Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

blatam, as I have told you over and over again, my only source of information is "Weekly Reader"

Subscription for "Gigantic Asses" expired?

Hey, did you get the issue with John Kerry as the centerfold? :wink:

Cheney
"Attack Dog Mode"

Didn't anyone call the ASPCA?


ft

Back on track, this is just one of the irrefutable reasons why Bush is toast in November:



There is simply nothing the GOP can do -- nothing to motivate their core at the grassroots, nothing to drive up Kerry's negatives, and certainly nothing to boost Bush's standing -- to overcome this kind of voter reversal in a critical demographic.

That's the kind of flip-flop we'll be talking about after November 2.

I suspect that you'll be talking up conspiracy theories of how Bush "stole" another election. :wink:

um perhaps he might get a majority of the vote next time, **** happens.

Of course, whether he gets a majority of the vote or not, is meaningless in our system.

Here's a dilly...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terrorism-Financing.html

Paul Wolfowitz makes mistakes and gets numbers wrong sometimes, but hell, who doesn't make innocent errors. He got the cost of waging war in Iraq wrong and he got the number of young Americans killed in Iraq wrong, but hell, who doesn't make a mistake. It is ENTIRELY coincidental that the dollar figure ended up being way more than he'd said, and that the casualty figure was also way more than he said. Just coincidence. All quite innocent. I trust the man to be honest with citizens.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Iraq-Deaths-Wolfowitz.html

That's what I call irresponsibility of important issues that he is partly responsible for. That's about the speed of everybody connected with this administration; they understand deadly about what they have wrought the American People.

Forgive me if someone else has pointed this out...

And now, from the bastion of the Conservative point of view, The Village Voice:

Yup...got posted elsewhere.

Mr. Scrat must be joking, of course. The Village voice is about as liberal as a publication can become. It is also a publication to be reckoned with.
Not only was Norman Mailer one of the original founders of the paper but the Village Voice has won three Pulitzers and whatever your political persuasion, it is well written.
I am very much afraid that when the radical left( The Village Voice falls into that category I am sure) proceeds to tell us that Senator Kerry begins the day by trying to explain himself, is in difficulty with regards to the issues of wealth, tossed out medals and utilization of the triangulation gimmick as well as the possessor of an uninspired record as a Senator, we know that the supposedly rock hard base on the far left is crumbling.

Perhaps we need a woman on horseback to save the Democrats. Hillary Rodham Clinton as a viable substitute??

Wading through rhetoric in order to gain the sorts of information we want/need and so become informed citizens can be a difficult (and maddening) task.

The bias history of a given source, either a publication or a writer, is relevant information that we carry with us into our reading (or ommitted reading). But we can't use that by itself to credit or discredit the claims or ideas raised.

For example, Salon is commonly pointed to as a 'liberal' site. But at least two regular contributors are self-labelled as Republican and as predominatly opposed to the 'liberal agenda'. And their self descriptions are correct.

As to prestiguous awards like the Pulitzer, both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have received many.

So we have to take each piece on its own merits (or lack of merits).

The piece above has, in my consideration, not very much merit. The first half of the first sentence is an example of pretty much all that follows...
"With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon..."

Metaphors are fine, they are inevitable really. But they ought to reflect something real, and they ought to not carry along a lot of extraneous meaning and value...or at least they should if they are to be considered something like journalism and not screed. The metaphor quoted is guilty of both failings.

Lots of columnists and commentators do what this writer has done, eg Maureen Dowd, and we are likely to take some pleasure in the reading where we share the writer's likes/dislikes, or even where an original artistry in penmanship and rhetoric is evident. But if we are going for something like 'fact', then such writers/commentators ought not to be considered primary sources.

Why do some people hate America? Why do they hate our president, George W. Bush? It is due to shortsightedness and a lack of understanding of the American people. Liberals in the Unites States and anti Americans around the world claim President Bush shouldn't have started this Iraqi war and that he is the worst President ever. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We (Americans) didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. America stands for freedom and we may be slow to and forgiving of our enemies, but once we are riled we seek out our enemies to protect our freedom.

Let's look at the past "worst" president / mismanagement claims and the end results.

1. FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 American lives were lost, average of 112,500 per year.
Ask the Japanese (even with the destructive nuclear weapons) are they better off after America conquered them? Japan has a higher standard of living because of American intervention. Japan is pro American. Germany, same thing, we destroyed, then rebuilt their country. They have a better than average life compared to many European countries. Japan, Germany are no longer a threat to our American freedom.

2. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 American lives were lost, average of 18,333 per year. Ask the South Koreans if they prefer being Pro American or would they rather be like their northern neighbor?

3. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. We saw the war between N & S Vietnam as the beginning of WWIII and a threat to our freedom. From 1965-1975, 58,000 American lives were lost, average of 5,800 per year. We contained that aggression to Vietnam, this helped to stabilize the region. Ask Thailand, Burma and India if they benefited from America's involvement.

4.. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. After the collapse of the U.S.S.R. system, Eastern Europe was thrown into chaos, the unprecedented mini wars became a threat to America. Ask Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Herzegovina if they are better off today than under their old systems before America arrived.

Don't forget our excursions into Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, etc.. All of the countries are better off today because a U.S President sent our military in to change or rebuild the government. In the two years since terrorists attacked us (the big attack, not the smaller ones), President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida and also put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot. America completely destroyed the Taliban's ability to wage war. What have we done since? We are sending all of their kids to school, rebuilding their infrastructure and will stay long enough to ensure the Taliban will not once again terrorize Afghanistan. Afgans will be Pro American. What about Iraq? Same thing, we have destroyed the Iraqi military and broken the dictatorship. Currently we are dealing with all of the little Saddam's that want to once again steal the country from the Iraqi people. We will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to bring about a free Iraq. Remember we have experience in bringing freedom to people who have never known it. The rebuilding of Japan / Germany including brand new forms of government are prime examples of our freedom loving freedom building past. Iraq will be free, self-governing and will have a republic form of government. Will this be immediate? No, it takes time. Review Japan's / Germany's history and you can see how long we stayed with these fledging democracies. Will the Iraqi people become one of America's friends? Will the Middle East and all Islamic people be better off because of America? You bet. Time will tell.

Worst President ever, evil American imperialism, warmonger Bush? I don't think so.

It wasn't a war on terror. It was a war to rid Iraq of WMD's. It was only when they couldn't be found that the shrub conveniently changed his tune to justify the war. Yet another conservative creating a pretty little illusion to justify mass murder.

federalist...welcome to a2k

You said Which 'some' do you refer to? How about the folks who lost their families, or were crippled in Bophal? After some twenty years, those local citizens have received not a single penny in compensation from the American corporation who owned the chemical facility because that corporation has fought against payment in american courts. 'Hate' seems a reasonable response, no?


That's a false implication. Senior Republicans with lifetimes worth of experience in government and foreign policy argued that the US was very unwise (and legally unjustified) in a unilateral attack on Iraq.


Iraq is relevant exactly how in this statement? As Rumsfeld and Bush have both now admitted, there was no compelling evidence tying Iraq and 9-11. As Clarke lays out in his book, there was no evidence of Iraq complicity in terror directed at the US since 93.

Federalist, Welcome to A2K. Your thesis misses on logic; this war was not started to fight terrorism. It was started by this administration, because they claimed Saddam had WMDs that could be used against the American People. Terrorism started with the Taliban and Osama, not Saddam. You must get your facts straight before condemning those of us that are against this war for oil - or as this administration likes to say - to bring democracy to Iraq. Secondly, to fight the war on terrorism is a world-wide war; not a war to be fought only by the US and its so-called coalition (of the few). Only the US and the UK have any significant investment in fighting this war in Iraq. Just look at the number of dead of our soldiers. So, please; don't twist the justification for this war in Iraq. It was for WMDs and the threat they posed to the American People. President Bush said he wanted to make sure Americans are safe. Terrorism has increased - not only in Iraq but around the globe, and Osama bin Laden is still free.

I'm sorry, but based on the way you've used it, I can only assume that "viable" does not mean what you think it means. :wink: