PeterDavid.net

PAD seemed less political in his youth, from his fiction, anyway. I wonder if the sterotype is true for all people, that a person becomes more concerned with politics as one gets older.

I wonder, because though politics isn't unimportant to me, as my favorite writers get older, that may become all they talk about and write about--their viewpooint in politics.

Rather than fascinating stories with vivid characters in gripping situations, politically-motivated stories with propped-up characters corresponding to real-life politicians in fairly simple situations, all of which is memorable only because it stands in stark contrast to the breakthrough imagination said writers used to display with great ability.

--John

I wonder, because though politics isn't unimportant to me, as my favorite writers get older, that may become all they talk about and write about--their viewpooint in politics.

To which I say pfui. If you don't like the political commentary, don't read it. There are currently, by my count, two out of nine political threads on the front page of PAD's blog home page (two and a half if you count the Doonesbury B.D. discussion thread, which is mostly about Doonesbury and comics themselves rather than Iraq). Why not read and discuss on the FALLEN ANGELS or CAPTAIN MARVEL or Kill Bill or "How cute is Caroline" threads if you want non-politics? PAD's current comics and fiction work are not about current politics, although one might take the broader view and say they are connected—as are many things—by discussions of the human condition.

In short, I disagree with your POV, tho' I will defend your right to express it. But if you feel that "all [PAD] talk[s] about and write about[s]--their viewpooint in politics"...is true...well, you're missing some of the most fun and spirited sections of this blog.

Another reason to drop AOL it sounds like...

I think the one thing saving Bush is exactly that perception of him. "Hey, he screwed up his life! He's a mouth-breather just like me! Heck, he can't even talk good! I want him representing me!"

There's also very little public perception of Kerry because he's been careful. Appear too bold, too soon and they slap a label on you. Remember Howard "The Howler" Dean?

The most recent Kerry ad has the Senator talking to the camera directly, in a close head shot, telling you what his positions are and the web site where they're written. It's simple for Bush's rich buddies to caricture his opponent if you don't recognize him as a human being. There, for the first time in a Kerry ad, I saw a human being talking and looking straight at me.

The same thing can't be copied in a Bush ad, because Bush doesn't want to get that close to the electorate. And in a face shot that close, the viewer would think, "There's Bubbles, but where's Michael Jackson?"

Actually, the media has confronted Bush a lot more about his past than Kerry (that is the "liberal media," not the "right-wing" talk radio, etc.). The rumors (and that is exactly what they are -- completely unsubstantiated rumors and arguments from silence) about Bush not even showing up for duty have had an enormous amount of coverage considering the lack of evidence.

But that misses the real point. I am fair enough to see Bush's weaknesses of the past. The difference is he does not just "say" he has changed, his actions demonstrate it in the areas that matter to me. The same cannot be said for Kerry. He has not truly changed in his core beliefs and actions from the past. If you agree with his beliefs from the past, then great! But what exactly does he believe in now? Because what he has done in the past is the only clear indication of what he will do in the future. What he says seems vary with the wind. He votes for the war then is against it. He is for gay marriage then he is against it. Bush may have many faults, but inconsistency is not one of them.

Bottom line, I think people really do forget the past (as they did with both Clinton and Bush) when the candidate has a clear vision for the future. Bush may not be any where as articulate as Clinton, but at least he has a vision. I have yet to hear a vision from Kerry other than that he is not Bush.

So while it may be close, I am confident Bush will win again. All things being equal, vision and passion carry the day.

James

Just hope Kerry doesn't get elected. There are poor, poor choices this year. Too much of a fat cat entitled rich boy for me. More so than Bush even. Don't like either of them. Which would be worse in the white house - I'm not sure. Bush is opportunistic and so is Kerry. Kerry has a terrible record of performace in Congress (to me) and Bush got us into this crazy Iraq thing. Take your pick, but both leave a bad taste in my mouth. PFUI! There, its out.

There, I'm squarely in the middle. Every one can take pot shots at me.

Kathleen,
"Another reason to drop AQL it sounds like."
Why? What they are saying is true. He is "haunted" by the protests in that he knows how they look now. Many veterans, Reagan Democrats and Clinton Republicans do not look kindly on war protesters.
Kerry knows this. So much so that The New York Times reported today about veterans who claim that Kerry attended a Kansas city meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War where the assassination of senators was discussed.
"The campaign pressed other veterans who were in Kansas City, Mo., 33 years ago to reexamine their hazy memories while assuring them that Mr. Kerry was sure he had not been there."
"John Musgrave, a disabled ex-Marine from Baldwin City, Kan., who told The Kansas City Star that Mr. Kerry was at the meeting, said he got a call from John Hurley, the Kerry campaign's veterans coordinator.
"He said, 'I'd like you to refresh your memory'"

As I heard on the radio today...

"Kerry's military record: Three purple hearts.
"Bush's military record: One dentist appointment."

All things being equal, vision and passion carry the day.

But all things are not remotely equal in this case. I understand your point, and I agree that Kerry absolutely needs to present a platform and a set of ideas that goes beyond "I'm not Bush" -- but frankly, as I've said before around here, at this point Bush's presidency has been such an absolute disaster that I'd happily vote for pretty much anyone or anything if it meant getting the current group of policy-makers in office.

Sure, in terms of my own views, on a scale of 1 to 10 Kerry's maybe a 4-5 ... but Bush is in double-digit negative numbers. I'll take a 4 over that.

TWL

"Bush may not be any where as articulate as Clinton, but at least he has a vision."

Back in the 70s, he had lots of them.

PAD

Bush may not be any where as articulate as Clinton, but at least he has a vision

And I think Bush has no vision.

From the very start, he saw Saddam and that was it.
Even during this "war on terror", we give up bin Laden for awhile to focus upon Saddam.

That's vision?

That's a distinct lack of vision, and lack of goals, imo.

Vision, in this case, would be taking things one step at a time, one goal at a time (ie, get bin Laden, then maybe do something about Hussein).

"Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Listening to the canidates debate.
Shout about it,
Laugh about it when you got to choose
Anyway you look at it you lose."
from 'Mrs. Robinson' by Paul Simon & Art Garfunkel

"Ohhh, that wacky liberal media..."

I guess you haven't really been paying attention to the regular Bush-bashing AOL likes to perform at its front gate. My favorite was the heading next to a picture of Bush which said "When did you lose your faith?" Gee, I dunno, AOL, when did you stop beating YOUR wives?

Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President....and then vote for the other guy.

Re: comments about the "liberal media"

While I can't say that there are no media outlets with a liberal bias, there are just as many, if not more, that have a conservative/Republican bias.

(Incidentally, I make the distinction between conservative and Republican because what the Republican regime is and has been doing for the last three years is anything but "conservative." Launching an unprovoked war against the wishes of most of the rest of the world is not a "conservative" action, however just you may believe it to be.)

John Stewart, on one of the few broadcasts of the O'Franken Factor before we here in Chicago lost Air America (not a big loss, really, since Franken, the headliner, isn't a very good broadcaster), made an excellent analogy regarding the American media. He likened it to a bunch of six-year-olds playing soccer -- which, if you've ever seen a game of soccer played by six-year-olds, you know exactly what it's like. Somewhere, in this giant, roiling mass of children, is a ball, and everybody there is just chasing after it, no matter where on the field it goes. That's the American media -- they go where they think they'll get the most viewers. It's up to the producers to decide whether a conservative or liberal slant will attract their target demographic.

Any claim to a media agenda is fallacy. The media has only one, and it's the same as all other businesses in our capitalist society -- to make money. Everything else is just a means to that end.

Well... I can't really say anything about this other than, well, Bush still has more money to finance his campaign, so no matter what he did, he just get the media to look the other way.

On the upside, when I last saw Kerry on tv, he stragicly avoided talking about Dubya's mess of a news conference, which, I have to say, was a smart move on his part. Plus it look like he got a new hair cut... and hammered away at the economy, which, if he's gonna win this election, that should be his focus. Worry about Dubya's drug addled past, or how he's running the War in Iraq could easily backfire on him.

And completely off-topic, what happened to Cowboy Pete? Two weeks of new Smallville and Angel episdes, and not a single blurb about car insurance or Fred-of-Nine. What gives, PAD?

Re: John "I'm Not Bush" Kerry:

Words of wisdom from my grandfather (credentials available on request):

If a first-term president is running, barring rare occasions where the other candidate is incredible (I think that Bill Clinton might qualify there), it's always a referendum on the current president.

I'd also prefer it if there was more to Kerry's campaign beyond "I'm not Bush," but the fact is that there are a lot of people for whom the decision will be to Bush, or not to Bush. And since it really does come down to that, I'm voting against Bush.

Perhaps the reason we're all getting political as we get older is that it permeates more aspects of our lives.

As a kid we're usually taken care of and shielded from some of the realities of life. But as we learn to survive on our own, politics enters every aspect of our everyday lives.

In the last month alone, you could well argue that politicians have affected policies on jobs (example: out-sourcing), who you can marry (example: gay marriages), who can vote (example: criminal records, age of voters etc) where you can live (example: rehousing, redfevelopment, Israel/Palestine, Turkish/Grek Cyprus), what you can watch and how (example: Nipplegate), what you can read/see (example: don't photograph coffins unofficially)and even the price of food you get from the store (example: inport/export costs).

In short, politics is part of everything we do and to not have an opinion is to remain behind the shield we had when we were young.

Now, it depends how vocal you want to be about those effects it has, but as we grow older we become aware of what we want, what we deserve, what others have and what we don't. So it seems perfectly natural to me that we start to question politics.

For my money, Peter can go on being just as (or even more) politcial. Because it raises questions and gets people debating and despite what you may sometimes hear elsewhere, that's what's not unpatriotic or treouble-making... it's what a good democracy and an interesting life are all about.

John
(not the one above)

Craig,
We obviously disagree on a lot. But your definition of "vision" seems somewhat contradictory.
Taking things "one at a time" is pretty pragmatic. But it doesn't take much vision to deal with something that's obvious and standing in front of you.
To me, vision is summed up in "Some people see things the way they are and ask why? I see things the way they could be and say, "Why not?'"
Also, very few of us - yet alone the President of the United States - have the luxuryof only worrying about one thing at a time. We have to worry about our jobs, our bills and how to juggle them, our kids, family, friends, etc.
Just job hunting alone, if you are only focused on one thing, you may let 9 other opportunities pass you by.
And great writers, like PAD, have a vision for a series or TV show/comic/etc. months and years down the line. They may not know how they'll eventually get to where they want to go with storylines, but they know where they're going, at least.
Same with Bush. His vision is in eradicating terrorism and having Iraq be a huge step toward a more peaceful and free Middle East. While it may not always "go according to plan", he knows what he wants the result to be.
While doing this, he has to worry about other potential threats and powers in the world, trade, and out multitude of domestic issues.
It is one daunting job for anyone, and anyone who even considers a serious run for the job has at least some of my respect.

"But it doesn't take much vision to deal with something that's obvious and standing in front of you. To me, vision is summed up in "Some people see things the way they are and ask why? I see things the way they could be and say, "Why not?'"

I appreciate a George Bernard Shaw misquote as much as the next literary snob, but putting that aside, you have just managed to nail what is lacking in the Bush administration.

When I was two years old, there was a pot of water boiling on the stove. My mother usually let me play with her pots and pans. I saw this one and, obviously, I figured I could play with it. Before my parents noticed, I managed to get to the pot and upend it on myself. I carry to this day the burn marks. Scars from doing what came obviously.

It is *precisely* when something seems to be obvious and right in front of you that the *most* vision is required. To see something as "obvious" is to see it as simplistic, and very little in the world is simplistic, beginning with the world itself. Because it is "obvious" that, if you look around, the world is flat. It would have to be. It couldn't be round. That's insane. If the world were round, you would fall off. Obviously.

In making the "obvious" choices, the Bush Administration has fallen off the world. I don't think George H.W. Bush was especially great shakes as President, but he articulated fairly well in his memoirs why getting into an extended war in Iraq was A Bad Idea, even though it seemed "obvious" to many that he should. Every single reason he enumerated just by thinking about it, his son has discovered by direct experience. Senior's vision didn't cost thousands upon thousands of lives; Junior's lack of vision has, with no end in sight.

Junior is not selling Americans a vision; he is selling a bill of goods. Unfortunately, many Americans are likewise looking only at the obvious (Saddam bad = worth it)and are unable to see past it. Iraq is not Germany nor Japan. It is not Germany, which was so collectively appalled by the horrors its leadership had engendered that it wanted to distance itself. It is not Japan where the emperor willingly lay aside his claims of divinity in order to facilitate the rebuilding of his country. Iraq is a morass, a snakepit of enmity embroiled in religious hostility dating back generations, and we are now smack in the middle of it while the rest of the world sits back and laughs its collective asses off, because what was obvious to them was ignored by the American leadership.

A horse has vision, but with blinders on, it's not the most reliable of visions to depend upon.

PAD

The smarter candidate will win.

Just like last time.

And then the courts will overrule it.

Just like last time.

TWL

PAD,
I appreciate what you're trying to say, but I think you are mischaracterizing my position.
I do not feel the Bush Administration is making "obvious" choices 100% of the time.
If you would reread my post and the post I was responding to, what I was basically trying to say
is what may seem "obvious" to those watching the war on TV - our soldiers are getting killed, Iraqis are protesting= we should "obviously" cut our losses and leave - may not actualy be the whole story (indeed, as far as I can tell, there have been no signs of a nationwide uprising against our troops, and many - especially the Kurds are grateful and working with us).
All the words we can type from now to infinity have little chance of being as powerful as the images of flag-draped coffins containing our servicepeople.
To some, those photos reinforce the need to leave. To others, it reinforces the belief that they will not die in vain.
And, from where I sit, the benefits of what we are doing - the fruits of our labor, if you will - may not be apparent until long after Dubya is back home in Texas.
It is a complicated world, and a complicated task we are undertaking. There are very rarely slam-dunk solutions to complicated problems, or else, well, they wouldn't be complicated and would already be solved.
Obviously.

Bill and Tim,
That has to be the most succinct and entertaining one-two punch I have seen on this blog.
Thanks,
Jerome

Bill and Tim,
That has to be the most succinct and entertaining one-two punch I have seen on this blog.
Thanks,
Jerome

That's the PAD blog for you--better stuff than what you get on TV performed by highly paid teleprompter readers. Anybody what to put up some big money and hire us for a talk radio network. Anyone? Mr McFarlane? hello?

Along those lines--has anyone been keeping up with Air America? I tried to listen once, the one time I had the opportunity--it was painful and this was when they were talking about something I AGREED with!

While I'm not sure I'd put in quite the same the terms, this sentiment more or less covers my feelings:
http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

I'm not a huge fan of the man, but four more years of the alternative scares the hell out of me.

Bill,
Re: Air America
Why am I not surprised?
Franken can actualy be funny in small doses. he does a great Phil Gramm impersonation for example. And I remember watching C-SPAN a bit ago where he was speaking to an audience about his opposition to the Iraq War, but added that he supported our action in Afghanistan, adding, "Nader would have bombed Afghanistan", which drew a large amount of laughter.
But, realy, are he and a comedienne-turned-political-expert like Janeane Garafolo the best Air America could do? Why not get somebody like Tavis Smiley? I don't normally agree with the man, but at least he can be taken seriously.
BTW: This week's TIME magazine is great. It lists who they think are the world's 100 Most Influential people, and describes their lives and their ideas. It has everybody from Bush, Kerry and mandela to JK Rowling (for getting millions of children interested in reading) to Bill Gates (as much for his philanthropy as his business acumen) to Peter Jackson to Bono. Very interesting stuff.

//what haunts Bush, is his youthful days as a drinking, partying drug user//

Did I miss something, or is it still the case that for all the rumors about it there is not one shred of evidence that Bush was ever a drug user?

"Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President....and then vote for the other guy."

This is why Bush still has good numbers. As long as Middle America is scared of the "brown people" then Bush will get elected. It doesn't matter that we support Pakistan which hides terrorists and Saudi Arabia which breeds them in Madrasas. We do this for two reasons.. we're afraid that the Pakistan nukes will get into the hands of extremists and we are addicted to the Middle East black crack that is oil..

But we can't expect other countries to disarm their nukes while we still have 1000's all over the States in bunkers and with 55% of all vehicles sold last year being SUV's.. I doubt the black crack habit will be squashed anytime soon.

As far as Kerry is concerned. Until he starts to really spend the cash to defend himself from Bush .. he has even less of a chance to even dent the Bush numbers. And his handlers need to keep crap like " .. I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted againsted it.. " from coming out of his mouth. He's going to have to be more careful.

Chris,
No, you didn't miss anything. Except the memo that states that when conservatives play rough or point out unpleasant truths about liberals, they're "mean-spirited", but liberals slandering conservatives without evidence is par for the course.

Ben,
Middle America is not afraid of the "brown people". It is racist for you to state otherwise. Are SOME of the more unenlightened anxious about Arab men and painting them with a broad brush? Sure. But to aply it to a group of people in general is just wrong.That is like saying the New Black Panther Party in Philly, which consists of uh, FOUR misguided hateful people represents
the views of al blacks, or that there is no difference between someone who may think some affirmative action programs are unfair is equal to the hateful words and actions of skinheads.
Middle America is not afraid of "the brown people". They are afraid of killers who hate and target us like Osama Bin Laden. And HE is being targeted by us like he never was before by the Bush Administration, regardless of the reason.
On a final note, one of the better people I know is in Philly is named Zoreh and she is Iranian. She is one of the sharpest and sweetest people you'll ever meet, and she has had to put up with SOME ignorant people after 9/11. But she doesn't blame the people as much for their irrational fear as she does the madmen who created the fear in the first place and give people who "look like her" a bad name.

To Jerome Maida :

It's not racist to say that Middle America Whites are afraid of "brown people".. because quite a bit that I've encountered in my 35 years are afraid. I've listen to them talk in restaurants in Missouri, Illinois, Kansas...etc..etc. I've heard people say they've moved out of neighborhoods because it "smells to much like curry" among other such racist code words. I wasn't being mean to people of colour, but to those who are the racists or elitists who think their religion or way of life is better and we must bring ours to them.

I wasn't being mean to people like your friend. Please go back and read what I wrote as many times as you need to in order to comprehend what I said. In all of the post it NEVER puts blame on any of the people your first reading made it sound like in your mind. And you contradict yourself by saying your friend has encountered quite a few people who have treated her poorly after 9/11 because of her skin.. you pretty much proved my point.

But in any event. This is just my opinion.

Enough of this liberally slanted political commentary crap...I WANT COWBOY PETE!!

round up the shows and tell me what you think! It's an order damn you!

or continue with the politics all you want but at least do both..COWBOY PETE!!

"As long as Middle America is scared of the "brown people" then Bush will get elected."

Riiiight. So, if this had been an attack by a White guy our reactions would be radically different than they are now? C'mon! THINK man! Racism is a genuine evil, don't diminish it by tossing it around willy nilly.

Somewhat on topic--what "race" does Saddam belong to anyway? Aren't Arabs and Persions Caucasion? (unless one only accepts lily white for inclusion in the Caucasion Club, in which case there's just no hope for you). I'm just curious since some people like to claim Iraq and Afghanistan were racist wars and I'm wondering where they're coming from.

So, if this had been an attack by a White guy our reactions would be radically different than they are now? C'mon! THINK man! Racism is a genuine evil, don't diminish it by tossing it around willy nilly.

Well, Oklahoma City WAS an attack by a white guy (one with whom I shared a first name, alas), and I think our reactions (certainly the "official" one) was rather substantially different than it is now. Whether that's because he was white, because he was American, or for some other reason is of course open to debate, but I don't think the position is so totally laughable as you're implying.

TWL

Ben,
Thanks for clarifying your remarks. Clarifying mine, I'm just saying that to paint Middle America with a broad brush due to some people you have encountered is the same as someone I know who hates blacks because a young black man mugged and hurt his grandfather.
Don't condemn the many for the actions of a few. I don't. And my friend, who has even more reason too, does not either.
That's all.

"Well, Oklahoma City WAS an attack by a white guy (one with whom I shared a first name, alas), and I think our reactions (certainly the "official" one) was rather substantially different than it is now. Whether that's because he was white, because he was American, or for some other reason is of course open to debate, but I don't think the position is so totally laughable as you're implying."

Tim, who were we going to invade? The reaction to the Kennedy assassination was different from the one to Pearl Harbor but it wasn't because Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't Japanese!

We had no trouble hating Germans, Russians, and other enemies of the fair skinned variety. If Osama were white it would have been the same and any suggestian otherwise...well, "laughable" is being kind.

This is nowwhere near on topic, but I just got a shiny-pretty bluetooth mouse and keyboard combo. I'm typing this from across my apartment. It works from 30 feet away from the little bluetooth toggle. Sweeet :D

Sorry Everyone!

I would've joined this spirited discussion sooner but I just spent my ninth consecutive Sunday going to see back to back showings of Mel Gibson's monumental film masterpiece "The Passion of the Christ".

Andrew, please leave us your address and when you normally check your bank account and credit cards online.

Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President....and then vote for the other guy.
========
OK.

Self: "Hey, self, which candidate does Bin Laden want to become President?"

Self: "Dunno. Never met the man. All I know is he hates Americans; I didn't realize he had a preference between Democrats and Republicans. He's been attacked by both Clinton and Bush, and neither got him. So I don't know that he really cares. I highly doubt there's any American alive that, if elected President, would cause Bin Laden to stop his attacks or turn himself in or spontaneously explode. And his capture is more dependent on the effectiveness of the military trying to capture him than the man in the Oval Office."

OK, now what? Wait, I got it. How about checking with Hitler? Genghis Khan? General Zod? Cause I have about as much chance finding out from them their political leanings as I do Bin Laden.

Wait a minute, I got it- How about thinking for myself, evaluating the candidates, and choosing for myself? I'll bet I know who would make a better President than Bin Laden. Or Zod.

Or is that TOO obvious a solution?

(Apologies if I missed some sarcasm. I doubt it, though, and since that's not the first or even the tenth time I've seen that somewhere, I had to say something.)

"Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President....and then vote for the other guy."

I agree with Ray Cornwall that it makes a lot more sense to decide for oneself which candidate is better than to base the decision on who Osama likes or dislikes more. But strictly as a hypothetical exercise -- "Which person would Osama Bin Laden prefer to face as an opponent" -- it's an interesting question.

Having been in some adversarial situations, I have two separate thoughts on who I'd prefer to go up against if I were waging war on the US.

(1) As a person who believes in non-violence, and who wants what is right to prevail rather than simply to have my way prevail, I prefer to go up against people who are willing to talk, to listen, to consider and think things over, who are capable of thinking clearly and intelligently, and who realize that there is good (and bad) in all of us rather than one side being all good and the other all bad.

(2) As a competitive person who enjoys seeing my side win, I like going up against unreasonable opponents who ignore facts they dislike, act without thinking, and behave in ways that alienate even those who are somewhat in agreement with them.

So, if Osama is a pacifistic idealist trying to create a better world, I think he'd prefer Kerry to Bush. If Osama is a shrewd strategist intent on crushing his opponents, I think he'd prefer Bush to Kerry. And if Osama is a psychotic fanatic, I don't have a clue who he'd prefer and suspect he may not either.

I'm inclined to go with the third option.

insideman - Oh, by no means could I AFFORD the keyboard/mouse combo. I get to eat Ramen this week. But I have pretty stuff! *stomach rumbles* QUIET, YOU!

Hey, this link says everything I could:

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

You know that the democrats never made much of a fuss when it was found out that Clinton was a draft dodger

"You know that the democrats never made much of a fuss when it was found out that Clinton was a draft dodger"

Good thing he never billed himself as "a war president," huh.

PAD

"Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President....and then vote for the other guy."

Me? I'm voting for Lex Luthor again.

I approve of his economic, social and international policy programs, even though I disapprove of his destroy-Superman policy.

Four more years! Four more years!

I would have been more upset with Clinton dodging the draft if he'd, you know, actually dodged the draft.

He didn't, of course. His number was never called up, so there was no way for him to dodge the draft.

In re: AOL's news story: I'm not on AOL, but their newsfeeds are basically all AP and Reuters stories, just like 95% of the national/international news sources on the Web (including Yahoo, Excite, and most daily papers). So pinning this on AOL is likely blaming the wrong culprit.

In re: Air America: Franken's improved dramatically in the few weeks he's been on the air. I'll agree that he was rough to start with, but he's developed into a decent host quickly, and the show is a good mix of humor and honest discussion of the day's events. I've noticed that unlike many talk radio hosts, Franken is actually respectful of the views of his guests and callers, and lets them say their piece. He honestly DISCUSSES things with them, and he's never belligerant.

I'm also a big fan of Marty Kaplan's "So What Else is News?" and the late morning program "Unfiltered" with Chuck D and Lizz Winstead.

But the crown jewel of Air America, as far as I'm concerned, is Randi Rhodes. She's incredible, and I try to make a point of listening to at least some of her show every day, even if I don't listen to any of the rest of AA.

Have only heard Janeane Garofolo's nighttime program, "The Majority Report," a few times -- I liked it, but not enough to chain myself to the computer all night when I'm already there all day. And I still have yet to hear the early morning program, "Morning Sedition."

Mr. David can be politcal as much as he wants to be. It's his board. But talking about President Bush as a drunk or whatever only makes you (IMHO) seem childish. You sound as silly as the right wing talk show hosts who denigrate Ted Kennedy, JFK and Bill Clinton for their mistakes of the past. The truth is a lot of those hosts have done worst things. You mentioned that the emperor of Japan during WW Two renouced his claims of divinty to help rebuild his country. AFTER Democrat Harry S Truman gave the ok to drop two atomic bombs which killed well over 100,000 innocent Japanese.

Why do you complain about different religious factions in Iraq? There different religious factions in America who have been at each other for centuries. That one of the prices of freedom.
To me, the vision thing in Iraq is clear; help make Iraq a democracy. Period. Bring freedom to the middle east. And dont give me that old line of "some people can't handle freedom."
The world can laugh it's ass off all it wants. But America tried to feed Somalia, America tried to stop ethnic cleansing, Mexicans cross the border to come to America, Hatian and Cuban built boats and brave shark infested waters to get to America. and yes 50 million Iraqis are free because of America.

I know there are no Starbucks, Wendys or Foot Lockers there yet. But it took a while to get this country going too.
The truth be told if Senator Kerry were elected, he would not do a damn thing differently.

forgive my spelling errors
aj

Mr. David can be politcal as much as he wants to be. It's his board. But talking about President Bush as a drunk or whatever only makes you (IMHO) seem childish. You sound as silly as the right wing talk show hosts who denigrate Ted Kennedy, JFK and Bill Clinton for their mistakes of the past. The truth is a lot of those hosts have done worst things. You mentioned that the emperor of Japan during WW Two renouced his claims of divinty to help rebuild his country. AFTER Democrat Harry S Truman gave the ok to drop two atomic bombs which killed well over 100,000 innocent Japanese.

Why do you complain about different religious factions in Iraq? There different religious factions in America who have been at each other for centuries. That one of the prices of freedom.
To me, the vision thing in Iraq is clear; help make Iraq a democracy. Period. Bring freedom to the middle east. And dont give me that old line of "some people can't handle freedom."
The world can laugh it's ass off all it wants. But America tried to feed Somalia, America tried to stop ethnic cleansing, Mexicans cross the border to come to America, Hatian and Cuban built boats and brave shark infested waters to get to America. and yes 50 million Iraqis are free because of America.

I know there are no Starbucks, Wendys or Foot Lockers there yet. But it took a while to get this country going too.
The truth be told if Senator Kerry were elected, he would not do a damn thing differently.

forgive my spelling errors
aj

"Good thing he never billed himself as a 'war president', huh?"

You know, in all my posts here,I have yet to blast Clinton for his political or personal shortcomings. I really see no need to do it now, either. But the job as ANY President is as "commander-in chief". That really is THE MOST important job a President has, even ahead of "feeling your pain". So if allegedly being AWOL is reason to blast Bush, then dodging a draft and protesting on foreign soil should be, at the least, fair game as well.
If anyone has questions about how Bush is conducting the war, fine. But these cheap shots and personal attacks on him doesn't make anyone's argument stronger. In fact, it makes it weaker, especially when you make illogical arguments like "Clinton didn't say he was a war president, so that lets him off the hook, even though he was commander-in-chief and used that power on a few occasions.
How did those work out?
Personally, I have yet to see anything in Iraq approaching the sickening feeling in my stomach I felt when our soldiers were dragged through the streets in Somalia.

Kerry lies about his involvement in VN, insulting the already beleagered VN Vets and he expects to win? Please.

I've met both GW and Kerry (Bush a few months ago, Kerry two years ago) and getting up close and personal will open eyes, believe me. GW is warm and caring, able (and willing!) to ask insightful questions. Kerry couldn't even comprehend normal conversation.

Bush will win by a lot, if not a landslide. Kerry doesn't have a hope in hell. The more people find out about him, the farther behind he will fall.

I personally found the "war president" line disturbing not because he is indeed a wartime president but that he assumed that label with such relish in the interview with Tim Russert. He repeated it so often and used it with such a gleam in his eye that I was really frightened at what he would do with our military once he no longer had to fear the electorate.

No president should enjoy using the powers of commander-in-chief as much as he appeared to.

Kerry couldn't even comprehend normal conversation.

Sounds like my kind of boy!

I've got Asperger's syndrome. One of the many consequences of this is that I, too, am unable to engage in what you NTs (neurotypicals) call "normal" conversation. You keep wanting me to look you in the eye, to use less-formal construction in my sentences (and how, exactly, am I to maintain the level of precision I expect from myself otherwise?), to understand your "body language" and respond appropriately with my own, and countless other things that make NTs who speak with me think I'm "off".

I'd much rather have someone in office who doesn't "talk normally" than someone who can comfortably look right at me and either lie about everything he knows, or be so (apparently deliberately) ignorant that his "advisors" can tell him anything, and he'll swallow it.

Normally, I'm an Independent. This year, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat (I'll vote for a yellow dog if the Democrats put it up for office).

It's just too important to get Mr. Bush out of the White House.

PAD wrote: "And Bush's numbers still appear strong while Kerry's seem soft. Ohhh, that wacky liberal media..."

Actually, from what I can see, the media DOES lean liberal, and the current Bush/Kerry poll situation could be an indication that Democrats, if they are not careful, might find themselves in the exact same situation as the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections -- big losers.

In a 1972 book called "The News Twisters," Edith Efron did a comprehensive, two-year study to see how the media portrayed the candidates and issues during the last seven weeks of the 1968 presidential election. She taped and analyzed all news broadcasts on ABC, CBS and NBC (the only three sources of national TV news in 1968), and then compiled her findings. The results were compelling. All three networks were skewed significantly or totally liberal on most issues; and all three consistently portrayed Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey as a quasi-saint, and Republican candidate Richard Nixon as a sneaky, uncaring cad (Watergate later proved them mostly right, but that’s really beyond the scope of this argument).

So, how did the Republicans win the 1968 and 1972 elections, considering that these liberal-leaning TV news broadcasts reached (and supposedly influenced) virtually the entire adult population of the country at the time?

Simple: The consistent liberal reporting in 1968 not only attacked Nixon, it also directly and indirectly attacked the vast middle class majority sensibilities OF BOTH PARTIES. The media’s not-so-subtle message? Nixon is a creep, and you are all stupid and wrong-minded if you vote for Nixon. Well, no one likes to be called stupid (even truly stupid people), and the liberal-leaning media in 1968 ended up alienated the very majority they were trying to influence. There were other factors affecting the outcome of the presidential race (a splintered Democratic Party, for example), but the alienation factor was the biggest, in my opinion.

Today, media reporting of the candidates seems like “déjà vu all over again.” Bush, as was Nixon, is portrayed as Satan incarnate. Kerry is portrayed as the intelligent, compassionate and caring Democrat --champion of the oppressed. But this strategy may end up backfiring, just like it did in 1968 and 1972. Bush is not a devil, and Kerry is no saint. So if the media continues to seem unfair and hysterical pushing this, and related agendas, they might end up again alienating the average American voter, just like they did in 1968 and 1972. The result? The Republicans, and not the Democrats, will be celebrating in November.

Ironically, the people who yell the loudest about there being no liberal media bias, are usually members of the media themselves -- which brings to mind the famous quote from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The bias is significant and real, and the reason many senior editors don’t see it, particularly in the upper circles of the New York City-based national media, is because they really aren’t looking for it. It’s all around them, so they can’t see the forest for the trees. Famous TV news broadcaster David Brinkley once said in a 1964 TV Guide interview, “News is what I say it is.” Brinkley is, of course, referring to the fact of all the potential news stories that come across an editor’s desk each day, it is the editor alone who decides what tiny percentage is, and is not, important enough to see air time or publication. But the dark side of this reality is that if these “watchmen of democracy” are biased (and many are), then who watches the watchmen?

Russ Maheras

You know what's funny?

Brinkley is a conservative who was caught on tape saying how much he despised Clinton.

Den,
Not so funny. I know a lot of people who felt the same way:)
Unfortunately, none were in the media:)

Den wrote: "You know what's funny? Brinkley is a conservative who was caught on tape saying how much he despised Clinton."

You know what's even funnier? Brinkley was a liberal in 1968.

Brinkley apparently became more conservative as he grew older. As far as the Clinton remark, did Brinkley say "despised"? I thought he said Clinton was "a bore." In any case, he did apologize in person to Clinton, on the air, as I recall.

Seems like the choices are rather clear-cut to me:

John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran and long-time Senator.

George W. Bush dodged National Guard duty, ran three businesses into the dirt, lied about his tax cut plans, lied about his support for stem-cell research, lied about "changing the tone," lied about his commitment to fiscal responsibility, lied about his commitment to fighting al Qaeda, lied about iron-clad proof that Saddam had WMDs, lied about his support for investigating the failures of 9/11, took away three million jobs, gave us a record-setting deficit, and pissed off all the international support and goodwill we used to have.

Why is there even a debate about this? The election is a no-brainer; only one candidate has a brain, and it isn't George.

Robert wrote: "John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran and long-time Senator." "Why is there even a debate about this? The election is a no-brainer; only one candidate has a brain, and it isn't George."

That's ALL you know about John Kerry, and he's already your guy? He has no flaws or issues you disagree with? What are his strengths? Weaknesses? Is he a good organizer? What's his voting record like? Is he honest? Does he flip-flop on issues? Can he handle pressure? Does he have a concrete PLAN about anything?

Geez, it must be nice to be a partisan Republican or Democrat! It makes life sooooooo easy.

But I guess it's no worse than the criteria I used when I voted in my first election back in 1972. "Oooo! The state treasurer's name sounds cool -- I'll vote for him. Hmmm, there aren't very many women judges -- I'll pick her. Ooops, I've picked too many Democrats -- got to pick some more Republicans, and maybe an independent or two, just to be fair. Who's this guy, Gus Hall? A Communist? Man, they'll put anybody on a ballot!"

Sad, but true. At least I can say I didn't vote for Nixon.

Russ Maheras

[b][i]what haunts Bush, is his youthful days as a drinking, partying drug user[/i][/b]

[b]Did I miss something, or is it still the case that for all the rumors about it there is not one shred of evidence that Bush was ever a drug user?[/b]

There's tons of circumstantial evidence, but admittedly that's not much.

However, when asked directly about whether W ever used cocaine, the official response was something on the lines of "Bush has not used any illegal substances since 1979". That's about as ironclad as a tacit evidence goes.

Did I miss something, or is it still the case that for all the rumors about it there is not one shred of evidence that Bush was ever a drug user?

So, alcohol isn't a drug anymore?

Brinkley apparently became more conservative as he grew older. As far as the Clinton remark, did Brinkley say "despised"? I thought he said Clinton was "a bore." In any case, he did apologize in person to Clinton, on the air, as I recall.

I believe his exact words were that Clinton was a "goddamn bore" and a "disgrace." His tone of voice made his contempt for Clinton very clear.

The apology notwithstanding, it was a clear insight into his personal feelings about a sitting president.

You know, in all my posts here, I have yet to blast Clinton for his political or personal shortcomings. I really see no need to do it now, either. But the job as ANY President is as "commander-in chief". That really is THE MOST important job a President has, even ahead of "feeling your pain". So if allegedly being AWOL is reason to blast Bush, then dodging a draft and protesting on foreign soil should be, at the least, fair game as well.

Actually, the most important job of a President is ensuring the national interest and prosperity of the citizenry that elects him (or her). So long as the Prez does his ultimate to benefit the nation, __that__ is his most important duty, whether that means being Commander-in-Chief or Commander-in-Peace is irrelevant. A President who can fight wars well, but lets the domestic front decay is not a good leader.

And concerning “dodging a draft and protesting on foreign soil” being fair game:

Clinton (and I’m assuming you’re talking about Clinton) never dodged the draft. The letter many on the political right like to tout as proof actually is his turning down an opportunity to avoid the draft. Clinton was as eligible as the next Boomer, but his number never came up.

And the protesting on foreign soil is a bogus argument. Clinton didn’t fly off to another country for the express purpose of protesting the war; he was going to school at Oxford at the time. What would you have had him do? Fly back over the weekends to march in demonstrations?

If anyone has questions about how Bush is conducting the war, fine. But these cheap shots and personal attacks on him doesn't make anyone's argument stronger. In fact, it makes it weaker, especially when you make illogical arguments like "Clinton didn't say he was a war president, so that lets him off the hook, even though he was commander-in-chief and used that power on a few occasions. How did those work out?

But Bush did say he was a war president. Repeatedly. If someone puts themselves upon a pedestal, he should be prepared for the consequent scrutiny.

And considering the US stayed out a lot of foreign entanglements, and quickly and decisively handled the ones that it did get involved in, I’d say it worked out rather well.

Craig,
We obviously disagree on a lot. But your definition of "vision" seems somewhat contradictory.

No, not really. Perhaps not explained the best, but not contradictory.

Vision is more than saying "Let's invade Iraq."

It's also "How will we get Saddam, how will we take on his army, how will we rebuild his country, how long will we be there," and many other questions that I seriously wonder whether Bush has bothered to ask.

But it also comes back to the fact that our first priority was bin Laden. We still haven't gotten him.

But instead of moving on down to the next item on the list... oh, wait, there was only that one item on the list.
Saddam was on a separate list, the list that existed before 9/11 and was incorporated into the post-9/11 War on Terror list since Bush just couldn't let that go.

The arguments that Tim presented once again, the ones I have presented multiple times, still apply - Saddam was not a threat that demanded the attention he has gotten.

Sasha,
Yeah, we "quickly and decisively" turned tail and ran from Somalia after they hurt us and our soldiers. Sort of sent a message that we were soft. Maybe you don't see it that way, but people who wish to hurt us did, including Osama Bin Laden.
As for Kosovo, we "quickly and decisively"...wait a minute, we STILL have troops there!
As for avoiding other entanglements, well the Clinton administration was in charge for five terrorist attacks:
In 1993, the World Trade center was bombed by Muslim extremists
In 1995, five Americans were killed by a car bomb set by Muslim extremists
In 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists
In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists
In October 2000, our warship the USS Cole was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Our sum response to these five attacks was firing missiles that blew up an aspirin factory, a tent and a camel.
But none of that mattered because "It was the economy stupid!"
As long as he had the longest peacetime expansion in history, the basic act of defending ourselves wasn't on his radar. To be fair to him, it wasn't on ours either. we were enjoying low interest rates, low unemployment, a bullish stock market. People were buying SUVs left and right, even liberals who still claimed to care about the environment. And he felt our pain.
And you know what? Economic prosperity is not enough in a dangerous world. It just isn't. Which is why so many people are even willing to give up civil liberties to feel safe. Because they know that without safety, everything else - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - can be taken away in an instant.
The economy has many uncertain factors. But, while the president cannot guarantee our safety, it is something he has more direct control of. And that's why, in my opinion, it HAS to be the number one priority for ANY government.

Our sum response to these five attacks was firing missiles that blew up an aspirin factory, a tent and a camel.

Okay, I think I've commented on this before, but it comes up again, so...

Jerome, why is it that you have no problem with the idea that our enemies might lie to us about WMDs, the number of "sleeper cells" in the US, and other matters on Bush's watch, but you believe them when they claim Clinton blew up an "aspirin factory", and an "abandoned" camp?

Did you actually think at the time that the terrorists were going to hold a press conference, and announce the loss of one of their leading toxic-gas suppliers, along with the deaths of a number of terror-trainees?

Or is this just a reflection of hatred of everything done by one President, and "support" for everything done by another?

"That's ALL you know about John Kerry, and he's already your guy?"

Let's put it this way -- if the election were held today, and the only choices were either George W. Bush or Pat Buchanan, I'd vote for Pat Buchanan, because I already know he's the smarter and more honest candidate. Hell, at least Pat was able to admit back in 2000 that the elderly Jewish ladies in Florida didn't intend to vote for him.

That's how screwed up George W. Bush is, that he makes Pat Buchanan look good by comparison.

Umm...President Bush graduated from Yale and has a MBA in Economics. He also knows how to fly fighter jets. Where do people get the idea that he is not as smart as Kerry?

If Bush lied about WMDs, so did Kerry, Daschle, President Clinton and the UN.

Which is why so many people are even willing to give up civil liberties to feel safe. Because they know that without safety, everything else - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - can be taken away in an instant.

Then, with all due respect, and I say this without any apology -- "so many people" are idiots.

Safety is never iron-clad until and unless you're dead. Lock yourself in your house and refuse to leave, and there's always the possibility of a stray meteor.

Life is inherently unsafe. Giving up essential civil liberties for the chimera of "but it's making us saaaaaaaafer" is thinking with our R-complex instead of our forebrain. I'll have none of it, thank you kindly.

I don't really need to once again drag out the usual Ben Franklin quote, do I?

TWL

So, alcohol isn't a drug anymore?

Yes, it is but with PAD's saying "...drinking, partying drug user...", it is implied that he is meaning alcohol by the word drinking, and other drugs by the rest of the statement.

AJ, the reason I think Bush isn't as smart as Kerry is that Bush doesn't act particularly smart, and his various, not denied, quotes, show that he has near zero intellectual curiousity. As for his Yale background, well, as someone who attended Yale for a year myself, I'll just note that Bush did so at the tail end of the "Gentleman's C" period. For the last few decades, the Ivies have, for a very large part, been meritocracies. Before that though, they were an odd mix of very sharp folk and, well, not that sharp rich kids. Given that Dubya was a legacy *and* the scion of an extremely powerful political family *in Connecticut to boot* (remember who H.W.'s father was), at that point in time he'd practically have to be drooling in the corner not to have been admitted. It'd be more of a tossup today. But even today, it's a standard in the top Ivies that it's *much*, *much* harder to get admitted than to flunk out. So while it's quite possible that a Yale grad of Dubya's age is extremely smart, it's also quite possible they coasted in on connections (and note that while I find Kerry much smarter than Bush, I get much more of the "student council President" vibe from him than the intellectual vibe, so I'm not at all sure about the exact reasons he got into Yale either).

As for his Harvard MBA, well, to be honest, that one I just don't know about. I don't know enough about the history of the school to know how influenced they'd be in terms of a rich grandson of a New England Senator when making admissions decisions at the time Dubya applied. It is worth noting that Dubya was a complete failure at pretty much any business that didn't directly involve taking major advantage of his father's contacts and associates, so it's questionable how much he paid attention in class at least.

"Personally, I have yet to see anything in Iraq approaching the sickening feeling in my stomach I felt when our soldiers were dragged through the streets in Somalia."

Fallujah (sp)?

Monkeys

I guess when Bush was flying those jets his it was his father's influence reading the instruments. I hate to break the news to you but nearly every business person will tell you that they have failed at some point in their lives. Not everybody knocks it out the park the first time at bat. Bush had business failures then became part owner of the Texas Rangers and succeeded. You have no proof that Kerry is any smarter than Bush. How do you know what intellectual curiousity that Bush has or doesnt have?

As for his Harvard MBA, so according to you Harvard just hands out MBAs?

Bush had business failures then became part owner of the Texas Rangers and succeeded.

Um, I wouldn't use that example if I were you....thanks to its monopoly exemption, you can do anything EXCEPT fail....

Posted by Toby:
" 'Personally, I have yet to see anything in Iraq approaching the sickening feeling in my stomach I felt when our soldiers were dragged through the streets in Somalia.'

Fallujah (sp)?"

Those were civilian contractors, not soldiers. The outcome would probably have been the same if it had been a 4 person, lightly armed military squad. However, when making comparisons, it's always best to get the facts correct.

And yes, I know the contractors all had military training and were security specialists, but that's different than being heavily armed active duty soldiers.

Posted by roger tang:
" 'Bush had business failures then became part owner of the Texas Rangers and succeeded.'

Um, I wouldn't use that example if I were you....thanks to its monopoly exemption, you can do anything EXCEPT fail...."

Ah, the new scientific method. If a fact doesn't agree with your conclusion, throw out that fact.

Tim Lynch:
Then, with all due respect, and I say this without any apology -- "so many people" are idiots.

Thanks for that. Usually I find your posts fairly insightful and well thougth out, but that is a mutually exclusive statement. You want to give me "due respect", then call me an idiot? And of course you'll say it without apology while saying it with respect? Try again.

Tim DOES normally have insightful comments, Steve. What I'm willing to bet is that you guys are arguing different civil liberties.

Targetted profiling, airport security, and tightened borders make sense. They don't infringe on freedoms though they may be inconvenient. Ben Franklin never meant to throw the baby out with the bathwater (he didn't insist on allowing Redcoats into revolutionary meetings, after all).

So, Tim, which civil liberties do you believe are being infringed? Dollars to doughnuts that despite my conservative leanings, we'd be in agreement. (It's my contention that there is certainly a philosophical gap between libs and cons, but frank and honest discussion will narrow that gap over time).

Steve,

Are you one of the nameless masses Jerome mentioned as willing to sacrifice liberties for safety?

If you're not, then the statement doesn't apply to you and I'm not sure why you're stepping in.

If you are, and your only justification is the sentence Jerome attributed to you in the piece I quoted ... then while I'd regret the hurt feelings, the opinion stands.

The "without apology" was a reference to Jerome's all-encompassing indictment of liberals, which he then apologized for. I was saying (or at least trying to say) that this wasn't a rash statement I'll backpedal on later. Agreed that it came out less than clearly -- that part I will apologize for.

I don't agree that "with all due respect" and "without apology" are mutually exclusive, however.

All that said ... do you object to the content of the claim, or just the phrasing?

TWL

So, Tim, which civil liberties do you believe are being infringed?

Ask Jerome. He's the one who issued the blanket statement that "so many people are willing to give up civil liberties for safety."

To use one of your examples, though, I don't consider the changes to airport security as a civil liberties issue, no. I don't think anyone argues that the Constitution guarantees a right to convenience. :-)

If that's the sort of thing Jerome meant, then I'd retract the "idiots" comments ... but I'd also think he has an odd definition of what civil liberties are.

If he meant things like Bush's "free speech zones" (i.e. shepherding protestors into places where he doesn't have to hear them), then we agree on the definition and my opinion stands as originally written.

TWL

Tim,
I actually see both points, yours and Jerome's. So that isn't my issue. I happen to agree with just about everyone to an extent, as I have seen both sides of many issues. I usually don't care what people think of me as a "fence rider". What I do care about is how someone can say "with all due respect" and in the same sentence call the people idiots. If you think of someone as an idiot, you obviously don't respect them.

That's my beef.

" 'Bush had business failures then became part owner of the Texas Rangers and succeeded.'

Um, I wouldn't use that example if I were you....thanks to its monopoly exemption, you can do anything EXCEPT fail...."

Ah, the new scientific method. If a fact doesn't agree with your conclusion, throw out that fact.

I'm merely pointing out that baseball is a legal, recognized monopoly, where it is very hard to lose money, particularly after sale of franchises. It just doesn't particularly buttress your point about Bush's business acumen.

Steve,

The "with all due respect" is aimed at a different set of people than the ones being characterized. I agree that it's awfully tough to simultaneously respect someone and think they're an idiot, but that's not what I was doing.

Hope that helps. If not, I think we're in "agree to disagree" mode on this particular point.

TWL

Jonathan (the other one),
I will respond to all your questions, since you seem to be misstating both my position and intentions in regard to the statements I have made.

1.) "Jerome, why is it that you have no problem with the idea that our enemies might lie to us about WMDs, the number of "sleeper cells" in the US, and other matters on Bush's watch, but you believe them when they claim Clinton blew up an "aspirin factory" and an "abandoned" camp?"

Well, I don't have a proble with the idea our enemies might lie to us about the matters you mentioned, because they would definitely have reasons to keep those things secret, right?

"Did you actually think at the time that the terrorists were going to hold a press conference, and announce the loss of one of their leading toxic-gas suppliers, along with the deaths of a number of terror-trainees"
Of course not. Of course they would hide whatever they could to make us look bad. The same way I and many others think the Iraqi WMDs are in Syria. But not too many liberals believe me on that front.
To be honest, I had forgotten claims that we had hit their leading toxic gas supliers and killed a number of terror-trainees. I do not remember Clinton making a big deal about it, and I certainly do not remember him - or Gore for that matter - making a big deal about it recently.
If he was sure he had accomplished something substantial in the War on Terror, I think he would have said so quite often.
In fact, it seems he made a bigger deal in basically blaming the oklahoma city bombing on Rush Limbaugh. He blamed "loud and angry voices" heard "over the airwaves in America" that were making people "paranoid" and spreading "hate". He couldn't have been more specific if he had said "the guy al Franken called a big fat idiot".

"Or is this just a reflection of hatred of everything done by one president, and "support" for everything done by another?"

First, I don't "hate" everything done by Clinton. As I told another poster, I feel the Republicans looked silly when they wouldn't give him ANY credit for the economy and /or balancing the budget. I also give him credit for passing NAFTA, GATT and welfare reform. He did many other good things and a lot of stuff I didn't care for.But i hardly foamed at the mouth at the mention of his name (unlike a lot of Republicans I know - and how many democrats/liberals react to Dubya, as this blog can attest).
At the same time, I wish Bush had done some things differently.
But this is all beside the point.
The main point I was trying to make, in response to PAD's sarcastic "Goog thing he never billed himself as a 'war predident', huh?", was that all presidents automatically assume the role of Commander-In-Chief (sorry, Sasha, the Commander-in-Peace or whatever line was kind of cute but inaccurate). Since the world is a very dangerous place, it is quite important that whoever is in the position be prepared to handle the responsibility.
But after Reagan won the Cold War, and Bush41's term saw the end of apartheid in South Africa, the release of Nelson Mandela, the reunification of a free Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we all felt very safe. The threat of nuclear annihilation that had hung like a dagger over our heads for over four decades was gone. We forget this now but it was and still is a very big deal. As a result, the American electorate felt Bush41 "spent too much time on world affairs" and felt he should spend his time on important things like extending unemployment benefits and other "domestic issues". So we elected Bill Clinton to do that, and through policies and a lot of luck we had a very bullish economy. But the threat of terrorism was not high on his radar screen, because - I said this before but I'll say it again SINCE YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME THE FIRST TIME - it WASN"T HIGH ON OURS EITHER! We were eating well, putting lots of gifts under our Christmas trees and lots of other good stuff. we didn't fear an invasion from anyone, and we were not on a "war footing" in regard to terrorism, because we still felt it couldn't happen to us.
The media and the voters still felt that way in 2000. If you doubt that, see how many questions during the campaign in general and the debates in particular were about world afairs in general and terrorism specifically. I believe NO questions on terrorism were asked during the three debates.
As a result, DUBYA WAS NOT ON A WAR FOOTING EITHER. AND HE DIDN'T RUN AS A WAR PRESIDENT.
But 9/11 changed that.
Because on September 11, 2001, our government failed to live up to its most important responsibility - to protect its citizens. It failed because the federal government uses its $2 trillion budget to meddle in our personal and financial affairs and to provide goods and services that Americans can and should provide for themselves.
So now we are focused on what we need to do. But, truthfully, if you or any other posters hate Dubya so much that instead of arguing the merits of the case for war and the other actions DURING HIS TERM and would rather focus on his past- like the AWOL garbage - well good luck. Kerry tried it yesterday, and it is absurd. It is petty, childish behavior, does not adress anything significant and does not harm Bush one iota with people who don't totally hate his guts.
an election is almost always a referendum on the incumbent and his record in office.
That's what people care about.

I'm merely pointing out that baseball is a legal, recognized monopoly, where it is very hard to lose money, particularly after sale of franchises. It just doesn't particularly buttress your point about Bush's business acumen.

Not to mention that the Rangers were heavily subsidized by the taxpayers of Texas.

Umm...President Bush graduated from Yale and has a MBA in Economics

Let's go back to that FedEx commercial...

"Oh, you have an MBA..." as if it's supposed to mean something in the Real World.

Must be nice to get into a college you don't deserve. Kind of like Bush going to Harvard.

Isn't Kerry a Harvard graduate as well?
Wouldn't that mean that Kerry is *at least* as smart as Bush?

Or are we just speaking hypotheticals?

From Den:
"Isn't Kerry a Harvard graduate as well?
Wouldn't that mean that Kerry is *at least* as smart as Bush?"

Speaking in hypotheticals, Kerry doesn't have to be as smart as Bush. Kerry could be less smart and still manage to graduate.

But, truthfully, if you or any other posters hate Dubya so much that instead of arguing the merits of the case for war and the other actions DURING HIS TERM and would rather focus on his past- like the AWOL garbage - well good luck.

Um. We have. Repeatedly. On the environment, on the economy, on the war, on 9/11, on church-state separation ... take your pick. Perhaps you haven't noticed because you've been too busy repeating your usual talking points.

Believe me, if I found this administration anything but incompetent and/or abhorrent about most of the things it's done since 2001, I'd completely agree that dredging up the past would be fairly stupid.

Since I don't -- I will bring up any and all pieces of evidence that will help evict them from the White House.

Which ones I choose to focus on will depend on which arguments the people I'm talking to are more likely to listen to -- just like any other political campaign in history. Nobody chants the same two-sentence argument everywhere. (Even Bush has about four. :-)

Kerry tried it yesterday, and it is absurd.

To slightly misquote Angel ... "Well, not to get all schoolyard or anything, but Bush did it first."

I mean, seriously, Jerome -- why is it that addressing the merits of Kerry's Purple Hearts is apparently okey-dokey by you, but Bush's actions in comparison are off the table?

An election is almost always a referendum on the incumbent and his record in office.

Yes it is. And if the merits of this incumbent's administration are brought fairly out in the open and examined publicly, I have faith that there's no way in hell Bush can win.

That's why the administration is doing everything it can to make sure the focus is on something else. Anything else -- like, say, Vietnam?

TWL

Speaking in hypotheticals, Kerry doesn't have to be as smart as Bush. Kerry could be less smart and still manage to graduate.

And Bush could be less than deserving to even *be* in such a university and still manage to graduate.

Funny how that works.

As I mentioned in my last post, Kerry is also a Yalie (undergrad). Why do you think Trudeau drew him back in the earliest days of the strip? (I find it amusing that, if elected, Kerry will be the first President to have been shown non-metaphorically in Doonesbury). Also amusingly, both he and Dubya are Skull and Bones members.

(checks web) His law degree was from Boston College, which is at least as useful as a Harvard law degree if you plan to be active in Boston law/political circles.

"Those were civilian contractors, not soldiers. The outcome would probably have been the same if it had been a 4 person, lightly armed military squad. However, when making comparisons, it's always best to get the facts correct.

And yes, I know the contractors all had military training and were security specialists, but that's different than being heavily armed active duty soldiers." Jeff

So, being an American contractor as opposed to an American heavily armed soldier makes a difference when you are brutaly murdered and dragged through the street? Especially considering it happened because of the US presence in both cases? (if the war in Iraq wasn't going on, I doubt the attack on the contractors would have happened {as there would probably be fewer groups frustrated with our presence gunning for anything American}, and if the war wasn't going on, would the contractors have been there in the first place?)

Just wondering.

Monkeys

Every death in Iraq is on George Bush's head.

Wht do you expect expect when you invade another nation?

Posted by Toby:
"So, being an American contractor as opposed to an American heavily armed soldier makes a difference when you are brutaly murdered and dragged through the street? Especially considering it happened because of the US presence in both cases? (if the war in Iraq wasn't going on, I doubt the attack on the contractors would have happened {as there would probably be fewer groups frustrated with our presence gunning for anything American}, and if the war wasn't going on, would the contractors have been there in the first place?)"

I pointed out the difference between them being soldiers and contractors because it was mentioned in a previous post about the incident in Somolia.

And US civilian contractors have worked for years in the middle east, especially in the oil fields. And they have been targeted in the past in many different countries by terrorists. Most of the oil fields were developed and partly run by US companies, so saying that US citizens wouldn't be there if we weren't in a war isn't accurate.

We weren't at wa when the first attack on the WTC happened, or when the Cole was attacked, or the embassys in Africa were attacked. Terrorists don't seem to need war for an excuse to attack, just an opportunity.

"We weren't at war when the first attack on the WTC happened, or when the Cole was attacked, or the embassys in Africa were attacked. Terrorists don't seem to need war for an excuse to attack, just an opportunity."

None of those events were perpetrated by Iraq and we wouldn't be attacked by terrorists in Iraq if not for this highly suspect war we are currently embroiled in.

"Kerry lies about his involvement in VN, "

What did he lie about? He was in Vietnam, he fought, he was wounded in combat, he has the medals to prove it.

"insulting the already beleagered VN Vets and he expects to win? Please."

Kerry has more in common with those beleagured vets your talking about than anyone in the current administration.

"I've met both GW and Kerry (Bush a few months ago, Kerry two years ago) and getting up close and personal will open eyes, believe me. GW is warm and caring, able (and willing!) to ask insightful questions. Kerry couldn't even comprehend normal conversation."

Were these brief meetings or long, personal encounters?
I would never try and do a full character assessment of a man based on a fleeting encounter.

"Bush will win by a lot, if not a landslide. Kerry doesn't have a hope in hell."
I doubt that very much. The country is very divided and whoever wins this election will only do so by a slight margin.

"The more people find out about him, the farther behind he will fall."

Considering the man has lived his life in the public eye for the better part of 35 years its quiet easy to find out all you need to about Kerry on your own. You'd also get a better picture of the man by doing this than to solely rely on the skewed picture the current administration is trying paint of him in their desperate and slimy attempt to stay in power.

I love how the party that has always prided itself on honoring the brave soldiers of this nation don't hesitate to demean the service record of anyone they deem to be an enemy. They did it to McCain in the 2000 primaries, they did it to Max Cleland in 2002 and they are trying their darndest to do it to John Kerry right now.
Its laughable in a sad way when you consider the dubious service records ( or lack of service records) of the inner circle of the Bush administration.

Kerry's lies about VN are the claims he made about soldiers regularly and consistantly taking trophies, killing non-combatants, etc. I'm not demeaning his service in VN, just his behavior afterward.

The current administration respects now, and always has respected veterans. I doubt Kerry can claim he respects the people he maligned.

I had lunch with GWB here in Orlando (no, not alone, he's a friend of my lawyer's. There were quite a few of us there).

Kerry, off and on throughout an afternoon in the capital.

I'm not basing my opinion of either of them solely on these encounters, but on their records as well.

I could well be wrong, but I don't think this election is going to be close at all.

The current administration respects now, and always has respected veterans.

Cutting their benefits is an awfully odd way of showing respect.

TWL

he's a friend of my lawyer's

Why does this not surprise me in the least. ;)

Rob S.:
I certain that when Kerry came back he didn't throw anyone under the bus ( to coin a popular term of my fathers) and I would appreicate links to quotes that would show where he maligned the soldiers who fought in Vietnam.

Derek,

Try this:
http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/fielder/2004/mar18.html

Tim,
Cite please?

Rob S. wrote: “Kerry's lies about VN are the claims he made about soldiers regularly and consistantly taking trophies, killing non-combatants, etc. I'm not demeaning his service in VN, just his behavior afterward.”

My feelings about the whole issue are this: John Kerry served his country during an unpopular war -- no one can take that away from him. He seems like a somewhat impulsive, argumentative and emotional guy (which I can relate to), so while he did volunteer to serve, he apparently decided he was against the war during his second Vietnam tour (the first tour doesn’t really count because he spent the whole time in a ship offshore).

It is at this point in time where Kerry’s behavior makes this former NCO’s alarm bells go off. After firefight situations, Kerry is alleged by some of the people in his own unit to have tried to “game the system” by putting himself in for Purple Hearts for wounds that were described as inconsequential. I wasn’t there, and I have no idea how serious the wounds were, but I do know this: If Kerry was legitimately awarded three Purple Hearts, then documentation of that fact will be in his military records. If no such records exist, then he should never have been removed from combat under the 1300.39 rule.

Regarding Kerry’s anti-war antics once back home, I think his emotions got the better of him, particularly when he related U.S. troop “atrocities” to members of a Congressional hearing in 1971. All of his information was hearsay, but it was what anti-war activists and the media wanted to hear, so it stuck. His testimony help paint a grim and lasting picture of U.S. troop behavior in Vietnam, and this, in my opinion, was a horrible thing to do. It is probably why Vietnam veteran support for Kerry is so mixed, even 30 years later. Because, while things like the My Lai massacre did occur, most of the troops who served in Vietnam served honorably. By comparison, the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, which anti-war protestors like Jane Fonda glorified and embraced, were far more brutal to their own countrymen than American soldiers ever were.

To be fair, I’m also not impressed with Bush’s National Guard record, or with Cheney’s never-ending string of deferments in the 1960s. But, like Kerry, they were also young, impulsive and narrow-minded. I can also relate to that. If I had been drafted into the military when I was 18, rather than voluntarily joining when I was 24, I probably would have been in constant trouble, and may even have been kicked out.

What’s the bottom line then for this independent voter? Kerry still has to convince me he is worth putting the government through an agonizing, six- to 12-month transition during a critical period of U.S. history. So far, he hasn’t. But we still have six months to go, so we’ll see what happens.

Russ Maheras

John Kerry served his country during an unpopular war -- no one can take that away from him.

I think that's where I make the distinction between Kerry & Bush.

I don't care whether they inhaled, got drunk, got head, or wore drag at their fraternity initiations. I'll have a laugh about it and stuff, but it's not a big deal in the long run.

Nor is the fact that Kerry was outspoken against the war and it's obvious that Bush didn't want to get sent over.

But when a presidency is spent pushing for war with a man who didn't do any fighting himself... well, hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.

Rob S:

That opinion piece doesn't necessarily prove that Kerry is a liar. All that piece did was call into question the honesty of Al Hubbard and I'd hate to think that Kerry was being charged with guilt by association due to a friendship with a dishonest man.

It is at this point in time where Kerry’s behavior makes this former NCO’s alarm bells go off. After firefight situations, Kerry is alleged by some of the people in his own unit to have tried to “game the system” by putting himself in for Purple Hearts for wounds that were described as inconsequential. I wasn’t there, and I have no idea how serious the wounds were, but I do know this: If Kerry was legitimately awarded three Purple Hearts, then documentation of that fact will be in his military records. If no such records exist, then he should never have been removed from combat under the 1300.39 rule.

Well, the records are available. Folks can read them if they want, and decide if they are inconsequential or not. All we can say is that he had shrapnel wounds.

Regarding Kerry’s anti-war antics once back home, I think his emotions got the better of him, particularly when he related U.S. troop “atrocities” to members of a Congressional hearing in 1971. All of his information was hearsay, but it was what anti-war activists and the media wanted to hear, so it stuck. His testimony help paint a grim and lasting picture of U.S. troop behavior in Vietnam, and this, in my opinion, was a horrible thing to do. It is probably why Vietnam veteran support for Kerry is so mixed, even 30 years later. Because, while things like the My Lai massacre did occur, most of the troops who served in Vietnam served honorably. By comparison, the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, which anti-war protestors like Jane Fonda glorified and embraced, were far more brutal to their own countrymen than American soldiers ever were.

I suspect what affected Kerry was an incident on the river where his unit accidentally killed a young Vietnamese mother and her child.

John Kerry on CNN's Crossfire, November 12, 1997:
"The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war"

John Kerry at the Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004:
"I stood up to the people of Massachusetts and the country. Those are the people I answer to. There was a right way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and there was a wrong way. The right way was what the president promised, to go to the UN, to respect the building of an international coalition in truth, to exhaust the remedies of inspections and literally to only go to war as a last result."

So, he's for the US to act without approval of the UN, but then he's against it. Just like a lot of his other "stands" on things.

Rob,

Here's your citation about Bush and vets' benefits.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1222-01.htm

Obviously commondreams.org isn't a site one can claim is unbiased, but the actual article is forwarded from the Boston Globe, and the organizations in question are certainly reputable vets' groups.

I'll try to find other citations over the course of the day if I can, but hopefully this is a start.

TWL

Craig,
Maybe slandering his fellow soldiers while they were still dying in a foreign land is "not a big deal in the long run" to you, but it sure is to the soldiers who were maligned.
As Russ says, it was a horrible thing to do. Not only was it as a singular event, but it continues to reverberate to this day.
People have such a negative image of Vietnam (why else would Kennedy and the like choose to portray Iraq as Bush's "Vietnam" unless that war had negative connotations, and unique at that. Again, every military action we take seems to get political opponents and the media comparing it to Vietnam. Not Kosovo, not Somalia. Vietnam.) thanks to people like Kerry and his admittedly emotional accusations.
To this day, Vietnam Veterans are the subject of jokes, and are portrayed as "losers" at best and "babykillers"/"drug using psychos at worst.
Myths have somehow taken on the form of facts.
Such as:
"We got our butts kicked"
No. We won every battle but lost the war because politicians - especially LBJ - did not have the guts to do what was necessary to win.
"Everyone was against the war, especially the 18-30 crowd"
No. Most Americans supported the war, and support was actually GREATER among young people.
"The war was immoral"
Open to interpretation, sure. But when you consider that two million Vietnamese have fled since the end of the war and the complete communist takeover of the country(the early exodus of vietnamese boat people was so vast and overwhelmingit created an international humanitarian crisis, which the brilliant U.N. solved by deciding to send them back to Vietnam); that communist "reeducation" camps, political prisoners and gruesome bloodbaths became commonplace in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (yep, the democrats were right and the 'domino theory WAS bunk. Oh wait.); that in Cambodia over a third of the population - easily over one million victims - were slaughtered by Marxist ideologues in "the killing fields"; that Cambodians were forced to watch as family members were decapitated or garoted and that cambodian children were forced to hang their own teachers; that in Laos, 10% of the population wound up fleeing and that hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were "reeducated" and hundreds of thousands more were killed or died fleeing in fear on boats.
Well, when you consider all those things, maybe the war wasn't immoral. Maybe abandoning all those people to those fates was.
So, with regard to Kerry, the fact that his high-profile statements and actions helped originate and/or perpetuate the nasty and vile images of Vietnam and its soldiers, which still haunts the nation to an extent. Well, that's highy relevant. Especially to the Vietnam vets who he is trying to appeal to and who think he is a piece of shit for the reason described above.

"We got our butts kicked"
No. We won every battle but lost the war because politicians - especially LBJ - did not have the guts to do what was necessary to win.

I'm going to throw something out here. Much of the argument here is that the two sides are arguing over tactics. For one side, the definition of victory is primarily a military one. For the other, the definition of victory is primarily a political one. The disagreement is which definition can and should take precedence (or whether there should be a mixture)(e.g., you can gain a clear military victory by slaughtering the entire enemy population, and include a few folks we're not sure about...but it would be a clear political defeat and ultimately a defeat in toto).

To this day, Vietnam Veterans are the subject of jokes, and are portrayed as "losers" at best and "babykillers"/"drug using psychos at worst.

Um ... by whom? I've never heard Vietnam vets referred to as the former -- ever -- and don't think the latter has been used since the height of the antiwar marches 30+ years ago.

(Now, the US's eventual loss in Vietnam is made fun of, yes -- cf. "A Fish Called Wanda", which I quoted here a week or so back -- but not the soldiers.)

So just exactly do you claim is saying these things? Can you name someone who's heard himself called that any time in the last 20 years?

(My suspicion is that the "myths have taken the form of facts" claim is cutting both ways.)

TWL

"So, he's for the US to act without approval of the UN, but then he's against it. Just like a lot of his other "stands" on things."

There's a vast difference between saying "We reserve the right to act in our best interests" (while repeatedly emphasizing the concept of "leading the world") and advocating bombing the crap out a country and its citizens based upon misinformation and outright lies (which are then dismissed as irrelevant by a President who literally cannot distinguish between the concepts of "Saddam wanted weapons" and "Saddam had weapons.")

And by the way, for all those obsessed about Kerry's war record...

Just how much shrapnel, exactly, does George W. Bush have in *his* leg?

PAD

Peter....I'm going to say that I do not believe that Bush used lies or misinformation to justify his Iraq adventure.

But I DO believe that he consciously slanted it, did not vette his intelligence and did not critically appraise the intelligence he did get (i.e., he saw only what he wanted to see).

Frankly, I find that MUCH scarier.

Tim wrote: “Um ... by whom? I've never heard Vietnam vets referred to as the former -- ever -- and don't think the latter has been used since the height of the antiwar marches 30+ years ago.”

Do a Google search with the keywords “baby killers” and “military” and you get about 6,000 hits; modify the keywords slightly to “babykillers” (sic) and “military” and you get 500 hits. You can also Google “baby killers” and “Vietnam” and get about 4,000 hits. Some of the references are used in a historical context, but many are not. And if you do a random sampling of the sites, you’ll even find places where some of the vitriol spewed against the U.S. military is probably as vile as any found on racist Web site. No, like any inflammatory word or phrase, “baby killers” is alive and well, and will no doubt remain an active part of our lexicon for eons to come.

Russ Maheras

PAD,
Your comment about those "obsessed" with Kerry's war record is far off the mark.
First, as I said, there are many Vietnam veterans - some of whom I know personally - who resent the fact that he claimed during a Congressional hearing that so many of his "band of brothers" were basically war criminals. The actual quote was that U.S. soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam "on a daily basis". So the toughest questions have not come from the Republican Attack Machine but from other Vietnam veterans who find it outrageous that Kerry would ever have sugested that so many were involved in war crimes. If you can't grasp how and why they would feel this way, I'm sorry.
In 1971, this veteran of that war also threw away his ribbons and medals - or did he? For years, Kerry has said he tossed his ribbons, not his medals. But the recently revealed ABC tape from that year has the host specifically asking about the medals: the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Hearts. "Well, and above that, I gave back my others".
The words "above that" certainly make it sound like Kerry was affirming that it was his own medals he threw away.
The debate over John Kerry's role on both sides of the Vietnam War highlights the debate this country still engages in concerning what constituted the heroic course of action. It is hardly insignificant.
Especially, and this important, KERRY HAS MADE HIS VIETNAM EXPERIENCE THE CENTER OF HIS CAMPAIGN.
He touts it as the defining experience of his life, one that is meant to exemplify his character.
I he had wanted to downplay his experience in the war, I think many would have respected that. But he didn't. In fact, it was his military experience that voters cited as the reason they felt he could beat Bush, which is about all he ran on and all the voters voted on. To then say he should not have to answer tough questions regarding experience he himself has made a centerpiece issue of his candidacy is faulty thinking at best.
A campaign spokesman for Kerry was quoted last October as saying "John Kerry has always said military experience is not a prerequisite for the presidency, but it informs the tough questions he asks and it certainly gives him the firsthand perspective you can't learn in the situation room."
Of course, Kerry and the Democrats were singing a different tune with Bill Clainton when he ran against World War II vet George H.W. Bush and World War II war hero Bob Dole. Their sacrifice and heroism was deemed irrelevant.
Dole even came under a cruel attack by Trudeau's "Doonesbury" strip, which ran an insulting series of strips criticizing Dole for allegedly exploiting his war wound (damage to his arm that is so sebere that he has to hold a pen constantly to keep it from spasming)for political purposes.
Yeah, that Trudeau is a real riot.
And i am shocked - SHOCKED! - that Trudeau has likewise made no mention this time around of Kerry's unabashed exploitation of his Vietnam military record. But Trudeau -who donated $2,000 to Howard Dean - has made blistering attacks on Dubya. In fact, he has offered $10,000 to anyone who could prove Bush actually served in the National Guard.
Now THAT'S obsessed!

Not only were vets called baby killers back then, the phrase is still being used to describe today's soldiers. If you are feeling too clean take a few moments to visit some of the left wing Indymedia.org sites. The North Carolina one claimed he died in a, get ready for it, "aby-killing raid". Zing! The Portland chapter had the headline "Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan."

Oh my sides!

But most liberals are pretty embarassed about the sorry reception given to the Vietnam vets and are also not well represented by the hatemongers on the liberal websites (not that we will see much outrage over it printed in the papers). That's a good thing. personally, I think that the extremists on the left are gonna sink Kerry at this rate. They have passion but it's very unattractive and it will turn off a lot of people who might otherwise be sympathetis. But if yelling about how evil and stupid Bush is makes them feel better about themselves and if doing so helps Bush win (pleasing conservatives), well, everybody ends up happy, more or less.

Do a Google search with the keywords

You know, you should never believe anything you read on the internet. :)

A few thousand hits? I tried doing a search the other day for "vietnam war myths" and I found alot of sites... all copying the exact same info from each other.

I could probably find more hits for bigger falsehoods (such as reasons why we went to war with Iraq), but that doesn't mean everybody actually believes it.

Yes, there are extremists on the left, spewing ridiculous levels of hate and rancor.

There are similar minds (and I use the term loosely) on the right.

The difference is, the ones on the right have radio timeslots and cable-TV shows, and the ones on the left have cheap-ass websites. Also, the ones on the right actually seem to get some attention from Republicans, while the ones on the left are ignored by their more sensible liberal cousins (kind of like the way everyone just ignores that one uncle who gets drunk at family gatherings, and starts insulting people's clothes and haircuts until he passes out. What, you mean you don't have an uncle like that?).

KERRY HAS MADE HIS VIETNAM EXPERIENCE THE CENTER OF HIS CAMPAIGN.

No, actually, he hasn't. If he were, then his entire campaign would be "I'm a vet, so vote for me."

He's said that Vietnam helped define his life. Bush has said that "coming to Jesus" has helped define his.

By your logic, then, Bush has made his evangelical Christianity the center of his campaign.

Even I don't buy that. (Center of his governance, perhaps.)

So -- if you keep saying that Kerry's nothing more than Vietnam, I'm going to have to start asking how being a reformed got-religion drunk informs a president's life-and-death decisions better than actually serving in a war.

TWL

Tim,

Thanks for the cite. Don't bother looking for more, I can do that. I appreciate you taking the time to find that one. As I recall, there's a lot more to the story than that. If I find it, I'll share.

Is Kerry a liar? Probably no more than any other politician. I do think he's got a very fluid concept of "truth" though.

My question to the left is, is Kerry your best choice? Does anyone really think he'd make a good president? If the primaries were held again, is Kerry the guy you'd go for? (Someone said he's emotional... I haven't seen that. Cold and calculating, but emotional? Maybe I haven't watched the news enough.)

I won't fault Kerry on his service. I didn't serve and now I wish I had. That he went at all says good things about him. I'll give him that much. It's everything since then and now that I question. I still have my doubts that he'll even make it onto the ballet. Edwards might be able to give Bush a run... I'd even consider voting for Leiberman if I didn't personally like Bush. But Kerry? You all have greater faith than I.

Is Kerry my best choice?

No, not remotely. As I've said before, I voted for Dean in the primaries even when it was obvious Kerry was going to be the nominee.

I've also said before that I'd very much like to have lived in the universe where the 2000 election was Bradley-McCain rather than Bush-Gore. Bradley-McCain would have guaranteed someone I respected held the office, even if I disagreed at times.

In terms of how thrilled I am with Kerry, on a scale of 1-10 he's probably around a 4 or a 5.

Bush, however, resides somewhere in the double-digit negative numbers on the same scale -- so Kerry is my clear choice, if not my favorite choice. And yes, I think he'd make a perfectly decent president -- not thrilling, not everything I want, but perfectly okay.

(How can you possibly have doubts that he'll make it onto the ballot? He's already over the top mathematically. Unless he abruptly drops dead or there's a full-fledged rebellion in the party the likes of which we haven't seen in a century, he's going to be the nominee.)

That said ... let's turn it around. Do you really think Bush is the best choice to be president on the right?

TWL

Oh, wait -- you said you had doubts Kerry was going to make it on the **ballet**. Geez, I'm right with you there -- limber he's not. :-)

TWL

Jeff wrote:
"So, he's for the US to act without approval of the UN, but then he's against it. Just like a lot of his other "stands" on things."

Ah yes, the old "Kerry is a flip-flopper" routine. Why don't we take a gander at the steadfast resolute decision making that Bush has demonstrated during his presidency...GW's performed flipflops on:
Abortion
Creating The Homeland Security Department
Campaign finance reform
Nation building
Starting an investigation into Iraq's WMD intelligence
Tariffs on steel
Taking an active role in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict
Pushing No Child Left Behind but not alloting sufficient funds for it
Protecting the environment
Allowing States to decide whether to honor gay marriages
Not negotiating with North Korea
Being "for the troops" while cutting veterans benefits
The reason we went to war with Iraq (was it WMD's; was it human rights; was it violation of UN sanctions? Depending on what day of the week it is it could be all or none of them)

Add to that the fact that the man ran on a proise of restoring dignity and honor to the White House yet has presided over one of the most divisive, secretive and dirty tactic using administrations in recent memory and I am completely baffled by the amount of slavish devotion that the right heaps on this guy. His administration has been a disaster, he has made the entire world despise our country, his big economic boom is made up of lowpaying service jobs and a monstrous deficit that will be dumped in the laps of a generation that never had the opportunity to voice their opinion on just what a lousy president GW Bush is.

Kerry may not be the best man ever to be nominated for president but he is damn sure better than the guy thats currently occupying the Oval Office.

Whoops, I deleted a line in my post--the negative comments on Indymedia.org were directd at Mr. Tillman, a guy who left a million dollar NFL contract to serve in the Rangers and was recently killed in Afghanistan.

Tim,
I love it when you cherry-pick what you want to respond to. Again, the Democrats and the Kerry campaign:
A.) Have stressed his war record as a way of counterbalancing Bush's status as a "War President"

B.) Are the ones who have presented John Kerry and max Cleland as "war heroes" while maligning Bush's national Guard service.

Kerry in his stump speech when he was rolling through the primaries continually said he had four words Bush understood, "Bring!It! On!"
So he is, and so are fellow Republicans, and that's why he deserves everything he's getting.
Consider it "brung".

Oh, and it's really cool how you ignored my Trudeau points, or does the fact that he donated to Dean give him special dispensation to slander a disabled veteran like Dole?

Every death in Iraq is on George Bush's head.

Wht do you expect expect when you invade another nation?

I expect that the blame for our soldiers' deaths rests with the enemy!

CJA

"PAD,
Your comment about those "obsessed" with Kerry's war record is far off the mark."

Mm hmm. Fine. Ribbons vs. medals, stuff he said thirty years ago, etc., etc.

So *how* much shrapnel does George W. Bush have in his leg again? What wounds of any sort did Bush, who has put his "war president" status front and center of his campaign, acquire serving his country? You didn't mention.

PAD

Just how much shrapnel, exactly, does George W. Bush have in *his* leg?

PAD

About as much as Bill Clinton.

It's amazing how far Democrats have come on the serving in a war issue. When it was George H W Bush and Bob Dole, being a soldier didn't count for anything. Now as in 2000 with Gore it means something.

The Iraq war is a complete non-issue between Bush and Kerry. Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq. You can't change that fact. I Know he wants too. But he can't. Even now he says that America can't leave. He says that he wants more help. That's it. There is no real distinction between the two. All of the people who post about WMDs are missing the point. Kerry is not going to do anything differently. Nothing. He AGREES with president Bush about the importantance of Iraq. Ralph Nader calls for complete withdrawl of the troops.

Kerry had every right to protest the Vietnam, speak out against the government, against Nixion(although LBJ somehow gets off the hook). But now that he's running a national campaign, he has to live with his past. He protested the war but is proud to have served? He hated the war but is mad that Cheney and Bush didn't go? Logic says that he should be indifferent(as he was with Bill Clinton) towards Bush and Cheney and there lack of war service but now he wants to know about Bush's record. Umm...Kerry the same people that gave you medals or ribbons or whatever gave Bush a honorable discharge.

You know it would almost be amusing the fact that the same people who use Dubya's past by constantly caling him a "drunk", a "drug-user" and a "failed businessman" cry foul when words Kerry said "thirty years ago" come back to bite him on the ass.
Those "words he said thirty years ago" hurt a lot of people and slandered a lot of people who suffered far worse fates than having shrapnel in their legs.
Or don't they count and their views considered irrelevant to those who are intent on slamming Bush?

Oh, and no one has commented on how cruel Trudeau's strips were to Bob Dole back in 1996, someone who suffered a severe wound on the battlefield.
Or was that okay, and even funny, because he was a Republican?

But now that he's running a national campaign, he has to live with his past. He protested the war but is proud to have served? He hated the war but is mad that Cheney and Bush didn't go? Logic says that he should be indifferent(as he was with Bill Clinton) towards Bush and Cheney and there lack of war service but now he wants to know about Bush's record. Umm...Kerry the same people that gave you medals or ribbons or whatever gave Bush a honorable discharge.

Yup,he claims that anyone who questions any aspect of his Vietnam service or his anti-Vietnam service either is questioning his patriotism or is part of the "Republican attack machine." The first time Kerry felt the heat, he dropped his promise not to criticize Bush's National Guard service like a bag of dirt.

The problem goes much deeper for Kerry because this mini-scandal illustrates the more fundamental contradiction at the core of Kerry's candidacy.

The argument from Kerry's supporters is that his service in Vietnam proves that he's strong on defense and qualified to be commander-in-chief. The response from his critics is that whatever Kerry did in Vietnam is mute because of his antiwar behavior and his long and detailed voting record in the Senate.

But if signing up for Vietnam proves Kerry's got the right judgment to be commander-in-chief, how come Kerry believes Vietnam was a huge mistake for America?

Think about it. Kerry has mocked Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration for not serving in Vietnam. But Kerry made his political career by saying that Vietnam was a moral and national-security disaster. He claims that going to fight for "a mistake" was his defining moment. Well, if Vietnam was a mistake, how does it demonstrate Kerry's good judgment?

He wants credit for fighting in what he insists was a criminal war. He even confessed that he and his comrades committed "atrocities," though he hasn't run any commercials bragging about calling his comrades war criminals.

Kerry's position is a mess. He wants credit for throwing away the symbols of his service (the ribbons) and for the service he rendered to earn those medals (which he kept, but claimed until recently he didn't). If that sounds like a contradiction, it should. Because that's what Kerry is, a walking contradiction.

Trudeau drew Clinton as a waffle. If Kerry becomes president he is going to have to draw a very, very big waffle.

But, once again, it's Dubya who is proudly proclaiming that he's a "wartime president". If this is really a "war", then one's past wartime record becomes fair game.

Clinton did not fight, nor serve. But Clinton never ran as a war president; his motto, as you may recall, was, "It's the economy, stupid!" Thus, the question of shrapnel does not enter into the question.

Bush's handlers decided that the best way to attack Kerry, when he started to become a front-runner, was to impugn his patriotism, because he dared to protest our involvement in Vietnam. Apparently, freedom of speech doesn't apply if you plan to one day run for office... At any rate, I'd say that Kerry's wounds are at least a match for Bush's hawkish rhetoric, as a qualifier for a "wartime" president.

I also doubt he'd try to ignore entire swaths of the Constitution, as the Bush administration's lawyers want to do (see the arguments in the Padilla case, before the Supreme Court yesterday - the government's official position is that the act of Congress passed in the wake of 9/11 gives the President imperial powers, so long as he can claim there's some tie to terrorism. You know, a lot of peace activists have been publically accused of aiding the terrorists by not falling into line with Bush...).

Sorry Spider, but America is the invading force, Iraq is the defender. America IS the enemy in this case...

Bah, end the whole election mess by pulling Social Socurity Numbers of native-born citizens for all three branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. Your number gets pulled, you go serve the office of President, Vice-President, Senator, Representative, or Supreme Court Justice.

Incarerated felons excluded.

Yeah, Bush is my guy. I think Clinton's "it's the economy, stupid" policy was short sighted because it's more than just the economy. Moving the response to terror from police action to war makes a lot of sense. We may like to pretend that it isn't the focus of the world stage, but it is. Allowing these guys to get stronger and stronger was a mistake that we paid for with the towers (no, I don't think 9/11 was Clinton's fault, it was the fault of the terrorists). I also think the economy is improving and that the tax cuts are working very well.

That said, I'm not in full agreement with everything. The sited policy above of depriving due process to "citizen terrorists" makes me queazy, as do a few other things.

I have no idea who to run for president in 08, though.

Heh-heh. Ballet... there's an image. Kerry has to be confirmed at the Convention, doesn't he? I'm not so sure he will be. Silly and naive, but that's me. :)

Jerome,

I didn't address your claims about how the Democrats are being hypocritical because I didn't have time at that moment. Now that I do have time ... frankly, Jonathan's response just above is a pretty fair approximation of mine. A point-by-point comparison of Clinton's lack of combat experience vs. Bush's is a weak and inane argument, because Clinton never for a moment claimed he was running as a "war president". He was not given to warlike, good-vs-evil rhetoric which basically set himself up as having a direct line to God.

Bush does. As such, whether he's put his money where his mouth is is relevant. I realize you're not likely to agree, but I'm afraid that's on the list of Things That Aren't My Problem.

As for Trudeau's alleged "cruelty" to Dole, I would like to see the strips in question before I comment. (If anyone can point me to them, either an online source or a print source, I'd appreciate it.) Particularly in light of how much some of your recent claims have been utterly debunked in other threads, I trust I'll be forgiven if I don't consider your assessment of the strips gospel truth.

But I am sorry for not falling into line with your script.

(I do, however, consider it something approaching the height of hypocrisy for you to condemn ANYONE "cherry-picking" responses. How many lengthy posts with detailed rebuttals of your claims or responses to your questions have you responded to with a one-sentence "hmm, food for thought, more later" and nothing else?)

TWL

Jerome,

I didn't address your claims about how the Democrats are being hypocritical because I didn't have time at that moment. Now that I do have time ... frankly, Jonathan's response just above is a pretty fair approximation of mine. A point-by-point comparison of Clinton's lack of combat experience vs. Bush's is a weak and inane argument, because Clinton never for a moment claimed he was running as a "war president". He was not given to warlike, good-vs-evil rhetoric which basically set himself up as having a direct line to God.

Bush does. As such, whether he's put his money where his mouth is is relevant. I realize you're not likely to agree, but I'm afraid that's on the list of Things That Aren't My Problem.

As for Trudeau's alleged "cruelty" to Dole, I would like to see the strips in question before I comment. (If anyone can point me to them, either an online source or a print source, I'd appreciate it.) Particularly in light of how much some of your recent claims have been utterly debunked in other threads, I trust I'll be forgiven if I don't consider your assessment of the strips gospel truth.

But I am sorry for not falling into line with your script.

(I do, however, consider it something approaching the height of hypocrisy for you to condemn ANYONE "cherry-picking" responses. How many lengthy posts with detailed rebuttals of your claims or responses to your questions have you responded to with a one-sentence "hmm, food for thought, more later" and nothing else?)

TWL

Oops -- got an error message the first time around. Sorry for the double-post!

TWL

Umm...President Bush is a wartime president because we are at war. Clinton didn't say he was but he entered us into the Kosovo war to stop ethnic cleansing. See no us troops died but a lot more civilians did because no ground troops were involved. The UN didnt approve of THAT either but it didn't stop President Clinton. Using the Kerry rhetoric and some posters here, Clinton did set himself up as Godlike. He wanted to stop ethnic cleasning because it was evil. He also this year said he was sorry that he didn't use troops to stop the slaughter in Rowanda, Africa. Where was the good ole UN on that?

It's easy to take pot shots at a President. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and make your comments. Democrat Harry S Truman had a choice. Either send troops into Japan,prolong World War Two, have hundreds of thousands of ally troops die. Or bomb Japan with the air force and atomic bombs. His decision killed over 500,000 innocent Japanese. It ended world war two. He never regreted his decision.

You would think such an act would of made Japan an eternal enemy. But wait. It didnt. Now Japan is one of our biggest allies.

Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo. Hussein, Bin Laden, Arafat. It's all the same. George Bush said this is a war on terroism and terror sponsoring nations. This is war that began on September 11,2001. and no matter who's president or how much some people want to bury their heads in the sand we are in it no matter what. The enemy isnt going to stop. We shouldnt either.

Well AJ, the "enemy" flew planes into two buildings full of civilians, so based on your last line, we should too...

AJ:

>Umm...President Bush is a wartime president because we are at war.

Umm... President Bush is a wartime president because he started the war.

AJ,

Declaring a "war on terror" is equivalent to declaring a war on pride, or a war on lust. It's eternal and unwinnable. Terror, and terrorism, is not something that's ever going to completely go away unless human nature fundamentally changes (in ways I doubt anyone would completely agree with).

You want to say "we're at war." Fine -- but specify parameters. With whom -- exactly? Under what conditions do we get to say "the war's over and we're back to normal" -- exactly?

Your contention seems to be that the "war" won't end until the country is perfectly safe -- but there's no way to make that happen, ever. Even taking over the world and imposing a Pax Americana would only work for a very, very short time -- in the end, we'd fall as surely as Rome.

"We're at war" only works as a justification if said conflict can eventually end. Using it as a claim that we can do anything we want, to whomever we want, for however long as we want, because "everything changed and now we're at war" is asking the American public (not to mention other nations) to hand over all their rights to the US government and trust that they'll keep us safe.

Thanks, but no.

As for "Clinton set himself up as Godlike, too" -- um, no. Taking unilateral action alone does not do that.

What Bush does is cast everything in stark, simplistic, good-vs.-evil terms. I can't offhand think of any issue he's ever admitted has more than two sides: it's always right and wrong, period. Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. Either you support the Patriot Act or you're allied with Osama. Either you support the Iraq war or you think Saddam's a lovely gentleman you'd like to have over for tea. Either you agree that "enemy combatants" can be locked away forever without justification, or you want terrorists to be able to join White House tours.

That is the source of the "setting himself up as having a direct line to God" problem. Bush has made it very, very plain that he considers himself on a mission from God (and not in the cool Blues-Brothers way), and that America has "a higher calling" to spread our way of life across the planet. Look it up in speeches and press conferences -- he alludes to it all the time.

It's arrogance bordering on fanaticism, and it's not what I want in a leader regardless of party affiliation. The fact that he's using it to push through policy after policy I find abhorrent and destructive adds to the problem, but the absolute lack of discussion and certainty that his way is always the 100% perfectly right way to do things is what I find truly terrifying.

TWL

As for Trudeau's alleged "cruelty" to Dole, I would like to see the strips in question before I comment. (If anyone can point me to them, either an online source or a print source, I'd appreciate it.)

Tim, I tried to find them but couldn't. I only remember one, mostly because it outraged John McCain so much he denounced it ont he floor of the senate--something about using "Bob Dole's War Wound" as a character. Ish, I don't remember the specifics but I remember cringing at the strip the first time I read it. Well, nobody's funny 100% of the time.

Well AJ, the "enemy" flew planes into two buildings full of civilians, so based on your last line, we should too...Bladestar

HUH?

Umm... President Bush is a wartime president because he started the war. -Fred Chamberlin

UNLESS YOU HAVENT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDNT FOLLOW UN RESOLUTIONS, THE GULF WAR OF 91 DIDNT END. ALSO THE UN APPROVED OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ. IN 1998, THE SAME REASONS CLINTON GAVE TO BOMB IRAQ, BUSH USED TO INVADE. WMDS, NOT ALLOWING WEAPON INSPECTORS FULL ACCESS TO HIS COUNTRY. LOOK IT UP DONT BELIEVE ME.

Declaring a "war on terror" is equivalent to declaring a war on pride, or a war on lust. It's eternal and unwinnable. Terror, and terrorism, is not something that's ever going to completely go away unless human nature fundamentally changes (in ways I doubt anyone would completely agree with).-Tim Lynch

How about ending the war on poverty too? Its unwinable and human nature is involved there too.

The war on terror is not going to end. Ever. Bush said it would last beyond his administration. He also said that each situation demanded a different solution. Its not going to end if John Kerry is elected either. I never said that the war will end if the country is considered perfectly safe. I say this is a new way of life. That terrorist have taken to another level and the world must respond. Or do you forget 9-11?

You say Bush scares you. Does giving 20 billion to help combat AIDS in Africa scare you? Freeing 60 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan scare you? I guess we have to look at the shades of gray with Kim Jong Ill who uses his countries money to build nuclear weapons as most and do mean most of North Korea starves. A Korean friend of mine calls North Korea "Evil Korea."
Life is tough. Im sorry but thats the way it is. Ignoring terrorists wont make them go away. As I said before, THEY'RE not going to stop. You cant have it both ways. You keep Hussein in power, he would of continued to gain power, fund terrorist
(including AL Queda) and become a bigger threat to all the world.

You claim Bush is the problem. OK. What is the solution? How do you deal with AL-QUEDA? Kim JONG ILL? Castro? Saddam Hussein?

Kerry would not do ANYTHING differently with these issues.

What are your answers to the problems AJ since you know so much and asked?

Secondly, the "War on Poverty, Drugs, etc" are NOT Wars. Who do we invade and/or bomb to end Poverty? More people want drugs than want them illegal, these are not actual wars.

In a war you have an enemy, and you have end conditions when the war is over. As long as human beings have free will, there will ALWAYS be terrorists and things to declare "War" on.

Why waste $20 billion American taxpayer dollars on African AIDS? It's a waste of our money. Dis Iraq and Afghanistan invite us to invade and "free" them? As as far as N. Korea building nukes while their people starve, take a look at the nuubmer of jobless and homeless in America first bucko. Saudi Arabia funds terrorists too, but we aren't "liberating" them...

Hussein was contained and no threat to the United States. And don't forget who helped build and train Afghanistan and the Taliban back when Russia wanted to take it... America created the mess in Afghanistan...

Kerry would do alot differently, he's a totally different person than Bush, he may implement many of the same reforms ultimately, execute the same maneuvers, but hos would have a lot more reason and intelligence than "God wants me as president and Jesus said to invade" and all the other god-crap Bush spews...

I only pop in to say that I'd gladly join the debate, but Tim Lynch is doing a good job at making the arguments that I'd make, so I'll let him keep at it. :-)

Fred,
Umm...Bush is a wartime president because 19 Muslim extremists flew planes into the Twin Towers - killing aproximately 3,000 people - and the Pentagon and tried to hit the Capitol/ White House.
Or wasn't that a big deal?
Typical. America is attacked, but we're not supposed to respond because if we do, they'll respond.
Strong logic there.

Bladestar.
Just a couple things;
1.) Afghanistan and Iraq didn't "ask" us to free them from oppression because...they were oppressed! funny how that works.
Also, I can see having misgivings about the policy in Iraq. I don't agree, but I can at least see it. But Afghanistan? There is an undisputed link between the taliban in Afghanistan and 9/11. What would you have is do? Nothing?
The "we supported the Taliban 20 years ago" argument is especially weak. People change alliances all the time (look at how many divorces there are). Heck, the Soviet Union changed sides in the middle of World War II, and just because we worked together to stop the common threat that was Hitler, didn't mean they were our alies afterward. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact. To assume that an ally is always going to be an ally, or that an enemy is always going to be an enemy is faulty thinking. Relationships between people and countries change over time.

2.) If you think the starvation and horror under a dictatorial regime is anywhere comparable to our homeless problem (most of whom can still get a meal at soup kitchens and shelter at shelters) and poverty situation (wjere many on welfare still get cable TV), I don't know what to tell you

3.) I find it amazing that someone who spends his time taking care of dogs and cats finds helping poor Africans with AIDS a "waste" of money. Shouldn't we use some of our wealth to help others? Or do you realize you sound just like Jerry Falwell?

The "Iraq War of '91" didn't end, because it didn't start. War was not declared in 1991. The President is authorized by the War Powers Act to deploy troops for up to 90 days without consulting Congress. Bush I overshot by about ten days, so nobody made any big deal about it. This conflict is completely separate, although I don't remember a formal declaration of war this time, either...

And Jerome, by the reasoning above, why aren't we at war with Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens, after all. Al-Qaeda's master is a Saudi citizen, and a (shunned) member of a prominent Saudi family. As best I can determine, none of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi, nor did the Iraqi government provide any direct support of al-Qaeda, nor did Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti ever even meet with Osama bin Laden (and had they met, bin Laden would probably have spent most of his time excoriating Saddam for being an apostate and a heretic, and the rest of it awaiting execution). Where is the reasoning behind our attack on Iraq? (No, the UN resolutions don't count - no US resolution authorized the use of force, and after the fact the Bush administration said that the UN was irrelevant. Kind of invalidates any attempt to use them as a shield at this point...)

Tim,
Frankly, I think giving Clinton a pass on his service because "he didn't say he was a war president" is beyond inane and weak. What if 9/11 had happened under his watch. What then? Would he have gotten a pass if he didn't know what the hell to do because, well, that's not what we elected him for?
See, that's one of the major disconnects with most liberals, seeing national defense as just one of many issues along with National health Care and Social Security, when it must always be THE issue.
I realize we disagree, but at least you make your points intelligently and with respect for others. If I don't seem to be answring all points raised, I apologize. I recently have been shouldering a vastly increased workload. add that to the fact that I always wish my posts to be informed and thought out and a little more substantive than "Clinto screwed everything up" and similar nonsense AND the fact that I always like to respond to Craig, Jonathan and others, and that most of all the posts here sem to bring up at least two new points for every one raised, well I'm sorry for not responding to everything. i a trying to.

I only pop in to say that I'd gladly join the debate, but Tim Lynch is doing a good job at making the arguments that I'd make, so I'll let him keep at it. :-)

Oh, no, Michael. Please, don't let me stop you ... I could use the backup, or at least a break! :-)

TWL

Jonathan,
i wouldn't dream of using the UN as a shield. Everyone who posts here should realize how worthless I feel that institution is.
As far as I can tell regarding Saudi Arabia, while you bring up irrefutable points, I simply feel we felt Iraq was the important first step. Since, as you said, Saddam was viewed by many in the Arab world as being an apostate and a heretic, then there would be less of an outcry in the Muslim world over getting rid of him as opposed to the Saudis. I do feel we will eventually dea with the Saudis diplomatically or by other means.
But the fact remans that Saddam was a threat. We can argue about degree. I happen to think he was a serious one. Further, if the democratization of Iraq is successful, it will be a shining beacon to the rest of the Muslim world. their example could eventually lead other countries to change their ways.
Is that a guarantee? No. But it's always liberals who are excorciating liberals for seeing everything in black-and-white terms. Well, here's where we have "the vision thing" in spades.

Bladestar wrote: "Hussein was contained and no threat to the United States. And don't forget who helped build and train Afghanistan and the Taliban back when Russia wanted to take it... America created the mess in Afghanistan...”

Hussein was contained and no threat to the United States??!! Every Republican and Democratic candidate since 1992, and most members of Congress, have gone on the record saying just the opposite. So have quite a few world leaders. Why? Because almost every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD, and passed this information on to their leadership. Apparently even Saddam thought he had an ongoing WMD program -- not knowing that some of his key people were leading him on because of corruption, fear, or both. And to be honest, it may turn out that Saddam did, in fact, have WMD and buried it someplace. That's still an open issue, in my opinion.

Face it, almost everyone in the U.S. may have been wrong about Iraq's WMD, and finger-pointing across party lines does nothing to ensure such intelligence failures won’t be repeated. Even the people who think they are right about WMD were only guessing anyway, so they shouldn’t crow too loudly.

As far as Afghanistan goes -- Afghanistan has been in turmoil for thousands of years. The warlord mentality has always been there. We didn’t “create” a mess. All we did, at a certain point in their long history, was train and arm people we thought shared a common enemy at the time -- the USSR. All countries form such economic or military alliances, if they think it’s in their country’s best interests. We armed and trained a number of different groups in Afghanistan, as I recall, and in the case of the Taliban, we just got it wrong.

I’d avoid 20-20 hindsight when it comes to Afghanistan, anyway. The Soviet’s dismal nine-year failure in that country, which we helped bring about, could very well have been the final straw that ultimately broke that back of the Soviet empire. As a result, there may be many more free countries in Eastern Europe because of our 1980s Afghanistan policy.

Russ Maheras

Jerome:

>Fred,
Umm...Bush is a wartime president because 19 Muslim extremists flew planes into the Twin Towers - killing aproximately 3,000 people - and the Pentagon and tried to hit the Capitol/ White House.
Or wasn't that a big deal?
Typical. America is attacked, but we're not supposed to respond because if we do, they'll respond.
Strong logic there.

Um... Jerome. You are almost comical. Justifying going to war with Iraq because a small group of Muslim extremists bombed us is like justifying going to war with Ireland because Tim McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building. Strong logic there.

If you insist on trying to provoke people, at least put some thought and creativity into the way you do it, rather than utilizing the same paper tigar arguments over and over, and out of context.

Jerome Maida:
"Typical. America is attacked, but we're not supposed to respond because if we do, they'll respond."
Ironically enough, that was the reason Condoleezza Rice gave for explaining why George W. Bush didn't take any action once we knew al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole -- because they were afraid that a retaliatory response would "embolden" the terrorists and make them attack us again.

Didn't hear any complaints from you then.

Me:
Declaring a "war on terror" is equivalent to declaring a war on pride, or a war on lust. It's eternal and unwinnable. Terror, and terrorism, is not something that's ever going to completely go away unless human nature fundamentally changes (in ways I doubt anyone would completely agree with).

AJ:
How about ending the war on poverty too? Its unwinable and human nature is involved there too.

Huge difference. The "war on poverty" is a metaphor, and everyone understands that. The "war on terror" actually involves guns and bodies and shit blowin' up real good.

The "war on poverty" also didn't restrict civil liberties.

Can you point to definite harm that the "war on poverty" did to individual citizens or the US's ability to form alliances?

The war on terror is not going to end. Ever.

Then you're arguing for a permanent restriction of civil liberties. A permanent policy by the US that we'll go in and blow up whatever we want if we can claim a threat real or imagined. A permanent ability to imprison anyone we like for as long as we like, answerable to no one.

Is that your case? Is America as we've previously been given to understand it for 225 years out the window because of one attack?

If so, then it's certainly a consistent position, but IMO it's a very sad reflection on the state of the world. Bloodshed, death, and permanent war is not a way of life I plan on adopting, and a country which commits itself to that is not one I plan on having any part of.

Its not going to end if John Kerry is elected either.

What won't? The War on Terra?

Of course it won't -- and I suspect the phrase is stuck with us for a very long time.

But there are right ways and wrong ways to combat terrorism. Setting ourselves up as the biggest badass on the block isn't the right one.

I never said that the war will end if the country is considered perfectly safe. I say this is a new way of life. That terrorist have taken to another level and the world must respond. Or do you forget 9-11?

I have family and friends who worked in Lower Manhattan in 2001 -- all of whom, thankfully, got out that day.
My father saw the towers fall live and in person from his apartment across the Hudson.
My brother's fiancee walked several miles in bare feet that day to get out of Manhattan.

I do not forget 9/11. I will never forget it. Neither, however, will I debase it by using it as a political tool to turn this country into something it should never be -- and frankly, I think using "do you forget 9/11?" as a bludgeon in political conversations is a disgusting and shameful tactic.

You say Bush scares you. Does giving 20 billion to help combat AIDS in Africa scare you?

First -- the SOTU pledge was 15 billion, not 20.
Second -- how much of that money has actually been committed at this point? And how much of that spending is being offset by our taking away money from family-planning programs and birth-control distribution? Look at what both hands are doing, not just one.

Words are easy. Deeds are more difficult.

The rest of your post is basically a rant. That's your right, of course, but it's not something that really needs a response.

TWL

Frankly, I think giving Clinton a pass on his service because "he didn't say he was a war president" is beyond inane and weak. What if 9/11 had happened under his watch. What then? Would he have gotten a pass if he didn't know what the hell to do because, well, that's not what we elected him for?

Uh ... no. But thanks for the straw man -- I had a scarecrow that needed some spare stuffing.

His response TO an attack would obviously be extremely relevant. So is Bush's.

That's not the point. Bush isn't a reluctant war president. He's eager. The only time he doesn't stumble over his words is when he talks about violence and retribution. He uses the word "war" in his speeches with relish and with prominence.

Bush is clearly happy and eager to be a war president.

As such -- if he has this messianic fervor that makes him so eager to send other people's children to fight and die for his ends -- then his war record, or lack thereof, is absolutely relevant.

If Clinton behaved in the same way, so would his be.

Thus endeth the lesson.

TWL

"Ironically enough, that was the reason Condoleezza Rice gave for explaining why George W. Bush didn't take any action once we knew al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole -- because they were afraid that a retaliatory response would "embolden" the terrorists and make them attack us again."

If true that's a definite mark against her. Is there a source for this?

Only....wasn't the Cole attacked during the Clinto presidence? Hell, why not blame Bush for not going after the Black Hawk Down warlords while we're at it.

"I think using "do you forget 9/11?" as a bludgeon in political conversations is a disgusting and shameful tactic."

Of course one man's "blugeon" is another man's "valid point". Like Kerry claiming he hasn't run any "negative" ads against Bush. Sure, when the good guys do it it isn't negative--it's "truthtelling". Not much grounds productive discussion here.

"As such -- if he has this messianic fervor that makes him so eager to send other people's children to fight and die for his ends -- then his war record, or lack thereof, is absolutely relevant."

If. One would have to prove this to make the statement worth saying--an impossibility. Thus, any further discussion on this will degenerate into "Yes he is!" "No he's not!" and the "winner" will be the one who has the wittiest retort--which has at least a coin flip's chance of also being the truth.

To a degree that's always the case with political discourse but this presidential election seems particularly rife with crazy psychobabble and extremist dialogue. I thought most of the Clinton haters were nuts but evidently the folks on the left learned nothing form their sorry example. If Bush wins at least some of the credit will have to go to the left wingnuts scaring the independents and moderates. Anger is bracng but it tends to be unnatractive.

From what I understand, the numbers guys like Karl Rove are most nervous about are the ones for overall approval rating.

Christ, just vote for John Kerry, no matter what state you're in. Get this mongoloid mama's boy out of our White House, so we can simmer tensions with other countries and keep from getting attacked again. I'd rather not raise children in the kind of America Bush has helped create.

Without liberals, there would be no women's suffrage, no civil rights movement, no anti-war movement, no environmental protections, no regulation of big business, no protection of small businesses, no great science fiction novels, and no funny stand-up comics.

Without conservatives, there would have been no slavery, no "white only" restrooms, no religious supremacists, no book burnings, no McCarthyism, and on and on.

Conservatives know this, but won't admit it.

Of course, if you really want a reason to vote for a Democrat, take a look at your paycheck now, versus your paycheck ten years ago. If there's no difference, you're an exception. (If you're actually making MORE money, good for you. It still doesn't negate the trouble this country's in.)

Vote Kerry, vote Kerry, vote Kerry.

And please, not Nader. I made that mistake once already.

Fred,
You know, I have exchanged posts with many on this blog who disagree with me. Tim, Craig, Karen, Den, Jonathan and many others. You are the only one who takes an opportunity to bash me personally (and be condescending)on every post.
At least everyone else, however hot the exchange may get, will at least intelligently argue their positions. I have learned a lot debating them, and absolutely nothing from you, excepy how petty you are.
In closing, I simply refuse to respond to you at this point. If you were half as intellectual as you try to portray yourself on this blog, you would be a professor at some college or at least a teacher. Oh, wait...
And if you were half as funny as you believe yourself to be, you be a hit on the stand-up circuit. Oh, wait...

Without liberals, there would be no women's suffrage, no civil rights movement, no anti-war movement, no environmental protections, no regulation of big business, no protection of small businesses, no great science fiction novels, and no funny stand-up comics.

Without conservatives, there would have been no slavery, no "white only" restrooms, no religious supremacists, no book burnings, no McCarthyism, and on and on.

Conservatives know this, but won't admit it.

Neither liberalism or conservatism has anything to do with any of these issues. Particularly the slavery issue which occurred when neither conservatives or liberals even existed in this country. Before even the country existed. Talk about straw men.

Tim,
I am sorry you and people you know had 9/11 hit so close to home. Sometimes, with all the issues we discuss and get hot about, we forget this is very serious business. Life and death.
And to cast aside everything else for a minute, I simply do not understand why one of the things you find so unsettling about Bush is his apparent "relish" with which he is taking being a "War President". He just looks determined to me, and putting on a strong front is for not only our country's benefit, but the terrorists' as well. Where you would see more strength in his not being so determined, they would see as weakness. There are reports that they see our hesitancy with invading Fallujah as weakness.
As McCain said yesterday, if we really didn't concern ourselves with the loss of innocents, we would just fire artllery on the city and level the place.
That is the difference between us and the terrorists and I feel it's a good one
I'm sorry, but what else would you have Bush do?
Go on Dr. Phil and appear torn? I am being facetious with that statement, but not by much.
Frankly, I am scared to death the next attck will make 9/11 look like something minor. Check and see about the plot to kill 80,000 people in Jordan. What i heaven's name do you think the reaction would be if something of that magnitude was successfully carried out here.
Do I have questions about Bush's policies? Yes. Am I following him blindly? No. I just think ambiguity would not help and would actually hurt, since the culture of the terrorists allows them to see such indecision as weakness.
Do I hope that most of what has made this country great ca be kept intact and not compromised by the War on Terror? Absolutely. I'm glad you and others feel that way, because believe it or not, I do as well.
At the same time, there is something to be said about being proactive, about not waiting to get sucker-punched again to respond.
There IS a balance that has to be maintained. There are no simple answers. I simply feel Bush is doing the best he can, dealing with a serious threat and a complicated world.

Jerome: "Charity begins at home."

Take care of America with American tax dollars. America has plenty of problems that need funding. Africa is NOT part of America, America is NOT the world's baby-sitter.

And just because Bush is doing "the best he can" doesn't mean it's good enough. Giving a monkey a tool box and telling him to build a Space-Based Missle Defense System and he'll do the best he can too....

"He just looks determined to me, and putting on a strong front is for not only our country's benefit, but the terrorists' as well. Where you would see more strength in his not being so determined, they would see as weakness. There are reports that they see our hesitancy with invading Fallujah as weakness."

I don't know that that's necessarily the case. I think (like most people) they are only looking at Bush only in terms of how they want to look at him. If we slow down with Fallujah, it's a sign of weakness and they need to press the attack. If we charge in with guns blazing, then we're showing how we really just hate them all and they need to press the attack. We can't really wage this war just on what we think they're going to be thinking, because they'll be thinking the same (USA Not A-Okay) no matter what we do.

Bladestar,
It is a big world. We cannot islte ourselves from it. And I fail to see how letting millions of poor people die of arguably the most horrible disease known to man when we can at least do something to prevent it and/or ease their pain can be considered anything but immoral.
We spend far more on our own people, which is as it should be.
But that doesn't and shouldn't exclude us from helping others.
Again, the vastness of the problem is something I don't think any of us can appreciate unless we actually saw the suffering firsthand.
This is actually another way we can take the lead, and to be honest, it actually makes me feel better than killing our enemies, to tell you the truth.

Jerome:

>>Fred,
You know, I have exchanged posts with many on this blog who disagree with me. Tim, Craig, Karen, Den, Jonathan and many others. You are the only one who takes an opportunity to bash me personally (and be condescending)on every post.

I have not bashed you personally or even sought you out. I respond to others, you pick a point of mine and begin a rant that doesn't even properly address my point, I reply, certainly in a way that attacks your poor retorts, you respond with a personal attack, dodging my response... as follows...

>>At least everyone else, however hot the exchange may get, will at least intelligently argue their positions. I have learned a lot debating them, and absolutely nothing from you, excepy how petty you are.

Obviously you have missed the handful of people who question your points and the way in which you deliver them, while deciding to focus on some twisted "hurt" from my disagreement with you. I made points. You refuse to see them or even respond. I've pointed this out before with no response until you snipe me from out of nowhere again. Who is the petty one?

>>In closing, I simply refuse to respond to you at this point.

That works for me. I was fine ignoring your posts until you directly responded to mine.

>>If you were half as intellectual as you try to portray yourself on this blog, you would be a professor at some college or at least a teacher. Oh, wait...

I don't attempt to portray myself as anything other than who I am. Your interpretation is not in my control. Grow up. Maybe come to the university that I work at and either take a class I teach, go to a workshop that I facilitate or simply comee to my office in the Counseling Center to get at the real issues here.

>>And if you were half as funny as you believe yourself to be, you be a hit on the stand-up circuit. Oh, wait...

Self-amusement has nothing to do with stand-up. BTW, didn't try stand-up, I was acting and improv in NYC. Better to have tried than to simply live in the folks' house crying about what might have been, huh? I have refrained from going into your past or lack thereof and will refrain from doing so again. As I said on an earlier occassion, go find someone else to try and poke with your stick. It isn't long enough or powerful enough to have an effect on my life.

Sorry Jerome, but you miss the point again.

Until ALL the problems here in the USA are solved, we shouldn't be sending a dime over there.

Yeah, millions in Africa dying of AIDS is bad, but the USA didn't give them AIDS. Where are their own governments and countrymen?

America CANNOT be expected to take care of every other nation's/continent's problems. AIDS in Africa in NOT the USA's problem, we didn't cause it, and we have enough problems here. Cancer is a lot worse than AIDS quite frankly.

Until ALL the problems here in the USA are solved, we shouldn't be sending a dime over there.

Yuck.

I think this is incredibly short-sighted and naive.

For one thing, the money and the expertise is in the US. For another, Africa is not isolated; failure to handle the problem there only means continued, incoming infection sources for us.

AIDS >IS

Forrest wrote: “Without liberals, there would be no women's suffrage, no civil rights movement, no anti-war movement, no environmental protections, no regulation of big business, no protection of small businesses, no great science fiction novels, and no funny stand-up comics.

Without conservatives, there would have been no slavery, no "white only" restrooms, no religious supremacists, no book burnings, no McCarthyism, and on and on.

Conservatives know this, but won't admit it.”

I hope you really don’t believe this.

Personally, I think only a relatively small number of people are hard-core conservatives or hard-core liberals, and everyone else kind of bounces back and forth, depending on what the issue is, their age, their life experiences, their education level, and their social environment.

There are plenty of liberal-minded countries that have pollution problems; religious, cultural and racial discrimination; big and small business issues; crappy (or no) science fiction; and no-name stand-up comedians.

Slavery was once practiced across the globe, regardless of anyone’s conservative or liberal leanings. Two thousand years ago, Native Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians all practiced slavery of some type. I’m sure both conservative and liberal plantation owners in America had slaves, as did conservative and liberal Romans 2000 years ago.

And for ever fanatical religious supremacist, there is a fanatic liberal who also hates, ignores laws, destroys property and believes that murdering or injuring other people is OK if it suits their political agenda. On a similar note, for every conservative who advocates burning “unsuitable” books, there is a liberal editor who will not print any “unsuitable” ideas that criticize, contradict or question their own beliefs. One is overt censorship; the other is covert -- but the results are still the same.

Russ Maheras

I haven't heard a good isolationist rant in a long time. I could go longer.

The War on Terror is more than just rhetoric. It is a planned and coordinated assault on those who would destroy us. What we are seeing is not the creation of more terrorists, but the flushing out of terrorists where they can be targeted and taken out.

There seems to be an idea out there that terrorists can be negotiated with. They can't be. We can ignore them until their strong enough to hurt us; we can talk to them until they laugh themselves silly; or we can remove them like the cancer they are.

I am open to a better solution, but I haven't heard it yet.

We aren't privy to the intel the administration is. Like roaches, for each terrorist you see, thousands more exist. I firmly believe we, as civilians, don't have the scope or understanding of this threat.

Plain and simple, this is civilization vs savages. There's a reason you don't see neandertals running around anymore. The world moved on without them, but I doubt they went quietly.

He just looks determined to me, and putting on a strong front is for not only our country's benefit, but the terrorists' as well.

But the problem remains that we're NOT going after the terrorists.

We're in Iraq, which didn't HAVE terrorists until we got there.

Why aren't we in Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia taking out their terrorists problems (and their gov'ts while we're at it)?

Bush has this determination to do what he wants, not what is best. And what is best is to concentrate on getting bin Laden, since that's what this whole damn "war on terror" was about in the first place.

We also had an obligation to help rebuild Afghanistan, something we haven't done either before going off to blow other shit up.

I'm wondering how long into a potential 2nd administration it would be before Bush gives up on Iraq to find some other toy to play with.

It is a planned and coordinated assault on those who would destroy us.

*chuckle*

What we are seeing is not the creation of more terrorists,

*more chuckling*

"Without liberals, there would be no women's suffrage, no civil rights movement, no anti-war movement, no environmental protections, no regulation of big business, no protection of small businesses, no great science fiction novels, and no funny stand-up comics."

You mean flaming left-wing radicals like Robert Heinlein, "Doc" Smith, and Lester del Rey? Or such dour stick-in-the-mud types as P. J. O'Rourke, Bob Newhart, and Stan Freiberg?

Look, I don't carry any candle for the right-wingers, and their horrid abuse of the word "conservative", but neither do I care for the tarring of any group with an overly-wide brush. "Always" and "never" are seldom accurate words to use.

Bill,

If true that's a definite mark against her. Is there a source for this?

I remember seeing something about it in her testimony before the 9/11 commission earlier this month. I don't have time to dig up the specific quote right now, but I'm pretty sure there was something there.

Only....wasn't the Cole attacked during the Clinto presidence? Hell, why not blame Bush for not going after the Black Hawk Down warlords while we're at it.

Not this time. The Cole incident was close enough to the election that accurate intelligence about responsibility didn't come in until right around the inauguration. (The 25th is sticking in my head as a date Rice used, though I'm not positive.)

Even if I'm off by a week or two -- it's not like people would've been pushing Clinton to do something on January 17th. The outcry would've been huge on all sides.

"As such -- if he has this messianic fervor that makes him so eager to send other people's children to fight and die for his ends -- then his war record, or lack thereof, is absolutely relevant."

If. One would have to prove this to make the statement worth saying--an impossibility.

I agree that it's impossible to prove, but not that it's impossible to provide any sort of supporting evidence. I'll provide that in my answer to Jerome's post further down. (That may not come for a day or two, though -- too many other things going on at the moment.)

this presidential election seems particularly rife with crazy psychobabble and extremist dialogue. I thought most of the Clinton haters were nuts but evidently the folks on the left learned nothing form their sorry example. If Bush wins at least some of the credit will have to go to the left wingnuts scaring the independents and moderates. Anger is bracng but it tends to be unnatractive.

I hear what you're saying, Bill, and I appreciate the fact that you think I'm hurting my own cause at times by going over the top ... but there is a passion about this particular election, on both sides, that I think is going to lead to such rhetoric over and over again.

I know that personally, I've never been as fervent about any particular election as I am about this one. Some of that probably has to do with the fact that I'm about to become a parent; some of that certainly has to do with my own personal priorities. My "pet issues", if you will, are on right-to-privacy concerns, civil liberties, the environment, and international alliances. The Bush administration not only disagrees with me on all four of the above, but seems to be jumping up and down on those hot buttons with great abandon. As such -- I have never in the past felt that the need to change leaders is as great as the need is now. If that passion can get out of control, I'm sorry -- you seem a reasonable enough guy -- but that's where we are.

I will try to confine myself to rational discourse in the future.

TWL

Tim,

If you'd mentioned before your impending fatherhood I must have missed it. Congratulations! When's the babe due? Boy, girl or still a mystery?

I appreciate your opinions even if I disagree with many of them. I just worry that if some of my liberal friends don't calm the heck down and Bush should win the election, they might spontaneously combust and/or move to Canada.

Hey Tim, congrats! Hope that everything continues to go well for you, your wife and your upcoming addition. :D

Tim,
Let me join Bill in saying congratulations and best of luck on your impending fatherhood!
Even though we disagree a lot, you seem to be intelligent and passionate.
As such, I think you would be a great dad!
Best of luck again.

I've mentioned it a few times (and frankly thought it was kinda obvious in the "turbulence" thread a few weeks back when I asked PAD about his opinion on cross-country air travel with a woman in her third trimester), but it's nice to get noticed, however late. :-) Thanks to all.

Girl, due in late August. My gut tells me the kid's going to be perverse and hold out until the first day of school, just to make the start of the year that much more interesting...

(And there was never any question that we'd find out the gender. As Lisa put it when I first asked her, "Are you kidding? That's DATA!")

TWL

You're going to name the kid Data? Tim, I think all those TNG reviews warped you just a tad. :-)

America CANNOT be expected to take care of every other nation's/continent's problems. AIDS in Africa in NOT the USA's problem, we didn't cause it, and we have enough problems here. Cancer is a lot worse than AIDS quite frankly.--Bladestar

We're in Iraq, which didn't HAVE terrorists until we got there.---Craig Riles

WOW. Good luck with the rest of your lives you two. You ever hear of the Peace Corps? It was founded by Democrat JFK. Its one of his legacies. It was founded to help people around the world "who are not America's problem." I'm sorry that 20 billion isn't enough. Maybe France, Russia and Germany should kick in a few billion. Oh I'm sorry they're too busy stealing Oil For Food Money from dying Iraqis. And AMERICA is the laughing stock of the world? You've got to be kidding PAD.

THE END
AJ

Dont forget to vote. I'll support whoever wins. As I said before, it ain't being President. Republican or Democrat.

Tom,

Don't blame me -- Lisa's the one who said it.

(Though her lab has been full of suggested names -- "Data Point" being one of the less nutty choices. We're having them all killed next Tuesday...)

Oh, and AJ? Your $20-billion figure is still incorrect. I don't know if you read my response (as you seem to have no intention of replying to it), but you might want to.

TWL

WOW. Good luck with the rest of your lives you two.

Good luck on your spelling skills. I atleast make an effort to not misspell the names of others when I quote them.

As for what I said, I'll just repeat it: the terrorists weren't there till we got rid of Saddam.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what the purpose of your little rant was.

Tim, what are you going to do when the little one (my name suggestion: Mothra)turns into a rebellious teenager and hangs up posters of Ronald Reagan, spends endless hours playing George Will Books On Tape CDs, and begins to sullenly quote Ayn Rand at the dinner table?

Maybe you and I can arrange a periodic trade, since doubtlessly MY kids will be wearing Che Guerera T-shirts, playing Barbara Streisand show tunes and getting arrested for squirting superglue into the locks of the nearest Starbucks.

We've already thought about that: we'll ship her off to my uncle, the big Republican of the family. :-)

Someone in my AP Physics class earlier this year said, "so, are you two going to be okay if it turns out to be, like, a humanities person?" I said yes. The follow-up: "well ... what if he's stupid?" Gotta love teenagers who'll speak their minds...

(Mothra. Hmm. Will consider it, but I'm worried that the cats would interpret that as a sign that she needs to be pursued crazily at all hours of the night...)

TWL

Nah Tim, you name her Angelica because no matter how much of an unholy terror she turns into, she'll always be "Daddy's Little Angel"

(Mothra. Hmm. Will consider it, but I'm worried that the cats would interpret that as a sign that she needs to be pursued crazily at all hours of the night...)

In my experience, cats interpret anything as a sign that something needs to be pursued crazily at all hours of the night - especially if catnip grows wild around your house... :)

Personally, I consider cats to be vermin, which is why I don't allow them in my house. :)

Congratulations on the kid, Tim!

Tim,
Well, I don't see you doing a Kevin Smith and naming her Harley Quinn, anyway:-)
You know, there's not one Jennifer I know that isn't beautiful, and Angelina would allow you to call her "Angel".
Faith would be cool. As would Buffy, Dawn or Willow...Er, sorry, was temporarily taken over by the spirit of Joss Whedon:-)
Well, you have time!

Den wrote: "Personally, I consider cats to be vermin, which is why I don't allow them in my house. :)"

I've got four cats, and when a mouse made the mistake one winter of squeezing under the door to get in my house one particularly cold night, that little critter didn't last very long at all. Little pieces of fur were everywhere, and I'm sure that mouses's last thoughts were, "If there's a hell for vermin, this is it!"

Well, given that both parents are atheists, I think the odds of "Angelina" are extraordinarily slim, with "Faith" not that much more likely. :-)

Truth be told, we're still working on the question of the LAST name. Lisa kept her name, so we've got a bit of a choice -- and hyphenating is right out, as neither Lynch-Hazard nor Hazard-Lynch is something we'd want to inflict on a child...

TWL

Then the last name is obvious: Lyzard

Oh, go with what you'll be calling her after the first poopy diaper; Bio Hazard. :-)

[My first real sign of how smart my older niece was was when at age 5, just before her first sibling was to be born, she told her mother that "I will love my little sister and do anything to help with her. Except that I won't change any poopy diapers."]

We can't do Bio Hazard -- that's already the sign on Lisa's lab door. (She's a biologist.)

And "Lyzard" was under serious consideration, actually -- it's again something I don't think I can do to a kid, though. :-)

TWL

And "Lyzard" was under serious consideration, actually -- it's again something I don't think I can do to a kid, though. :-)

Maybe not, but I bet when she hits that "rebellious teenager" phase she starts using it anyway...

Congratulations, Tim. May your child bring you joy and happiness all your life--especially when she's driving you nuts.

Maybe not, but I bet when she hits that "rebellious teenager" phase she starts using it anyway...

Given that Lisa's a biologist who specializes in herps, if she DOES use that as a way to rebel she'll be falling right into our trap. Mwahahahahaha.

TWL

Congrats Tim.

Naming is fun, isn't it? We wound up naming our son Orion, thinking it was kinda cool and all unique and stuff. Then everyone came out of the woodwork telling us they knew 12 Orions in kindergarten. The process to getting to Orion, however, was quite fun.

My closest friend suggested naming him Wynskyzer, being that my last name is Gray...Wyn...Skyz...Er...Gray...When...skies...are...gray?

Of course, we went through such witty names as Charcoal and Earl, too. My friend still refers to my son as Wynskyzer, but, since his last name is Pitter, I refer to his son as Patter.

Anywho, just to jump on the "name Tim's child" train, how about combining the last name into Lynard...which of course would make the first name Skynard.

Then again, there's always...

Monkeys

"Monkeys Hazard" - hmmm, has a ring to it... :)

You realize, of course, that we are now all on the list of people you must send birth announcements. I guess being athiestic you can't use us as godparents, but we will all happily be blog aunties and uncles...

"Blogparents" -- how's that for a neologism?

And Orion seems out, it being a girl and all. We could go the mythological route, but that's what we did with the cats and I'm not sure we want to establish quite that level of equality...

TWL

PAD,

I am so glad that you don't include your political beliefs into the stories you write. Or do you include them and I'm too dense to see it?

Novafan:

>>PAD,
I am so glad that you don't include your political beliefs into the stories you write. Or do you include them and I'm too dense to see it?

His latest Captain Marvel storyline is littered with thinly veiled commentary on the current situation between the U.S. and Iraq.

Tim: Give the baby your last name, particularly if you've ruled out hybrid names. If you give her your last name, then people (as in future teachers and such) will assume you're the dad, Lisa's the mom, and that it's a standard set up. If she has Lisa's last name, the assumption will be that Lisa is the mom and that you're her stepfather.

As for a first name, if you blend Tim and Lisa and soften the "L," you've got Theresa. Theresa Lynch sounds nice to my ear, as does the nickname of "Terry."

PAD

If she has Lisa's last name, the assumption will be that Lisa is the mom and that you're her stepfather.

Hmm ... this could, of course, give me plausible deniability if the kid turns out to be a problem. :-)

Seriously, advice appreciated -- we'll think on't (as well as on Theresa, which certainly works better than Mothra).

TWL

Tim,
If you want her to have a decent chance at being a superhero and/or dating Clark Kent you should try some alliteration-- Lydia Lynch, Lara Lynch, Lita Lynch, that sort of thing.

You ought to print this whole thing out and save it in her scrapbook so that in the future she will know that she was the subject of considerable importance even before her birth.

hey, Tim, muchas congrats on the upcoming clone, and TRUST me when I say I sympathize as far as the joys of naming. See, in my family, it's the tradition for the son to take the middle name of the father, so Little Person was destined to be Somebody-or-other Sean Scullion. Stace and I both really liked Alexander until we realized that first, his initials would be ASS, and second it would probably be the second minute of his first day of kindergarten before some other kid pointed it out and his entire life would be ruined. So, we named him Brian after my best friend, but the only time Brian gets used is when he's bad. Maybe THAT's why he ignores us. Only other advice I can give you, if ANYONE from either your or Lisa's family has a medical background BAR THEM FROM THE HOSPITAL. Stace's mother (and I use that term loosely) is a nurse, so she spent the entire 20+ hours that Stace was in back labor discussing all the bad stuff that happens to her patients with the duty nurse. Wanted to put both of them through the wall...

Rat,

Thanks for the advice, though I suppose I'm not the first to point out that in avoiding ASS as initials, you've given Brian the initials BS instead. Maybe THAT's why he's ignoring you; he's assuming that you're no less likely to give him BS now than at birth. :-)

Only other advice I can give you, if ANYONE from either your or Lisa's family has a medical background BAR THEM FROM THE HOSPITAL.

Given that we're in California and both sets of family members are on the east coast, I'm not too worried about them storming the hospital. A few days later, of course, will be another story.

(And no official medical background to speak of, but my mother's a therapist and Lisa's dad is a toxicologist. Yes, a toxicologist named Hazard -- feel free to yuk it up.) Family visits should be ... interesting.

TWL