no major nationwide alert or anti-terror wars overseas–which is the OPPOSITE of what Republicans have been claiming–or you have to admit that it usually takes terrorists a bit of time to reload as far as operations in the U.S. are concerned. ”

It makes perfect sense. I dont know why I didnt think of it before. Let’s let the conspriacy theories fly.

It’s Clinton’s fault. He’s was and is in on it. How did I conjure this conclusion, observe.

1. No major attacks during his presidency.
2. He was offered Osama on multiple occasions and turned down the governments who offered him up.
3. We were attacked within a year of him leaving office.
4. He cut the CIA’s capability to shreds.
5. He drastically cut military spending.
6. He sold nuclear technology and authorized the sale of long range missle guidance systems to the North Koreans. He authorized it, so it’s the same as him doing it himself.
7. He assisted in the destabilazation of the world, see 1-6.

Why did he do this, two reasons.

1. He knew that due to all of the scandals, and the fact that he was impeached, the American Public would probably elect a Republican Candidate to take the reigns. He also knew that with depleted CIA and military capabilities, any major attack on this country would noy only create a major cluster F**k within the burecratic systems of our government, but also allow his Taliban buddies an easier attack. Therefore the Dem’s in this country would have free reign to blame his republican successor for any and everything. Severely hindering that president’s chance at re-election. Thus, giving Hillary the chance to run in ’04. This was the thinking at that time, but as we know Kerry will probably be on the ticket, but that is still not assured. Now they have to make sure Kerry looses so that Hillary will have a shot in ’08

2. It would allow Clinton to “play nice” and become a diplomat to the rest of the world, because as we all know the world loves Bill Clinton. Then he would be able to use the influence gained, paired with the current impotence of the UN and step in as the Head of the United Nations. And then he could be “President of the World”. And once that is achieved and the world is truly under one government. The end times will begin, Clinton (excuse me, the antichrist)will reign untill Armageddon.

So it actually was all a part of Clinton’s Evil Master Plan.

This is starting to get interesting. Sleep tight.

Got to get to work–you’re hitting during my busy scycle, but let’s do this briefly.

1. No major attacks during his presidency.There were two major al Qaeda attacks, one on the World Trade Center in 1993, and one very large, orchestrated attack at the millenium in at least four cities–all parts of which were stopped by an effective Clinton intelligence setup.2. He was offered Osama on multiple occasions and turned down the governments who offered him up.Boy, you really do listen to Rush and watch Fox News and nothing else, don’t you? This is an oft-repeated lie. I have blogged on this on this page.3. We were attacked within a year of him leaving office.The obvious implication you are making is that it was his fault. But the year Clinton left office, his administration deftly foiled the Millenium Plot, and was poised to stop 9/11–George Tenet and Richard Clarke tried desperately to alert Bush, Bush got several PDBs warning him that bin Laden was going to strike, but Bush and Rice ignored them because it was inconvenient for their Missile Defense strategy. What remained of the Clinton machine worked perfectly, warned Bush and would have stopped 9/11 had they had their way (shaking the tree, as they did to stop the Millenium Plot)–the Bush side screwed up.4. He cut the CIA’s capability to shreds.No he didn’t. Try to prove it.5. He drastically cut military spending.”Drastically” is incorrect. It was called the “Peace Dividend,” and it was widely approved of. He cut it more than some Republicans wanted, but less than the public wanted, and guess who gave the cuts his blessing? Donald Rumsfeld. He said they were appropriate and kept the Clinton system intact when he took over at Defense. The military worked quite well, with even Bush and Cheney saying it was doing a crack-up job–until Bush broke it by going into Iraq with no planning, a pitiful excuse for a “coalition,” and no exit strategy, putting funding priorities on albatross money-pit weapons systems like Star Wars instead of spending the money on recruitment, soldiers’ pay, flak jackets and the like. If Bush had only gotten a real coalition together, the U.S. military would not have been strained at all, even fighting two wars at the same time–what it is supposed to do. The Clinton military ran perfectly well–Bush screwed it up.6. He sold nuclear technology and authorized the sale of long range missle guidance systems to the North Koreans. He authorized it, so it’s the same as him doing it himself.Now you seem to have waltzed into Fantasyland, or have started reading NewsMax. This is flat-out conspiracy theory–selling long-range missile tech to the North Koreans? Kindly back that up.
7. He assisted in the destabilazation of the world, see 1-6.Since #1-6 are bunk, I don’t think so.

More later.

Luis, stop toying with the twits. If you spend all your time disabusing the dittoheads of their delusions, you’ll have no time left over for more important things–like getting the message out to people who are capable of sensible discussions. Whenever some drooling idiot starts talking about Clinton the Antichrist, you know it’s well past time to brush that loser off and focus on more important issues.

Sako

I think it was pretty clear that the “Clinton is the anti-christ” conclusion to my impromptu conspriacy theory was very tongue in cheek. Clinton is not the anti-christ, he’s just a lying, cheating, piece of human garbage who will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in history.

All of this banter really doesn’t matter, Bush will win. Ill write back in Nov/Dec to gloat.

Eric:You obviously are an intellegent person, and your points are well taken. And we could cite sources for our positions all day long and it would never end. So I will respond to your previous answers with a few points and 2 questions so I dont lexus-nexus my day away to validate my counter points. Here goes.No, that’s not acceptable. If you want me to respect your arguments, then you respect mine. I have addressed ALL the points made; as I mentioned earlier, you have taken the less-than-above-board tactic of picking and choosing bits of the opposing argument, ignoring the strongest areas of that argument, and then–in true Republican fashion–turning the argument into a Clinton-bashing screed, as if that somehow clears Bush of fault, even if your allegations about Clinton were not unsupportable right-wing conspiracy theories.

You claim that you don’t want to take the time to answer 11 points I made, but then completely changed the subject to Clinton bashing and made almost as many, off-topic.

You want a discussion? The take the 11 points I gave about how Bush is the candidate of choice for terrorists–ALL eleven–and respond. I have already responded to far more of the points you have tried to make.

Give more of this “I’ll answer only parts I want and go off on offensive screeds” evasion, and you can talk to yourself.All of this banter really doesn’t matter, Bush will win. Ill write back in Nov/Dec to gloat.How big of you. But when Bush loses, you’ll never show. I’ve seen your kind before, I know how it goes.

I think the comments of this Eric person and the like are very sad. The fact that even one person still thinks this way is really a psychological and sociological miracle. I guess it is true that republicanism is much the same as religion. It is passed down from one generation to the next. Common sense will not sway it. Death and destruction can be explained as staying the course..Change is never embrased.
I think it is frightening when people feel a sense of pride after watching movie’s like Band of Brothers, and then try to transfer that feeling to our present situation in Iraq.
This shattering comparison of apples and oranges is probably the largest breakdown in common sense that I have ever witnessed.
I think it is probably too late. If Bush gets in again we will see much more death and destruction, probably more than ever recorded in history. If he doesn’t get in it will take years to fix what he has already done.
thank you mister bush for destroying the future…and thanks to all those that keep on blowing horns in support of it. It’s the American way…we all go down together.
Can you say…Canada

Louis

You’ve seen my kind before, Well I’ve seen yours as well. But I will answer your questions, I owe you that. Time is still an issue so I will give you my hones opinions.

Mac, presumably a Canadian, seems to be a little on edge about my being a conservative, maybe this will put him at ease.

1.”Bush’s actions have sent a tidal wave of eager applicants to the doors of al Qaeda”

So, I guess we should have sat down and sang kum-bai-ya with Al Queda and Iraq to make them surrender. What “actions” would you suggest he had taken. We had every right to go into both countries. Afghanistan because of the Taliban, and Iraq because of numerous UN resoulutions which gave us the right to go in, forget the WMD, Saddam/Al Qaeda link, or even the “Threat to our Naitonal Security” arguments, bottom line, we go where our president sends us. And not that we need any UN approval, we had it in both cases.

2. Bush has (ahem) overseen the War on Terror™ while there has been a dramatic record-breaking surge in terrorist acts around the world

President Bush is not responsible for stopping terrorist attacts in other countries, every country’s is responsible for its own protection. If we choose to help them, its our decision to make.

3. Bush has opened up an entire country for terrorists to swarm to and kill Americans–whoops! Sorry, you see this as a GOOD thing. Instead: al Qaeda still threatens America with attack and Ashcroft doesn’t know squat to stop it.

Terrorist’s are fanatics and therefore the only way to stop them is to kill them, I cant think of any other way, can you? I’d really like answers to this one.

4. Bush has gotten terrorists incredibly effective media coverage all over the world

THE MEDIA IS WHAT HAS GOTTEN TERRORISTS INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE MEDIA COVERAGE. ITS ALL ABOUT RATINGS.

If what you said were true, Bush would take advantage of the Bully Pulpit, he hasn’t.

5. Bush has horribly underfunded local and state efforts to prevent and fight terrorism domestically

Local and state agencies are funded by their respective city and state taxes, this is not Bush’s fault.

6.Bush has a history of dropping the ball and ignoring his top intelligence and counter-terrorism officials when they warn of terrorists planning to attack

It was plainly stated in the 9/11 hearings that the US is constantly bombarded with terror threats. Some believed to be credible and turn out not to be, and vice versa. There was no specific information. And he doesn’t have a “history” of dropping the ball. He hasn’t dropped one since, and that one was thrown at him when he wasn’t looking.

7. Bush kindly obliges terrorists’ wishes to frighten the American people and deprive them of their liberties

Your out of your mind on this one.

8. Bush has made America a pariah around the world

Yet we still have an enormous immigration problem. If we were a pariah, why are people risking their lives by the millions to live here.

9. Bush has approved of–OK, been responsible for and likely approved of–a policy of torture and humiliation which sent millions of Arabs ballistic

Sometimes in war you do what you have to in order to get the information needed to save the lives of your troops. I don’t know about you but I was pretty ballistic when 4 americans bodies were burned and hung from a bridge and two other americans have their heads severed from their necks while they were alive.

10. Bush is best buds with Saudi Arabia and is willing to cover for them while they remain one of the world’s leading supporters of terrorism

I wont say he’s best buds or that he’s covering for the Saudi’s. I think that is a stretch. However, I too have a problem with the Saudi’s involvement with terrorism, or at the very least, radical islam. And our unwillingness to call them on it.

11. Bush has abjectly failed to catch the one man held most responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Forgotten-by-Bush.

That can’t be the presidents fault. Blame the special forces who are tracking him. Blame the Packistani’s or the Iranians. The president put in motion the military and diplomatic resources to find one man who may be in three different countries. He could be dead and buried as well. We may never know. That still does not make it his fault.

Hey Mac, what ya think, eh?

Strong points to be made here, so let’s take them in chunks.

1.”Bush’s actions have sent a tidal wave of eager applicants to the doors of al Qaeda”So, I guess we should have sat down and sang kum-bai-ya with Al Queda and Iraq to make them surrender. What “actions” would you suggest he had taken.First, not invade Iraq. It was not necessary; even if he believed there were WMD, he cherry-picked, sexed up, exaggerated and outright lied out it, about ties to al Qaeda, about support for terrorism. Had the real data Bush had been accurately presented, the people would never had agreed–because it was simply a bad decision. Iraq had been contained. Saddam was not a threat. And the invasion sparked off outrage among Arabs and Muslims worldwide. And the way that was done, with arrogance and insult to anyone who did not do as Bush willed, set the world against us.

Further, Bush?s actions since then have been goading, at least. Calling the U.S. actions in the Middle East a ?crusade? was idiotic and was used extensively for PR by al Qaeda. Bush?s approval of voiding the Geneva convention and his administration over torture like that we have seen have spurred even more outrage and support for terrorists.

But most of all, Bush turned away from Afghanistan, where Osama and the heart of al Qaeda still lived, and diverted most troops to Iraq, where the terrorists weren?t, allowing Osama to stay loose, allowing al Qaeda vital breathing space for their regrouping. Bush should have remained focused on Afghanistan and not strayed into Iraq?that might have cut al Qaeda?s numbers by a great deal, and may have captured its leader.

Even if you believe that invading Iraq was necessary, then you would have to be blind not to see how Bush screwed it up. Bush, if you will recall, at first said he didn?t need the approval of Congress, then that he did not need U.N. approval, only later reversing himself. But when he went to the U.N., he berated them as he plead his case, threatened that if they did not follow him, they would become irrelevant, alienated peoples who might otherwise have followed him. He had Colin Powell represent the ?data? on the case, which few nations believed, and lo, it turned out to be all crap. They knew, and they knew they were being sold a bill of goods, ergo a vast majority declined to join as they had in Gulf War I. And in the invasion, Bush let the Pentagon do the invasion–what they are trained to do and what they did with skill and excellence–but then Bush?s lacks showed up, in his severe deficits in planning and bizarrely optimistic expectations.

Bush should have first gathered all data not only carefully but also judiciously, objectively, not cherry-picking, not exaggerating, certainly not lying. Built up all the data he could find to make as strong a case as he could. Then build up a plan–not just one for the invasion, but a comprehensive plan all the way up to the true exit of troops years later, detailing every step along the way in a reasonable fashion. Then, before even taking it to the American people, he should have taken it covertly to our allies, shared with them his concerns, negotiated for support, and built a true coalition before even speaking publicly, showing due respect to gain true respect, and building true bridges to take us where we needed to go. Then he could have gone to Congress and built the same kind of relationships, made the necessary deals, not by threats or bullying, but by true partisanship out of concern for the safety of the nation.

Then, finally, he could have taken the case to the American people: the Congress is behind me, the world is behind me, this is what we?ll do and this is why?and then led a true coalition including all the NATO countries and perhaps significant others including Arab forces into Iraq so that the U.S. military was not strained, so that Iraq was not completely looted, so that Iraqis would respect the forces because they bore the U.N. patch, so that abuses like Abu Ghraib could not have taken place because forces from more than one nation would have been involved in the prison system, and so on. Arab participation and/or outright approval in particular would have stemmed a great deal of the resentment that sent masses to the door of al Qaeda.

That would have been the right way to do it, if it had been necessary, and would have avoided making us a world pariah and would have hurt al Qaeda, not helped them.

More….

Second Point: President Bush is not responsible for stopping terrorist attacts [sic] in other countries, every country’s is responsible for its own protection. If we choose to help them, its our decision to make.Wrong.

First of all, attacks on foreign soil are often against U.S. citizens, which ARE his priority?not just Americans in America, but Americans everywhere. Or does Bush not give a damn about Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and so many hundreds of U.S. troops, contractors, and civilians killed by terrorists?

But in addition, Bush has made it clear that he is fighting terrorism everywhere, and his War on Terror? is not limited to U.S. soil: “In recent years, terrorists have struck from Spain, to Russia, to Israel, to East Africa, to Morocco, to the Philippines, and to America. They’ve targeted Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. They have attacked Muslims in Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. No nation or region is exempt from the terrorists’ campaign of violence.

“Each of these attacks on the innocent is a shock, and a tragedy, and a test of our will. Each attack is designed to demoralize our people and divide us from one another. And each attack must be answered, not only with sorrow, but with greater determination, deeper resolve, and bolder action against the killers. It is the interest of every country, and the duty of every government, to fight and destroy this threat to our people.”

…

“The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies — they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East, and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations. The only certain way to protect our people is by early, united, and decisive action.”

…

“Nations that choose to fight terror are defending their own safety and securing the peace of all mankind.”And Bush has not stopped any specific attacks that we know of, he has opened the door for easy killing of hundreds of Americans, and on top of that, al Qaeda and other terrorist success around the world will only bolster the terrorists, making them even more of a threat here.

Third point: Terrorist’s [sic] are fanatics and therefore the only way to stop them is to kill them, I cant think of any other way, can you? I’d really like answers to this one.First of all, invading Iraq–the point which you answered with the above quote–was not an attack on terror. Saddam did not coddle, fund or supply al Qaeda, his links to other terrorist organizations was weak at best. North Korea was a far worse terror threat (and still is, despite being ignored by Bush), and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia were and still are the real hotbeds. Iraq was a diversion away from fighting terrorism, not an attack on it, and the invasion only led to giving terrorists juicy American targets to go after. With 18,000 members, al Qaeda can afford to send thousands in to die there while attacking and killing Americans and innocent Iraqis, while still having bigger-than-ever, swelling ranks to perpetrate terrorism elsewhere.

As for fighting terrorists: cut them off at the knees. Fight for peace, not war–terrorists thrive in war, they want their people to be oppressed, that?s how they stay in business. That?s how al Qaeda got so many applicants, because we didn?t stop in Afghanistan, the war there being so widely accepted and approved of that even Pakistan became our ally there. Bush?s invasion of Iraq and his unwavering one-sided support for Israel fed fuel to the fire of terrorism. Stop supporting and prolonging Middle East policies based only on our own oil interests; stop supporting people like Saddam Hussein, like we did even after he gassed Kurds and Iranians and fired a missile at the Stark and so much other barbaric crap like that.

Stop doing stupid sh*t like calling the War on Terror? a ?crusade,? or allowing humiliation and torture of prisoners who are 90% innocent.

Stop kowtowing to the Saudis, who support terrorism and let it run rampant in their domain.

Spend real money on national defense, not by the fascist ?Patriot? Act, which is used more against our own citizens unrelated to terror than it is against actual terrorists?instead, spend money on beefing up border security, coast guard, customs inspections, visa and immigration oversight, adding funds to local terror defense and response with training, emergency centers, hazmat supplies, increased funding for police and fire. All of these have dwindled under Bush.

And, hey, here?s an idea: why not actually hunt down the terrorists where they are? Bush withdrew a huge chunk of troops and resources from Afghanistan to fight the unnecessary war in Iraq. If, instead, he?d piled all those resources into Afghanistan and the real sources of terror, and followed all the points above, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be dying of thirst for support, instead of being fat and happy as they are now.

You gotta have more imagination. If the only thing you can think to do is kill and kill some more, then of course there will be more and more and more terrorists out after you. That tends to be how it gets started in the first place.

Fourth point: THE MEDIA IS WHAT HAS GOTTEN TERRORISTS INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE MEDIA COVERAGE. ITS ALL ABOUT RATINGS.

If what you said were true, Bush would take advantage of the Bully Pulpit, he hasn’t.Huh? Bush hasn?t taken advantage of the bully pulpit? That?s practically been his main gig since 9/11. He?s taken every chance he?s gotten to play on the War on Terror?, especially since it has been (until recently) his strongest area of popularity. What exactly did you mean by “Bully Pulpit” specifically?

As for media coverage, if Bush had not bungled homeland security and let 9/11 happen (multiple PDBs, Tenet and Clarke warning him constantly, Bush de-emphasizing terror as it worked against missile defense), handled the war so ineptly and made al Qaeda so strong, had he not invaded Iraq and given unwavering support for Saudi Arabia while they coddled and funded terrorists, then the terrorists would not be getting the publicity they are now.

And remember, publicity is not just U.S. news?we?re talking world coverage here, especially coverage in the Middle East?and because Bush has so alienated and angered the world and outraged most of the Middle East, the media have been far more prone to be harsh on us and, in the Middle East, actually sympathetic to terrorist opinions. Remember, worldwide media often follows the hearts and minds of the people in what they report and how they report it. Bush outrages the world, he hurts our image and in many places, actually gives terrorists better coverage.

Fifth point: Local and state agencies are funded by their respective city and state taxes, this is not Bush’s fault.Yes it is; you?re wrong about local and state agencies not relying on federal funds. Of course they do, and in no small way. Ever hear of the expression, ?unfunded mandate?? That?s exactly about the federal government requiring state and local spending without giving them the money to do it. Remember Clinton?s success in putting so many more cops on the street and us enjoying record-low crime rates? Almost every public service has a federal component to it, and Homeland Security was always supposed to be one of the biggest. And Bush has underfunded that to such a degree that you apparently think he?s not even supposed to!

In addition, Bush has been cutting funding overall for state and local purposes (just like Reagan did), not just for fighting terrorism, and that means that states and cities have to cut funding in a variety of ways. One of the is the fact that when fire departments should be funded more than ever, they are, in fact, being shut down and undersupplied and ?funded. Read this report by an Congressional Independent Task Force.

Sixth point:It was plainly stated in the 9/11 hearings that the US is constantly bombarded with terror threats. Some believed to be credible and turn out not to be, and vice versa. There was no specific information. Those are just hopelessly inept excuses, and here?s why: it was plainly shown how Bush was given no fewer than four PDBs that greatly emphasized the threat of bin Laden and expressed that he was planning to carry out a terrorist attack. Remember hearing about Tenet and having his ?hair on fire?? His CIA chief and counterterrorism chief were both trying to get him and his staff to pay attention. Bush was personally warned far more than should have been necessary. Bush?s excuse that no one gave him the exact time, place, and method of the attack is beyond lame. If Bush can only fight terror attacks with information that specific, then he will never be able to stop any attack, ever. If he needs to have the exact plans telegraphed to him in order to protect us, then he does not deserve the job.

Clinton, on the other hand, was faced with an even more decentralized attack on the Millennium. When he heard the concentrated warnings about al Qaeda attacks, just like Bush did in 2001, Clinton ?shook the tree,? and made sure that any reports and information about terror attacks got sent up the chain so they could be evaluated. As a result, separate but coordinated attacks in four different cities–Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston and New York–were all rolled up and foiled. Clinton?s focus and method stopped attacks that would have been devastating. And you don?t praise him for it because the attacks never happened, so you can conveniently ignore what was accomplished.

I mention this specifically to contrast it with Bush?s actions. Bush received, if anything, more fervent and focused warnings. But instead of ?shaking the tree,? Bush ignored it all, shrugged it off. Did not even put the smallest effort into checking it out. Had he simply said, ?shake the tree,? then reports from Minnesota and Phoenix would have immediately tripped flags in D.C. that terror suspects were training how to fly aircraft but not take off or land. That would have led to a routine check of flight schools nationwide, and that?s the end of 9/11 right there. It would have been ridiculously simple for Bush to stop 9/11; however, he wanted to get billions of money wasted on missile defense instead, and since the counter-argument to ?Star Wars? was that terrorists were a bigger threat and did not launch missiles, Bush & Co. de-emphasized terrorism, very probably a reason why Bush was ignoring the terror threats. If he had shaken the tree, the press would have found out and that would have hurt his precious white elephant of a missile shield. And he doesn’t have a “history” of dropping the ball.Yes he does. 9/11 is one. Afghanistan is two. Underfunding state and local agencies is three. Refusing to investigate 9/11 for two years is four. There are lots of others.He hasn’t dropped one since, and that one was thrown at him when he wasn’t looking.Even one drop is a history, so you just admitted to one. And as for not looking, you make my point for me. It?s his JOB to be looking!

Read my entry, 2 + 2 = 9/11.

7. Bush kindly obliges terrorists’ wishes to frighten the American people and deprive them of their liberties

Your [sic] out of your mind on this one.The Bush administration, through Ashcroft, recently released a terror attack warning for no acknowledged reason aside from ?chatter? which is no greater or lesser than any other time, with no change in the terror alert level, but nonetheless warned of attacks on U.S. soil. This is just one of many examples of a form of leadership Bush has exercised, tried-and-true, to frighten the people to make them run to support the administration in power. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. That tactic sound familiar?

Bush says that terrorists hate us for our freedoms. Bush pushes for the two Patriot Acts, which deny us vital freedoms, virtually half the Bill of Rights being threatened within. Both acts, if enforced, would allow the State to arrest any U.S. citizen for classified reasons without charges, deny them an attorney, deny them contact with anyone including family members, hold them in a secret location for an indefinite period of time, and if they so wish, declare them an ?enemy combatant,? strip them of citizenship, and move them to a no-man?s zone such as Guantanamo where no international treaties on human rights would be recognized.

If you think that these things are not a deprivation of our freedoms and liberties, then you are dangerously uninformed or blinded by partisan rancor to the extent that you would allow us to be slowly stripped of our rights.?They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.?
? Benjamin Franklin

Eighth:Yet we still have an enormous immigration problem. If we were a pariah, why are people risking their lives by the millions to live here.One might be that starving to death or living in abject poverty is worse than being a pariah. Another is the fact that maybe 10% of the world does not hate us, and with that being 600 million people, there is no shortage for people who want to immigrate.

Are you seriously suggesting that we are at a nadir in world popularity at this time? That Bush has not alienated many of our traditional allies? Just take a look at the international press, at polls taken worldwide, instead of buying the right-wing pipe dream that everyone loves us.

Ninth:Sometimes in war you do what you have to in order to get the information needed to save the lives of your troops. I don’t know about you but I was pretty ballistic when 4 americans bodies were burned and hung from a bridge and two other americans have their heads severed from their necks while they were alive.Baloney. 90% of the prisoners were not guilty of anything, and were not battlefield prisoners, just people taken off the streets. Even the intelligence community railed against this one. And there you go with yet another dittohead chestnut, that terrorist atrocities excuse our own. That is disgusting. The torture was not necessary, it was just plain sick, and defending it is vile.

Tenth: I wont say he’s best buds or that he’s covering for the Saudi’s. I think that is a stretch. However, I too have a problem with the Saudi’s involvement with terrorism, or at the very least, radical islam. And our unwillingness to call them on it.Read House of Bush, House of Saud. There are deep, deep connections. And if you don?t think he?s covering for them, then kindly explain away the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee report on terrorism, 28 pages that indicted Saudi Arabia for its terrorist connections.

And finally: That can’t be the presidents fault. Blame the special forces who are tracking him. ?Or we could blame Bush for diverting necessary troops and resources away from Afghanistan so he could invade Iraq, leaving the hunt for Osama underfunded, understaffed, and dependent on said Pakistanis, who virtually invented the Taliban, and whose people name their babies ?Osama.? If Bush had concentrated on Osama, al Qaeda and Afghanistan, we may very well have caught bin Laden by now, and may have kept them from regrouping as they have.

Louis

In regards to Iraq

“I don’t believe we went there for oil”
Bill Clinton

“We didn’t go in there for imperialist or financial reasons”
Bill Clinton

“We weren’t in there because he (Bush) bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palastinians and the Isralis would be increased”
Bill Clinton

“There were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, those, and VX and Ricin, checmical agents, unaccounted for”
Bill Clinton

“Bush did the right thing to go back”
Bill Clinton

It’s called “Bill Clinton trying to be a statesman.”

Don’t think that every Democrat fawns over Clinton or sees his words as gospel. Clinton was always the clever politician, and by saying such things he hopes to come across as the populist statesman.

It is just about the farthest thing imaginable from being an answer to the points made, and quite disingenuous considering that you bash Clinton so vigorously. After all, Clinton also said that Sudan never offered bin Laden, which you just recently accused him of.

Nice try.

Louis

So I guess when a liberal says something you dont agree with he’s “Just being a statesman” but when a republican says the same things he’s a liar. I have had it up to my eyeballs with the double standards that the liberals are able to get away with.

Were not going to agree, you’re not changing my mind, and I will still vote for and contribute to the re-election of Bush.

I guess its lucky for you that you live in Japan.

So I guess when a liberal says something you dont agree with he’s “Just being a statesman” but when a republican says the same things he’s a liar. I have had it up to my eyeballs with the double standards that the liberals are able to get away with.Oh, give me a break–and stop misquoting me. I said Clinton was TRYING to be a statesman. It was not a compliment, and one of the things I do not like about Clinton, in that as an ex-president he tries to be non-partisan and comes across as fake.

But I guess that you had to find some sorry little parting shot you could end on in this discussion, as all of your arguments so far have failed so dismally, so you felt you had to lie. Too bad. I could go on about the dozens upon dozens of rich examples of actual double standards conservatives have been guilty of over the past few decades, but I am pretty certain that they would fall on deaf ears. After all, YOU just tried to pull one off, by blasting Clinton and then trying to use him as a credible source. That is a double standard.Were not going to agree, you’re not changing my mind, and I will still vote for and contribute to the re-election of Bush.And I pity you for it, for being so naive to buy into the dittohead nonsense. I just hope that you and others like you do not succeed in inflicting that sorry excuse for a president upon us again.

Just because I am conservative does not make me a dittohead, nor have i ever claimed to be one.

I hardly ever listen to him, I work in an office with no radio durring the time he broadcasts in Houston.

And being conservative does not make me a rushophite

Do you believe everything that Al Franken says?

I would say he’s as far left as rush is right, wouldn’t you agree.

I base my political decisions and views on world issues but more importantly the ones that affect my life directly,
ie tax cuts.

And I cant see how Kerry is better than Bush in my daily life.

Besides most people in this country dont follow politics, and really dont care for politicians in general and just acept them as a necessary evil.

Die hard liberals want “Anyone but Bush” to take over.
Not exactly flattering for Kerry.

Die hard conservatives want Bush.

Nader wont win but will pull votes from both sides about 70/30 democrat to republican

The rest of the people will base their vote on who does the best in the debates, who their friends are voting for, who’s the best looking; Stance on religion, abortion, taxes, education, gay rights, affirmative action, etc.

With all of these “secondary” issues being fairly polarized as well.

This is where Bush will shine. Kerry will get trapped every time one of his filp flop’s are exposed. Thus invalidating him.

Just because I am conservative does not make me a dittohead, nor have i ever claimed to be one. I hardly ever listen to him, I work in an office with no radio durring the time he broadcasts in Houston. And being conservative does not make me a rushophiteI used that term because several of the stories you mentioned previously were identical to ones that started with Rush. If you didn’t get them from him, then you got them from someone who got them from him. “Dittohead” is a monicker for for Rush fans primarily because they parrot what Rush says; I would consider the title valid even if it is a generation removed.Do you believe everything that Al Franken says? I would say he’s as far left as rush is right, wouldn’t you agree.I believe what I can look up and check for myself. I tend to trust Al Franken far more because his track record on getting the facts straight is a great deal better than Rush’s. As for how liberal Franken is, I would say that while Franken is as fervent and dedicated as Rush, his politics do not swing nearly as far from center as Limbaugh does. But that’s just my opinion.
I base my political decisions and views on world issues but more importantly the ones that affect my life directly, ie tax cuts.Can’t you see that the tax cuts you got were an illusion? Money came into one pocket and left the other. Unless you’re making high six-figures, the money you got back was cancelled out by other considerations. You drive a car? Calculate how much more you pay for gas, then–a direct result of Bush’s Mideast policies. You live in Texas I presume, so you don’t pay state taxes, but what other taxes you do pay–property, sales, etc.–might be rising, check to see; many states are suffering this. You also pay in lesser services–fire stations shutting down, health care getting hit, schools receiving lesser funding and colleges charging more, and so on. Many people are paying out of reduced salaries. But most of the cost will be down the road, in the form of deficit problems, paying $400 billion a year and more just to maintain the debt, and the sacrifices that will have to be made to balance the budget again. TANSTAAFL, Eric–There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Things that are free are not so, and free money costs even more. What you need is not a tax cut, what you need is a better-paying job, a booming economy, and a future free of massive, burdening debt. Don’t you think?
And I cant see how Kerry is better than Bush in my daily life.It may be possible that he isn’t, depending on your position. But if you want better health care, education, more responsible leadership, more focus on Americans as individuals and not on megacorps with trickle-down crumbs thrown to the regular guy, then Kerry’s much better. If you’re rich, corporate, childless and currently healthy, I guess Bush would seem better for you. Some things are universal, though–you like clean air and water? Bush has been horrible on this. Going to college, or one day you want to send your kids there? Notice how those tuition fees are skyrocketing? Are you a veteran? Want to stop your benefits from being cut?

But most of all, “it’s the economy, stupid”–and Democrats have shown to handle the economy better for all Americans.

Let me give you an example. During the Reagan years, we had an economic boom, but it was one that mainly benefitted the wealthy; as we are seeing now with Bush’s ‘recovery,’ the profits of the boom went more to corporations and wealthy individuals, while the gap between poor and rich increased. The general attitude was, and is, that this is simply how a recovery works; the corporations and wealthy are the first to benefit because they’re the ones who have the wealth and earn the money; deficits were seen as a necessary evil to accomplish this. But in the Clinton boom, we saw that all boats could truly rise; we had an economy booming more than in Reagan’s time, and all boats rose–the wealthy became wealthier, but the poor did too–and the deficit was slashed, and at the end we actually had a surplus. The focus of the government should be on the people, not the corporations; conservatives have it backwards here. Henry Ford knew it; he paid his people a good enough salary so they could buy his cars (no, I’m not saying he was a Democrat or that I admire everything about him, but he did know economics). You treat the people well, and corporations flourish. Conservatives see the other direction–treat the businesses well, and money will trickle down. But that, we have see, does not work quite so well.
Die hard liberals want “Anyone but Bush” to take over. Not exactly flattering for Kerry.There is a certain amount of truth to that–but not because people have seen who Kerry is and don’t like him. Primarily it is because Kerry has not gotten much coverage to date, and most people see him through Bush’s attack ads. Watch the news, see the “liberal media” in action: you’ll see Bush waaaaay more on the news than Kerry. Not because Kerry isn’t doing anything, but because Bush is pulling in the spotlight, mostly bad these days. The “Anyone But Bush” movement is not an artifact of dislike for Kerry, it’s from a great dislik for Bush. Those who do know him, like him. Have you been to his web site and thoroughly read through his stands on the issues? I’d bet good money that you haven’t. Go ahead and read it–and I mean really read it, don’t just gloss over the main page, click on each of the issues and read his plans, see what you think.

The certain amount of truth in your statement was that some people feel that way about Bush and Kerry–but die-hard liberals do know Kerry, and like him a lot. When Kerry starts spending his pre-convention war chest and putting up a blitz of ads, followed by the Democratic convention, people will see more of Kerry, and have more to like.
The rest of the people will base their vote on who does the best in the debates, who their friends are voting for, who’s the best looking; Stance on religion, abortion, taxes, education, gay rights, affirmative action, etc.Interesting list of priorities, sounds Republican enough. But Kerry will be better on taxes for most because he will raise taxes only on the richest one or two percent–much like Clinton did, which preceeded a massive boom–while leaving mid-range incomes alone and adding targeted tax cuts for more; he plans to raise the minimum wage (did you know that most people getting minimum wage are white?), something which has historically always been followed by a good economic reaction–go ahead, look it up. If people choose by abortion, they’ll choose Kerry–a majority of Americans are pro-choice. Affirmative Action is a red herring, just like “defense of marriage.” Do you even know what Affirmative Action really is? I bet not. Go ahead, read about it (you can skip the first paragraph on Rush, it was a time-related introductory piece). Education–we will probably not see eye-to-eye on this, but I am an educator myself, and I see the stupidity and destructiveness of standardized testing, I see underfunding of schools (not to mention the unfunded mandate of NCLB) and over-bureaucratization; I see Bush’s Texas and the fraud reaped by the testing system. I see the commercial destruction of a once-proud education system that would be wrought by vouchers, a sounds-nice, feel-good plan which, if you works out the equations and see where it will lead, are horrifying to contemplate. I very much like Kerry’s promise to fund schools well and pay teachers a decent wage (won’t affect me directly, I work at a college in Japan). Everyone should want that–don’t you agree?
This is where Bush will shine. Kerry will get trapped every time one of his filp flop’s are exposed. Thus invalidating him.Flip-flops, eh? Been watching Bush ads, I see, if not listening to Rush.

Bush has characterized Kerry as a flip-flopper not because it is true, but because Kerry is a Senator, and any Senator can be very easily though falsely characterized as a flip-flopper. Since bills that go up for a vote have so many contradicting or unrelated riders and amendments, it is impossible to vote more than a few times and not have some parts of some bills contradict each other. Go ahead, name some of Kerry’s flip-flops for me; betcha I can show how they’re not.

But if you don’t like flip-flops, what about Bush? From DailyKos: # Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he’s for it.
# Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he’s for it.
# Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he’s for it.
# Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he’s for it.
# Bush is against nation building; then he’s for it.
# Bush is against deficits; then he’s for them.
# Bush is for free trade; then he’s for tariffs on steel; then he’s against them again.
# Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a “road map” and a Palestinian State.
# Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
# Bush first says he’ll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn’t.
# Bush first says that ‘help is on the way’ to the military … then he cuts benefits
# Bush-“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care.
# Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
# Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
# Bush first says the U.S. won’t negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
# Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say’s he shouldn’t have.
# Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
# Bush said the “mission accomplished” banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
# Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he’s against it.Unlike the claims against Kerry, these flip-flops are not contradicting riders, they are all based on direct actions by Bush. 20 more Bush flip flops can be found here.

You gotta do the research, come to the real facts. You said before that Clinton refused an offer to hand him bin Laden–but if you’d looked deeper than the Fox news repoort, you’d have seen that it was untrue. You claimed Clinton sold missile tech to North Korea–he didn’t. Do you even know the details of that hyped-up scandal brought by a GOP trying to nail Clinton on anything they could find?

The references you make, the stories you tell indicate that you do not really research things out or look things up, but rather take what you hear on TV as gospel, so long as it agrees with your own leanings. How does Al Franken feel about the military? Do you know?

Ergo, my calling you a dittohead. Forgive me if you don’t listen to Rush, but by your actions you might as well be doing so.

Louis

Man I didnt realize you were a college professor, I’m surprised I kept your attention this long. You reasoning for the mutual flip floping among the candidates is correct, my point was that Kerry is percieved as the Flip Flopper to the average person over here, most likely due to the ad’s. He cant go after Bush on the same thing he’s already being accused of, he will look like a copy cat, and loose credibilty. So I guess we finally found a speck of mutual agreement. One point I would like to make about#

“Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.”

I work in the petroleum industry so I know a little about this.

1st Unless you are in an extremely remote place, you cannot physically secretly drill anywhere. The rig and drill pad take up about 2-4 acres depending on the depth, they are tall (during the actuall drilling), and unless “hospital mufflers” for the generators are installed, they are fairly noisy (again only durring drilling), not to mention the sheer obviousness of roughnecks to who live there full time durring construction.

Padre Island, at least the north end of it, is within 2 miles of Corpus Christy, probably the largest refinery town in South Texas. The only reason I added this was to dispel any other readers of the notion that he is “secretly drilling” in Paradise, Padre is far from it.

The techniques used in drilling are vastly superior and environmentaly friendly than they were even 10 years ago. The environmentalist movement has so demonified this industry that if one butterfly is killed durring a drilling operation, it is labled as an ecological disaster.

Oil prices in this country are based on demand. With different states having different fuel additive requirements and new envionmental restrictions on manufacturing and refining facilities the refineries can’t produce enough gasoline. Unless you count on government subsidies. It is economically infeasable to build more. Look at all the manufactureres who left California and refineries that shut down for this very reason.

If we built more refineries over here and actually pumped our own oil. The price of gas would go down drastically.

Anwar is a good idea, to both the cost of gas and the deficit problem (royalties to the Govt), and will have a minimal effect on the environment especially after production is achieved and only a pumpjack or other small extraction device is installed.

I know this is a comment to a small part of what you said, but i really have to get back to work

This has actually been kinda fun

Can’t argue with you on the Padre Island drilling, I know next to nothing about that–I simply reposted the DailyKos list, and that one item was the one I couldn’t verify without doing quite a bit of research and self-education. Which is why I don’t post about Anwar on my blog, as I don’t really understand the issue personally.

As for the back and forth, I never really expected to change your mind, nor that you would change mine. I have been debating politics and social issues on the Internet since before most people had ever even heard of it–back in my early college days when my university account allowed me on the USENet, and later on online services like GEnie (one of the services like Prodigy). I learned early on that few people debating ever changed the minds of those participating in the debate–which is almost always the case in any debate, on- or off-line.

The point of this kind of public discussion (or even private, for that matter) for me has been that of an intellectual exercise. By debating like this, one hones one’s debating skills, and learns new things, tests out arguments and so forth.

But it can potentially change hearts and minds–not of the principles, but of those looking in, reading the debate and coming away with a feeling for both sides. This discussion will survive online for years, and will be viewed for a great many people. This month, for example, this particular page has been viewed a total of 380 times as of last night, just about three week’s worth (it is the second most-viewed individual entry on the site).

If you want more discussion like this, visit forums with members on both sides, like The Ornery American, a site run by the very good author Orson Scott Card (whose books I love but whose political views I do not usually agree with). That site is one of the more cvivil ones, but you can expect to find a lot of people like me who will (to put it gently) test your ideas in the light of day. I have posted there just more than 600 times, but had to take a hiatus because it was taking too much of my time…

Thanks I’ll check it out.

Wow…

In response to “mac…what do you think”.
I think you have proved my point perfectly. You obviously grew up in a family where you were taught “What to think” rather than “How to think”.
Your breakdown of points and your responses to them was very dificult to read. It is sad when people that question the activities of government are considered un-American.

The media cheered on the War for the ratings…They didn’t ask any of the tough questions that needed to be asked. They were reading from the liberation 101 text, that Bush was reading… Now..someone is questioning it publicly…..
Sorry, you can’t just attack a country and then walk in and have them be happy about it and just roll over. It doesn’t work that way… History of this kind of arrogance is not that old yet everybody just thought it would work…
What do we do now when China decides to invade a country on secret evidence that they have collected. How can we point a finger at any country in the world for invading another country…as long as they have evidence. We have set the example to the world. If you have the weapons you can use them. Just say that you have evidence. it doesn’t even matter if the evidence is never produced. As long as it was darn good intelligence at the time.
All countries invade…you got a problem with your neighbor and you got the weopons…invade. The UN advises against it…invade….The UN disagrees with your findings…invade anyway. If you got the power, use it!!!
Doesn’t matter now anyway…
50 years from now, people will ask when everything went wrong. The answer will be the patriot act, and the invasion of iraq…That will be marked down as the first steps in the culture of fear that killed so many.

It seems that sticking to your guns is what Republicans are using as an argument. Being wrong doesn’t matter anymore. Just stick to your guns and stay the course. Find a counter argument at any cost and try to make it work for the plan of sticking to the guns. If things start looking grim…Well, go after Clintons new book…Start talking about his affair. Try to get the media to focus on that rather than dead bodies…
Stick to your guns. Right or wrong doesn’t matter anymore…Just stay the damn course and never admit that any mistakes were made.

This post is dedicated to the Americans and Iraq’s that will be killed next week.

Mac said

“We have set the example to the world. If you have the weapons you can use them. Just say that you have evidence. it doesn’t even matter if the evidence is never produced. As long as it was darn good intelligence at the time.
All countries invade…you got a problem with your neighbor and you got the weopons…invade. The UN advises against it…invade….The UN disagrees with your findings…invade anyway. If you got the power, use it!!!”

What planet do you live on? If that were true, Canada would be the 51st state and Mexico the 52nd.

I would agree with you IF we were going there to take over in a colonistic fashion, but were not.

and as for

“This post is dedicated to the Americans and Iraq’s that will be killed next week.”

There are some execptions Im sure, but US soldiers dont fire untill fired upon.

So if any Iraqi’s get killed, its their own damn fault.

This is your response.

“There are some execptions Im sure, but US soldiers dont fire until fired upon.

So if any Iraqi’s get killed, its their own damn fault.”

So…We invaded Iraq, but if an Iraqi dies ..its their own damn fault. Are you joking?

Whew…Thank you for letting me know in one fell swing that you are an idiot. You should be proud of your ability to turn on a computer. It is the only mental capacity you have.

Mac

If an Iraqi shoots at a US or coalition soldier, then my statement stands.

Think of it this way.

If you are a cop with a warrant, you “invade” a house to find the bad guy, and someone starts shooting at you (bad guy or not), you fire back and kill them. Whose fault is it?

The United States is the worlds police force, we dont want that title, but it comes with being the most powerful country in the existence of mankind.

The United States is also treated like a cop by other countries in the exact same manner.

Everyone hates us untill they need our help.

So, I guess were kind of like lawers too.

I can see why you don’t put your name on your posts.
Good luck in your future. Which will likely be spent in a prison or mental instituion. an inteligent conversation is not really what your looking for or capable of.
I think I will keep an eye out for some honest discussions, instead of your pin headed attempt at being provacative and provoking. Why don’t you save up your energy and arguments so that you can share them some day with your therapist or prison roommate. I’m sure that you can find some nazi skin head sites that would love to get your posts. YOur remarks are quite simply a cry for help…I hope you get what you need.

Perhaps some day you will be studied in a lab so that an attempt can be made at finding out what went wrong. Maybe help could be found for others like you.

Im sorry Mac, I assumed that since only Louis and I were the ones posting recently you could figure out that it was me, ERIC from Texas. Which I did previously post. At least do a little homework before you accuse me of doing something underhanded.

If you have a problem with what I am posting than reply with something a little more substantial than

“I can see why you don’t put your name on your posts.
Good luck in your future. Which will likely be spent in a prison or mental instituion. an inteligent conversation is not really what your looking for or capable of.
I think I will keep an eye out for some honest discussions, instead of your pin headed attempt at being provacative and provoking. Why don’t you save up your energy and arguments so that you can share them some day with your therapist or prison roommate. I’m sure that you can find some nazi skin head sites that would love to get your posts. YOur remarks are quite simply a cry for help…I hope you get what you need.
Perhaps some day you will be studied in a lab so that an attempt can be made at finding out what went wrong. Maybe help could be found for others like you.”

Mac I know you feel that you have to add your two cents to Louis’ and my discussion. Which, by the way was an “Honest Discussion” because we were talking about our points of view and why. I also feel that we each left the discussion amicably.

While we didn’t agree on hardly anything, we at least countered with something more substantial than name calling.

If all you want is to name call and spew hatred towards me so be it. Perhaps you are the one who needs a therapist for your anger management problem.

Another thing

“Perhaps some day you will be studied in a lab so that an attempt can be made at finding out what went wrong. Maybe help could be found for others like you.”

I’m sorry, I’m not really sure what you think is wrong with me, other than the fact that I disagree with you. Actually, come to think of it, I dont know if we disagree or not. Ive made my points and you have called me names, I dont know where you stand, other than hating me.

I would also like to know how you base your “others like you” comment, there are only three things you could possibly know about me

1 I live in Texas

2 I work in the oil industry

3 I am conservative

You have no idea of who I am.

Mac, if your going to unilaterally, and without provocation attack me personally. I suggest you do it in a little more focused fashion.

I’m pretty sure, though I’ve never been to one, that the Nazi Skinhead websites would be more in line with your posts, Mac. Meaning that they are nothing but an incoherent rant of hatred and insult without any kind of substance to back up the claim.

If this site is still up when you graduate junior high, then maybe then you can get past your “potty mouth” and into some real discussion. Actually scratch that, your not worth my time, and Im not sure what Im doing 2 years from now.

P.S. Luis, if your still reading these enormous wastes of the workday, I just realized that all along I was calling you Louis and apologize.

oh, yea POSTED BY ERIC

LOL…I am printing this. You are incredible.
Thanks for the laughs. You are one darn good word smith that is for sure. I am sure Texas is very proud to have you. Sorry for interupting your previous discussion. I’m also sorry that I didn’t notice your name on a few of your previous posts. It’s tough business letting people know that America is the Police force of the world. But you are doing pretty good job of it. it sure can be a hard pill to swallow but I think I’m coming around.
I’m interested in your thoughts on the new “M. Moore” movie.
If you have time could you elaborate some more. Make it a nice long response. Really put it to me Eric. Use all of your good stuff.

Thanks for your help,

Hey, what happened to the promised after election gloating?
To get this win, I did what I could, I convinced 4 people who were pro-Kerry due to Moore’s Crockumentary, I was precinct captain for the Republican party, I held a Bush-Cheney yard sign re-inforced with heavy wire out my car window to show support as adamantly and in as outrageously obvious a way as possible. Sure, I looked like some geek, but as I’m very happily married, albeit to a Democrat, I didn’t care what people thought of me as long as they were more likely to vote for Bush.

Oh, there was more than enough gloating, Republicans being rather ungracious winners. If you didn’t see too much around here, it’s because most of it was hit-and-run, not to mention abusive, so as per comment rules, they got deleted. The ones that didn’t break the rules are still there, if you look for them.

As for your efforts, congratulations–though you’ll be that much responsible for the damage after the next four years as well, unless you’re the typican Republican who always finds someone else to blame for Republican failures.