adv : in a tasteful way; "this building is aesthetically very pleasing" [syn: aesthetically]
Go be "sic" on someone else.... (And, FYI, "(sic)" [sic] should be in square brackets and italicized.)
0 Replies
Brandon9000
1
Reply
Mon 26 Jun, 2006 11:41 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon,
You simply repeat your argument as if that makes a whit of difference. You and Bernie are certainly on the same page.
As opposed to you, whose arguments change so much from week to week. Pardon me so much for not acceding to your superior viewpoint. Your primary method of advancing your views is still to try to impeach the poster, and give rationalizations for why you creep off in fear from arguments you cannot oppose head on.
No, I make fun of those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
As my day-to-day work is that of implementing network security for financial institutions, and part of that is to supply risk assessments, let me assure you that your assertion here is pure horse crap.
Arguments from authority are invalid. You're still running from a simple dignified debate on the content of the arguments.
My argument is not from authority; it is an argument from experience. Others can look to our positions and determine their relative merits for themselves.
Again: your statement that the Iraq war was justified on the basis of "a possibility" of WMD is fallacious. You fail to address the point that there were other, less expensive, measures that could be taken that would have essentially the same result.
What measures would have determined the status of Hussein's weapons and weapons programs to a virtual certainty?
DrewDad wrote:
You also fail to address the actual risk involved, as you are completely unable to do so.
The fact that a risk is hard to precisely attach numbers to doesn't make it any less of a risk. Clearly the history of the situation provided a not negligible possibility that Hussein had not dismantled his development programs. Here's a hypothetical question you won't answer. How serious would a 5% chance be that in a few years Hussein would announce that he had several nuclear bombs? Exactly how serious? I don't expect a direct answer from you.
DrewDad wrote:
When you are prepared to actually discuss these items, I will be happy to continue talking over the issue with you. If you instead continue your usual tactics of "ignore and repeat previous message" then I shall continue to deride you.
P.S. Tico, I know you enjoy taunting Setanta, but you're really on the wrong side of this one.
Why? You're largely ignoring my arguments and repeating your previous posts. Whether you choose to reply or not is up to you. If you don't you simply lose the debate by forfeit. Your indignation that I haven't accepted part of your position is irrelevant.
0 Replies
Brandon9000
1
Reply
Mon 26 Jun, 2006 11:45 pm
Setanta wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Have you forgotten perhaps that he signed a treaty promising to destroy the weapons and dismantle the programs? The only question is how recently. Your analogy sucks.
Actually, Hussein signed no such treaty. The requirement to destroy weapons was embodied in Security Council resoutions. None of the resolutions provided for direct military action by any member of the seucurity council on an allegation of non-compliance.
You just make it up as you go along, as for example with your constant refrain that he was known to have weapons of mass destruction....
In 1991, Saddam Hussein accepted United Nations Resolution #687. This was a ceasefire agreement that allowed him to remain in power on the condition that Iraq provide full and accurate disclosure of all long-range missiles and WMD.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 12:21 am
Bravo Brandon--regarding Saddam's acceptance of UN Resolution No. 687.
It is clear that if the left wing wishes to state,at this late date, that Saddam had no WMD's, they will have to brand a large number of IMPORTANT Democrats as liars, or at least, ignorant dupes!
quote
One way or the other, we are determinged to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam wants peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
President Clinton Feb. 17, 1998
We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions( including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's REFUSAL TO END ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Carl Levin--Oct. 9, 1998
We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
AL Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have KNOWN for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002
and the piece de resistance---the quote from the smartest woman in the world---
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to REBUILD HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STOCK
Sen. Hillary Clinton---Oct.10, 2002.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 12:26 am
Bravo Brandon--regarding Saddam's acceptance of UN Resolution No. 687.
It is clear that if the left wing wishes to state,at this late date, that Saddam had no WMD's, they will have to brand a large number of IMPORTANT Democrats as liars, or at least, ignorant dupes!
quote
One way or the other, we are determinged to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam wants peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
President Clinton Feb. 17, 1998
We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions( including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's REFUSAL TO END ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Carl Levin--Oct. 9, 1998
We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
AL Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have KNOWN for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002
and the piece de resistance---the quote from the smartest woman in the world---
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to REBUILD HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STOCK
Sen. Hillary Clinton---Oct.10, 2002.
0 Replies
DrewDad
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 07:19 am
"Virtual certainty" is your standard, although it was possible to achieve prior to invasion. Threat of invasion was sufficient to provide unrestricted access for weapons inspectors.
5%? Too high (and bogus, to boot). What time frame? 5% chance in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years? Right now, the there's no guarantee that the risk has been reduced in the 20-year time frame.
But 5% in one or two years still does not require an invasion. Weapons inspections, targeted strikes, blockade, threat of invasion, etc. could have been tried before invading.
Your entire argument is based on a false choice: invasion or explosion. There was a whole spectrum of responses available short of invading.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 07:35 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Have you forgotten perhaps that he signed a treaty promising to destroy the weapons and dismantle the programs? The only question is how recently. Your analogy sucks.
Actually, Hussein signed no such treaty. The requirement to destroy weapons was embodied in Security Council resoutions. None of the resolutions provided for direct military action by any member of the seucurity council on an allegation of non-compliance.
You just make it up as you go along, as for example with your constant refrain that he was known to have weapons of mass destruction....
In 1991, Saddam Hussein accepted United Nations Resolution #687. This was a ceasefire agreement that allowed him to remain in power on the condition that Iraq provide full and accurate disclosure of all long-range missiles and WMD.
This is a perfect example of how you avoid the cogent criticisms of your silly thesis about Hussein and the threat of womd. You have completely failed to address the fact that no Security Council resolution authorized military action against Iraq on an allegation of non-compliance. After 1991, the Iraqis allowed inspectors in the country, and played games. The United States without the authority of the Security Council, in conjunction with the English, established and enforced "no-fly" zones. This lead to numerous incidents, including attacks on Iraqi radar installations, both with conventional bombs and with cruise missiles. In 1998, Hussein expelled the inspectors. Thereafter, the Shrub threatened Iraq with military action on that basis. Iraq then re-admitted the inspectors, who stated that they found no evidence of womd or womd programs, and that the Iraqis were cooperating with the inspections regime.
Your flimsy thesis is that Hussein was known to have womd--that is not true as of the late winter of 2003, when inspectors said there was no evidence of womd or womd programs. You go on from there to state that we could not allow that threat to continue. But you ignore that the threat was putative, and not proven, and that the inspectors on the ground said there were no womd, no such programs and that Iraqis were cooperating. The basis for your necessary invasion thesis is false, and you won't address that--just as you bothered to dredge up SCR 687, but failed to address the point that the resolution does not authorize military action on a contention of noncompliance.
0 Replies
parados
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 07:44 am
Quote:
What measures would have determined the status of Hussein's weapons and weapons programs to a virtual certainty?
Even the invasion didn't determine the status to a virtual certainty.
Where is the virtual certainty that North Korea and Iran won't use WMD? Your requirement means we should have invaded both of those countries long ago.
For that matter, where is the virtual certainty that Bush won't use WMD? There is none. We can only address the likelyhood of something happening. There is no such thing as a "virtual certainty" in any risk assessment. There is no virtual certainty that any building can withstand an earthquake or high winds. Are you saying we don't build anything since we can never achieve that certainty?
I heard John Kerry speak at Boston's legendary Fanueil Hall yesterday. What a magnificent man he is, and how I regret not having come to an event featuring him earlier. I was among the left wingers who held their noses while voting for Kerry, which shows how pervasive the poisonous effect of the right wing is on America.
Among the things Kerry said:
There is no way to drill ourselves out of this crisis.
Sure, there are people who say global warming still needs to be debated. Let me tell you what it takes to start a debate: one flat worlder in the room. There are too many members of Congress who are flat worlders.
There has been a national neglect of energy and climatic policy since the end of the CArter administration.
Bush's policy has been to feed the addiction to fossil fuels.
America is not addicted to fossil fuels because it wants to be; Washington is addicted to oil because powerful influences want it to be.
If you offend no one, you change nothing.
We must end the empire of oil. Here in Massachusetts, 150 years ago, no one could foresee a future that did not depend on whale oil.
In 1930, 10% of all homes had electricity and the power companies thought it too expensive to string wire in rural areas where houses were far apart. Congress subsidized the wiring of America and, by 1950, few home were dark. Congress needs to subsidize wind, solar and biomass.
He focused on three steps:
1.) a goal of reducing oil consumption by 2.5M barrels a day by 2015. This is a mandate because IT IS TOO LATE FOR VOLUNTARY MEASURES.
2.) Expand the use of renewable fuels. The cost of putting one pump that dispenses E-85, or whatever fuel might be developed, in every gas station in the country is the same as the budget for one week's presence in IRaq.
3.) Dedicate ourselves to serious climate change. The Bush Administration presents a "flagrant . . . dangerous disavowal of science."
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 10:06 am
There seems to be a recurring scheme with the Bush administration on everything; stay the course. The motivation is obvious; it's making Bushites rich on the backs of the poor.
0 Replies
Brandon9000
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:30 am
DrewDad wrote:
"Virtual certainty" is your standard, although it was possible to achieve prior to invasion. Threat of invasion was sufficient to provide unrestricted access for weapons inspectors.
5%? Too high (and bogus, to boot). What time frame? 5% chance in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years? Right now, the there's no guarantee that the risk has been reduced in the 20-year time frame.
But 5% in one or two years still does not require an invasion.
What I asked was how serious it would be, I specified the time frame of a few years, and I correctly predicted that you wouldn't answer.
DrewDad wrote:
"Weapons inspections, targeted strikes, blockade, threat of invasion, etc. could have been tried before invading.
Your entire argument is based on a false choice: invasion or explosion. There was a whole spectrum of responses available short of invading.
1. Weapons inspections
Isn't 12 years long enough for you? What if Hussein had been using the inspections as a stalling tactic while he first perfected and then stockpiled WMD in secret? Was it in our interest to allow them to drag on forever? He could have given us pretty conclusive proof that the weapons had been destroyed and the programs dismantled had he filmed their destruction and saved remnants of destroyed weapons, but he chose not to do that.
2. Targeted strikes
To what end? He was already letting us inspect.
3. Blockade
What kind of blockade? A blockade wouldn't stop the progress of a hidden WMD development program, nor would it contain a Saddam Hussein armed with WMD. He could have still smuggled the components of a nuke or bioweapon into New York, blockade or no.
4. Threat of invasion
I think we did that.
Now, tell me:
Brandon9000 wrote:
How serious would a 5% chance be that in a few years Hussein would announce that he had several nuclear bombs?
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:35 am
Last night, David Letterman set up a piece on Bush by saying that Bush is into surprise and that he had told his aides he was going to bed, then secretly embarked for NYC where he was the Marshall for the Gay Pride Parade.
The accompanying photo showed a bare-chested man, wearing a Plains Indian headress.
The caption read, "George W. Bush, 29% and falling." Funny and apt.
0 Replies
Brandon9000
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:41 am
parados wrote:
Quote:
What measures would have determined the status of Hussein's weapons and weapons programs to a virtual certainty?
Even the invasion didn't determine the status to a virtual certainty.
Where is the virtual certainty that North Korea and Iran won't use WMD? Your requirement means we should have invaded both of those countries long ago.
No my requirement doesn't. First of all, North Korea pretended to cooperate and were believed. There was no apparent reason to invade. The problem there was with verification. While pretending to invade, the were perefecting nukes in secret. Now we have no reasonable option to invade, since they have nukes and could kill a million people in the first hour of the invasion. It was precisely to prevent Saddam Hussein from achieving this kind of near invulnerability that we invaded.
parados wrote:
For that matter, where is the virtual certainty that Bush won't use WMD? There is none. We can only address the likelyhood of something happening. There is no such thing as a "virtual certainty" in any risk assessment. There is no virtual certainty that any building can withstand an earthquake or high winds. Are you saying we don't build anything since we can never achieve that certainty?
I don't recall saying that. I'm only saying what I actually did say, not some absurd thing that makes your arguing position easier. And, my use of the term virtual certainty, as any reasonably intelligent child could tell you, was intended to indicate that the methods Drew Dad was proposing would have been unlikely to have achieved the degree of confidence we have now that neither Saddam Hussein nor the country of Iraq possess a major stockpile of WMD.
0 Replies
parados
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 12:28 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
"Virtual certainty" is your standard, although it was possible to achieve prior to invasion. Threat of invasion was sufficient to provide unrestricted access for weapons inspectors.
5%? Too high (and bogus, to boot). What time frame? 5% chance in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years? Right now, the there's no guarantee that the risk has been reduced in the 20-year time frame.
But 5% in one or two years still does not require an invasion.
What I asked was how serious it would be, I specified the time frame of a few years, and I correctly predicted that you wouldn't answer.
DrewDad wrote:
"Weapons inspections, targeted strikes, blockade, threat of invasion, etc. could have been tried before invading.
Your entire argument is based on a false choice: invasion or explosion. There was a whole spectrum of responses available short of invading.
1. Weapons inspections
Isn't 12 years long enough for you? What if Hussein had been using the inspections as a stalling tactic while he first perfected and then stockpiled WMD in secret? Was it in our interest to allow them to drag on forever? He could have given us pretty conclusive proof that the weapons had been destroyed and the programs dismantled had he filmed their destruction and saved remnants of destroyed weapons, but he chose not to do that.
Lets see.. We had pretty conclusive proof of the destruction of most of his WMD. He showed the UN the area where he dumped chemical and bio agents but they couldn't tell the quantity that was dumped.
Quote:
2. Targeted strikes
To what end? He was already letting us inspect.
That raises the question of what end was the invasion?
Quote:
3. Blockade
What kind of blockade? A blockade wouldn't stop the progress of a hidden WMD development program, nor would it contain a Saddam Hussein armed with WMD. He could have still smuggled the components of a nuke or bioweapon into New York, blockade or no.
Actually it would slow if not stop the progress of WMD programs. You need equipment not manufactured in Iraq to continue the programs. As for smuggling a weapon into NY. N Korea could do that, Iran could do that, Chile could do that, Argentina could. Any country could. When are we invading the rest of the world? Your argument makes no sense Brandon. Either it stands on its own and is repeatable or it doesn't stand. Are you saying we should invade any other country that might have WMD and has had bad relations with the US at some point in history. If so, then call for it. If not then your argument about Iraq fails.
Quote:
4. Threat of invasion
I think we did that.
Now, tell me:
Brandon9000 wrote:
How serious would a 5% chance be that in a few years Hussein would announce that he had several nuclear bombs?
Not very serious. There are many ways to reduce that chance. Saddam didn't have the means to acquire enough fissile material to make several let alone a couple.
Now answer this question. How serious is the 50% chance that N Korea has several nuclear bombs? Where is your call for dealing with that chance?
0 Replies
DrewDad
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 01:29 pm
Ah, Parados beat me to it....
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 02:13 pm
Their attempts to defend a moron will eventually bite them in the a$$. It's already beginning to show; they just don't realize it - yet.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 02:21 pm
I really don't know, Brandon, why Mr. Imposter and Mr. Parados want to make the Democrat Leaders out as liars but they have never explained why these people held these views. They won't because it puts the lie to their entire thesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Brandon--regarding Saddam's acceptance of UN Resolution No. 687.
It is clear that if the left wing wishes to state,at this late date, that Saddam had no WMD's, they will have to brand a large number of IMPORTANT Democrats as liars, or at least, ignorant dupes!
quote
One way or the other, we are determinged to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam wants peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
President Clinton Feb. 17, 1998
We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions( including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's REFUSAL TO END ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Carl Levin--Oct. 9, 1998
We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
AL Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have KNOWN for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002
and the piece de resistance---the quote from the smartest woman in the world---
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to REBUILD HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STOCK
Sen. Hillary Clinton---Oct.10, 2002.
0 Replies
Brandon9000
1
Reply
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 02:38 pm
parados wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
"Virtual certainty" is your standard, although it was possible to achieve prior to invasion. Threat of invasion was sufficient to provide unrestricted access for weapons inspectors.
5%? Too high (and bogus, to boot). What time frame? 5% chance in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years? Right now, the there's no guarantee that the risk has been reduced in the 20-year time frame.
But 5% in one or two years still does not require an invasion.
What I asked was how serious it would be, I specified the time frame of a few years, and I correctly predicted that you wouldn't answer.
DrewDad wrote:
"Weapons inspections, targeted strikes, blockade, threat of invasion, etc. could have been tried before invading.
Your entire argument is based on a false choice: invasion or explosion. There was a whole spectrum of responses available short of invading.
1. Weapons inspections
Isn't 12 years long enough for you? What if Hussein had been using the inspections as a stalling tactic while he first perfected and then stockpiled WMD in secret? Was it in our interest to allow them to drag on forever? He could have given us pretty conclusive proof that the weapons had been destroyed and the programs dismantled had he filmed their destruction and saved remnants of destroyed weapons, but he chose not to do that.
Lets see.. We had pretty conclusive proof of the destruction of most of his WMD. He showed the UN the area where he dumped chemical and bio agents but they couldn't tell the quantity that was dumped.
Quote:
2. Targeted strikes
To what end? He was already letting us inspect.
That raises the question of what end was the invasion?
No, it most certainly doesn't raise the question. As stated probably thousands of times by now by various people here, the purpose of the invasion was to end with certainty the possibility of Saddam Hussein developing nukes and bioweapons, and having one used in some population center someday. It's one thing to disagree with this argument, but to not know what the argument is by this late date is nothing less than bizarre.
parados wrote:
Quote:
3. Blockade
What kind of blockade? A blockade wouldn't stop the progress of a hidden WMD development program, nor would it contain a Saddam Hussein armed with WMD. He could have still smuggled the components of a nuke or bioweapon into New York, blockade or no.
Actually it would slow if not stop the progress of WMD programs. You need equipment not manufactured in Iraq to continue the programs. As for smuggling a weapon into NY. N Korea could do that, Iran could do that, Chile could do that, Argentina could. Any country could. When are we invading the rest of the world? Your argument makes no sense Brandon. Either it stands on its own and is repeatable or it doesn't stand. Are you saying we should invade any other country that might have WMD and has had bad relations with the US at some point in history. If so, then call for it. If not then your argument about Iraq fails.
Alright, maybe a blockade wouldn't have been totally useless, but it certainly wouldn't contain anyone who did develop WMD. After 12 years, it was better to end the matter. You act as though war is never an option no matter what the stakes. As for the matter of the other countries, Chile and Argentina are not expansionistic countries actively seeking doomsday weapons (as is blatantly obvious); you may have a point about Iran, but we should try negotiations a bit longer; I have answered the question about North Korea ad nauseum in these forums, including in this thread. I actually believe that I have answered the question you're asking about North Korea at least 40 times on A2K, and no I won't cite you all of them. We can't invade North Korea because they are ALREADY nuclear, and would have the option of using their weapons and killing hundreds of thousands of people or even more.
parados wrote:
Quote:
4. Threat of invasion
I think we did that.
Now, tell me:
Brandon9000 wrote:
How serious would a 5% chance be that in a few years Hussein would announce that he had several nuclear bombs?
Not very serious. There are many ways to reduce that chance. Saddam didn't have the means to acquire enough fissile material to make several let alone a couple.
He could have bought it or eventually managed to purify it from ore. If you think that a 5% chance of Saddam Hussein armed with weapons one of which could destroy a major city wouldn't be serious, which was the question I asked in my hypothetical, then all I can say is that I strongly disagree.
parados wrote:
Now answer this question. How serious is the 50% chance that N Korea has several nuclear bombs? Where is your call for dealing with that chance?
My answer to this question has been all over A2K for years in dozens of posts, and hasn't varied an iota. We can't invade North Korea anymore because they're already nuclear and would possess the option of using their nukes. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from achieving this near invulnerability. Do you ever read the posts you reply to?
0 Replies
DrewDad
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:01 am
I must say I find a 5% chance to be incredibly high, considering the sanctions, inspections, and other roadblocks in place.
And he must then also have delivery systems, and escape detection when attempting said delivery.
The chances of a successful WMD attack from Iraq must have been vanishingly small.
And continuing inspections, border containment, etc. would have kept it that way.
Your argument does not hold water, Brandon.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:38 am
DrewDad, Their whole thesis in the defense of a moron president doesn't hold water, but they do it anywhos. Bush starts a war in Iraq on the basis of WMDS and Saddam's connection to al Qaeda, but as the world knows by now, there were none. Look at what happened in New Orleands? Bush said he was going to initiate the largest reconstruction project in the history of the US, and what we have are fraud, cost overruns, incompetence, and wasted tax dollars - and no improvement in New Orleans after all these months. Righties insist that Bush is the only one capable of defending us from terrorism, but terrorism around the world increased ten-fold, and New Orleans shows this president is not capable of helping us from the result of disaster. Our borders are open to any terrorist that wishes to come into this country. Thousands still cross our borders illegally. This is security?
Bush apologists have their heads screwed on in a way that defies logic.
