Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The article doesn’t work!

-Cf

Awesome, my comment made the article work!

-Cf

You quote the terrorists endorsing Bush and you believe them. I suppose you could argue that they are playing a complicated game, but you cannot believe in their sincerity. This posting is a an attempt at irony, right?

So does that strengthen or weaken Kerry’s call to involve more foreign nations? Recall Afghanistan is where NATO and UN are in full swing, not the U.S.

Bush has our armed forces playing hide the sausage in Iraq

And which sausage is that exactly? That is some pretty callous language when the troops are there actively protecting (mostly themselves it seems, but also) a budding democracy from forces who seek to destabilize the proto-government.

And as for the question of are we killing or creating more militants, I keep hearkening back to 1991:

SBL began hating the Americans because they simply put troops in Saudi Arabia. Forget that We were helping Kuwait regain independence (a cause he supported), our PRESENCE in that country led to his fervent hatred.

There is no way to ‘fight terrorism’ without pushing others to join the Jihadi cause. The long-term solution of creating more tolerant societies needs to be seen through. Kerry and Bush’s Iraq policy starting 1/2005 will be identical and should not be seen as a difference-maker in this election. How they proceed with other efforts should…

I suppose you could argue that they are playing a complicated game

Haha! I expected that one. So you think their endorsement of Bush was a trick, and they’re actually not endorsing Bush? But they must know we’re smart enough to figure that out, so knowing they know that, it’s still an endorsement for Bush. But they know that we know that they know that, so it must actually NOT be an endorsement for Bush. But knowing that they know that we know that they know, it’s still an endorsement for Bush.

That silly game makes “The Princess Bride” one of my favorite comedy movies, Jack.

Al Qaeda’s wish for Bush to remain president is consistent with every statement they’ve made and every action they’ve taken. The 9/11 report says bin Laden was infuriated when neither Clinton nor Bush retaliated for the USS Cole incident. Bin Laden and the other terrorist groups need opponents who will mindlessly lash out at Muslim countries without considering alternatives or even trying to gain the moral high ground before doing so. Bush fits the bill.

If you have any al Qaeda statements that contradict the al Qaeda endorsements of Bush that I quoted, please share.

the troops are there actively protecting (mostly themselves it seems, but also) a budding democracy

Adam, I respect the fact you don’t even try to make the case that Iraq was a counter terrorism operation. That being the case, other than the fact that Bush’s Iraq adventure drained satellite, Predator, Special Ops, Arabic speaking troops, and intelligence assets away from destroying bin Laden and al Qaeda, it appears to be off topic.

There is no way to ‘fight terrorism’ without pushing others to join the Jihadi cause.

But it can certainly be done without alienating massive numbers of Muslims as well as our allies. President Bush is blowing off moderate Muslim leaders who can help discredit terrorism within Islam, and European and other world leaders are reluctent to assist “in a way that rewards Bush.”

Kerry and Bush’s Iraq policy starting 1/2005 will be identical

First off, it’s NOT identical. Kerry’s plan is to make Iraq a UN and NATO operation. Bush’s plan is to retain Iraq as a US operation using some UN and NATO services.

Second, their respective plans have nothing to do with Bush’s failure in the war on terror.

After three years, homeland security is a “Wizard of Oz defense. When you pull back the curtain, we have red and orange alerts and a few nattily dressed air marshals but not much else.”

And efforts to get bin Laden - the man who attacked the United States and killed thousands of Americans - are not even a priority for Bush, “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

Bush stinks at national security. You haven’t given me any reason to change his grade. He’s a failure.

AP, good outline on how UBL and company is looking at America.

Adam and Jack, If you think the leaders of radical Islamic groups don’t want Bush to stay in power you are died wrong. UBL and Bush see themselve as a person who can change the world, forever. The only problem with both of them is that both missed their chance right after 9/11.

Think back to directly after 9/11 when we were calling for UBL’s head. If UBL would of turned himself over to an international moslim court of law, the US would of had to deal with the problems of the middle east (that later).

Furthermore, if Bush would of kept his word to the world in attacking Afganistan, he would of been able to set terms in the middle east. Remember, Bush told us and thus the world that after we won the war with Al Qaeda, he would lead an international force to bring Afganistan into the 21st Century.

By both of them acting like children, Al Qaeda and other groups that use terror now can use Bush’s lie to their brothers to recuit people.

Although Kerry may not be talking, he understands the nature of the beast. Self ego is only good if you can hold the edge. For it is tribal costume for a man to keep his word. By Bush breaking his, he has given fire to those who know America can and will change the world forever. Not by violence, but what we do best. No, not shopping; yet it has to do with money.

Middle East vs. U.S.

The US went off the gold and silver standard back in the 70’s. This action outraged the middle east. “For all nations must adhere to this long time standard” many middle easterns said “This gold and silverstone is a cornerstone of our civilization, we dare to dis obey.” Well, we did, they did, and the oil embrgo came to our shores. Now, I’m not sure of the financial arrangements made with OPEC in 73, but I know that were not all favorable to the US.

Now, we our facing the same financial problems we did 35 years ago. If America is going to win the war on terror, we must convince the rest of the world leaders to do away with their gold and silver standard. In order for us to do that we are going to have to show the world that as the most powerful nation on earth, America can and will lead the world beyond being tied to this planet we call earth. By changing the world economy, we can work with each other so that all people on earth can live the way the want and afford it. Money tied to a finite source of numbers is limited in growth; however, tie money to infinity and growth is unlimited. Maybe that is why our forefathers said “We the People” should own our government.

I can’t believe you guys are taken in so easily. The terrorists are trying to deceive us. We can look to their words for clues to their lines of attack, but we can never take anything they say at face value.

The thing you say about the Europeans – what Europeans? And do you really believe that they don’t participate because of personal dislike for Bush? If the war starts to go well, we will get more support. Until then, what incentive do the Europeans have to change the color of the uniforms of those at risk?

The French didn’t (and don’t) support us because Saddam remaining in power better served them. The Germans were trying to show solidarity with the French to strengthen their mutual position in the expanded EU again the newcomers scheduled to come in last May. President Chirac’s statement to the new members – that they missed a chance to be quiet when they supported the U.S. – is one indication of this strategy. The French always play this game with the U.S. The French foreign minister said that “this administration is the most unilateral” in history. He said that in 1999 when Clinton was president. I am sure he would repeat it today and tomorrow under President Kerry. None of this would change with a different president.

The Russian are trying to balance the U.S. and the EU. If you believe Putin does anything based on his personal dislike for a leader, I suggest you study a little more. Besides, Putin likes Bush. He will support the U.S. when it is in Russian interests to do so. I personally think that he would be less likely to support a U.S. led by John Kerry, because he would perceive it to be weaker and more vacillating. Remember the great success Carter had negotiating with the Russians. A majority of the other European countries are supporting the coalition in some way and have stayed the course in spite of almost 200 casualties. This is small compared to our, but significant for them. Insurgents murdered three Poles only yesterday. When asked how long Poland would stay in the coalition, President Kwasniewski said, as long as it takes and then one day longer. And Tony Blair has to sometimes stiffen Bush’s spine. (We don’t hear much about this in the U.S. media and I do blame bias or more precisely that it doesn’t fit their story lines. I was in Poland for a Bush visit. When I read the Washington Post article describing it, I couldn’t believe the reporter had been in the same country. I wrote a note to Dana Milbank re. He never responded.)

Many Europeans countries don’t support us because they don’t have the deployable mobile forces to spare. President Kerry won’t get any more from them. Our military is stronger than the combined forces of all our European allies and then some. We will have to carry the load.

I have to stop. In the interests of not seeming to be too critical, I have to give up on this particular string of posting. I suggest you stick to things like “The Princess Bride” They are easier to understand.

Henry:

Just a small correction on your grammar: It should be “would HAVE” or “could HAVE”, not “would OF” or ” could OF”. Just an FYI.

AP:

It is just foolishness to take at face value what the enemy is saying. It is also irrelevant what the enemy says they want, since they do not vote, they are opposed to anything good for us, and they certainly have ulterior motives. To even have you suggest that their comments have any merit is unbelievable.

Let’s put your thesis into historical context:

Viet Nam: Should our prisoners of war have listened to the comments broadcast by the Jane Fonda and John Kerry types, and have given up? Should they have listened to the propaganda generated by the Viet Namese?

WWII: Should politicians have believed Adolph Hitler when he said he was invading Poland because Poland invaded Germany first? Should people have believed that the Nazi death camps did NOT exist, as so many in the Nazi party stated outright?

AP, you say that “the most compelling - and damning - reason to give President Bush an F for his pathetic attempt at fighting the war on terror, is that al Qaeda and other major terrorist groups are endorsing President Bush’s re-election!”

This is the most simple-minded thing I’ve seen you say. It almost earns you the apparently coveted “Stupid Comment of the Year” award, but frankly, there ARE some other contenders battling you for that title. Good luck in your quest—you certainly have earned your nomination.

Wow. Did I strike a nerve by pointing out that the terrorists want Bush to be re-elected? All I hear is a bunch of denial with no substance to back it up.

Jack, that’s and interesting cosmology you’ve fashioned. Thanks for your opinion. You need to polish it a little more until it explains why de La Sabliere voted for 1441 and why - as late as February 2003 - the French were coordinating with the Pentagon the inclusion of fighters, an armored division, and a carrier group for the Iraq invasion (also here and here).

When asked how long Poland would stay in the coalition, President Kwasniewski said, as long as it takes and then one day longer.

Didn’t Aznar say the same thing? According to a recent poll, 41% of Poles versus 15% think Bush’s foreign policy is crap. The problem with alienating our allies is that most of them are democracies. When the populace hates US policy, astute politicians (like Schroeder) can ride the wave of anti-Bush sentiment into power.

joe, you called me foolish and simple-minded, then fell flat trying to back it up. Your only argument is, “I don’t believe it.” Frankly, neither I nor the terrorists care if you believe it or not. They’ve said they want Bush re-elected. I will be God damned if I vote the terrorist party line.

Bush still gets a failing grade on protecting America. President Bush has balked at budgeting $3 billion for explosive screening machines for our airports, yet he diverts $4 billion every ten days to Iraq. The DHS is severely underfunded and crippled by lack of authority and White House support.

As just one example, When asked why the DHS isn’t working on mandatory security codes for unprotected chemical plants, Bob Liscouski, from the the DHS Infrastructure Protection Directorate replied, “Our job is not to regulate. I have every confidence that the private sector will act responsibly, that they will do the right thing on their own.” But last year an Economist survey of 331 large companies showed that security spending rose by just 4% since 9/11, and much of that was due to higher insurance premiums. I’m sure the millions of Americans who live near vulnerable chemical facilities are resting easier knowing that Union Carbide is on the job.

Bush still gets a failing grade on fighting terrorism. As al Qaeda operatives pull off operations around the globe, from Madrid to Jakarta, to Russia, Bush is spouting wacked out platitudes like “We’re striking the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.” As if sticking 140,000 US troops in Iraq is keeping terrorists from inflitrating the US. Every time Ridge elevates the alert system it puts the lie to that dumbass statement.

I stand by the grade. Bush is a failure at homeland security, and Bush is a failure at persuing, killing, and deterring terrorists. Bin Laden knows this and wants Bush re-elected, “because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.”

AP:

You say that I failed to make my case, yet I notice that you didnt bother to even comment on the historically based questions I asked. How convenient for you to have ignored them so blithely. Allow me to ask you again…would you have wanted our POWS and politicians to believe what the Viet Namese or the Germans said without question?

If your answer is yes, then you truly are espousing a stupid position.. If your answer is no, then your position on believing Al Queda is stupid.

I will await your next submission for the award.

Yes joe, you failed to make your case. How do you think your little moral litmus quiz changes the fact that the terrorists want Bush to be re-elected?

It doesn’t change the fact that the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, the group that claimed credit for the Madrid bombings, is backing Bush because they feel it’s not possible to find an adversary, “more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

It doesn’t change the fact that al Qaeda issued an endorsement for Bush’s re-election “because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.”

To quote myself,

Your only argument is, “I don’t believe it.” Frankly, neither I nor the terrorists care if you believe it or not. They’ve said they want Bush re-elected. I will be God damned if I vote the terrorist party line.

It’s also telling that no one has actually attempted to refute the main thrust of the article: Bush has done a piss-poor job of defending the homeland and attacking terrorism.

Bush has failed so badly that al Qaeda would prefer to see Bush re-elected, rather than have to face anyone else.

I know I promised myself I wouldn’t write again, but …

The French voted for 1441 because they thought it didn’t authorize force. One could argue that it did. So either it was a vote for nothing but more of the same (I think there were 17 resolutions that Saddam ignored) or it allowed what we did. The French interpretation was the former. We coordinate with allies all the time. I was surprised the French didn’t come in at the last moment to get a piece of th action. Their game was less about Iraq and more about trying to hold onto their swing position in world politics. I think they overplayed and managed to weaken their own position and ours. In the medium run and long run, it will be the worse for France.

Poland is not Spain. Besides Spanish policy changed for specific Spanish political reasons. Aznar did not go back on his commitment a different, more wobbly, party took over. Kwasniewski is not up for election until 2005. When you say the Polish people think the Bush policy is crap, you are putting words in their mouths. Most Poles would object. Ask them again in a couple of months and ask them clearly. The question as asked was nuanced. It didn’t ask about support. It asked, “how does the policy make you feel?” I think we all feel worse after September 11, but our objective condition is better. It is analogous to being diagnosed with a disease. When you know you have it, you “feel” worse about it, but you can begin a cure.

Bush’s war on terrorism is as successful as such a war can be at this point. We have not had other attacks on the U.S. We killed or captured many of the bad guys. The terrorists have been at war with us for many years now. It is just that we were not fighting back. Fighting back does not make you popular until you win. I hope a president Gore or Kerry would have fought back. What is the alternative?

As for the terrorists revealing to us their true intentions, let me just quote you. “Frankly, neither I nor the terrorists care if you believe it or not.” Watch the company you keep. “The 9/11 report says bin Laden was infuriated when neither Clinton nor Bush retaliated for the USS Cole incident.” Was this a true statement? So what do we do? If we retaliate, we are “playing into his hands.” If we don’t, the attacks get bigger until we have no freedom left.

War is nasty business. Few people like it. It is always risky and tends to stress any society. But you can’t always ignore what is happening around you and you have to defend yourself unless you want to live in slavery.

I really can’t believe you take terrorist statements at face value. Have you ever bought real estate or used cars? If you want some of either, drop me a line.

A.P.

Wise move! When you know you have no answer, simply dont answer the questions. And keep on talking, even if it means practically reposting your earlier post. Anything to fog up the fact that you have no position on this.

Lets go so far as to say that Al Queda and Al Masri Brigade said what they did. SO WHAT?? If you are taking their counsel on how to vote, then you have lost already. If you are giving any credence to their stated preferences, then you have already lost. You’ve noticed that no one on the left column is supporting your position—-that is sure proof of a losing argument.

Keep on ignoring the questions. If you DO choose to answer them, you’ll have sealed your fate. If you choose to cower in fear before them, you have sealed your destiny.

Joe: Give it up, party line and not common sense prevails here. But at least there is some good news.

AP said “To quote myself,

Your only argument is, “I don’t believe it.” Frankly, neither I nor the terrorists care if you believe it or not. They’ve said they want Bush re-elected. I will be God damned if I vote the terrorist party line.”

One less vote for Kerry!!! YAHOOO

JBD, sorry ain’t learned proper english yet. However, I noticed you did not comment on my remark.

Although AP will not answer your historically based questions, I will. First, all armies use propaganda in wars. However, Al Qaeda is different than those nations you mentined. By being a loose network, they can make idle threats against this nation and others. If you look back at their profile over the last ten to twenty years, you notice a pattern of bragging on how they can influence others.

Do they really want Bush back in office? I don’t know. However, one fact remains clear. If Bush is relected than Congress will have to begin a full oversight in the War on Terror and that my friend is not a good thing.

Henry:

I know nothing about the gold standard, hence my silence on the issue.

You did add power to my point by saying that “all armies use propaganda in wars”. That is precisely why it is so ludicrous for AP to attach any credence at all to what the enemy says.

I’m not sure I understand why you think Congressional oversight on the War on Terror is a bad thing. Our constitution calls for a separation of powers for a reason, in order to create checks and balances. And while sometimes this allows for issues to be politicized (meaning the concern is not actually for a check/balance, but rather for a power grab), it is still good to have oversight from the different branches, in my opinion.

JBD,
Oversight by congress on funding and other appropriate thins is fine. However, I do not want to see what I have been seeing this last summer coming out of the House and Senate committee hearings.

Just listening to the House Arms committee and Senate Hearings should give one to wonder. How can an administration not know simple answers to what the next step is on handling Iraq. JBD, go bak and look at Vietnam and congress arguing over to appropriate the money for this operation or that one.

JBD, heres a link to how the modern gold system works.

Sorry look up www.the-privateer.com/gold-a.html

joe, in a liberal “touchy-feely” kind of way, I understand how disconcerting it must be to have al Qaeda endorse your candidate.

But no amount of denial is going to change the fact that Bush has been a boon to al Qaeda. CIA and State Dept. counterterrorism officials have testified that Bush’s ham-handed, , poorly planned, unilateral occupation of Iraq has swelled the terrorist ranks and made the US less secure. In addition, Bush has been missing chances left and right to win the war on terror on the ideological front.

I’ve laid out a barrage of facts demonstrating that Bush is a failure at homeland security and a failure at fighting terrorists. You’ve chosen to focus on debating whether or not al Qaeda’s endorsement means what it says or is a multi-layered subtrafuge.

One, I think you give the terrorists far too much credit. Two, by failing to address Bush’s ineptitude at counter-terrorism, it appears that you’re conceding the argument.

If that’s the case, not only are you supporting al Qaeda’s preferred candidate, but you’re doing so knowing full well that Bush is ineffective.

AP:

Wow, again with the putting words in my mouth. Perhaps you should try just writing your own posts, rather than trying to guage my posts in advance.

My focus was, and is, on what you called the “most compelling - and damning - reason” for considering Bush to be a failure, which you cited to be that our enemies SAY they want Bush to be re-elected. You have continued to assert that you ARE accepting it, and that it has relevance. In my opinion, that is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity.

Sounds like the ole Uncle Remus stories where Brer Rabbit pleads with Brer Fox not to throw him into the briar patch. You would play the part of Brer Fox.

As far as your “barrage” of information, I didnt see much in the way of factual information. So I focused on what little meat there was.

You have continued to assert that you ARE accepting it… In my opinion, that is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity.

joe, change the ARE to AREN’T and right back atcha. What does that prove? You obviously haven’t convinced me I’m wrong.

As far as your “barrage” of information, I didnt see much in the way of factual information.

Haha! C’mon joe. Should I list them all, or are you just dismissing them all out of hand? :)

I stand by everything I’ve posted. For all the reasons I’ve put forth, Bush gets a failing grade for homeland security and a failing grade for fighting terrorism. He’s so bad, even the terrorists want him re-elected.

jbod said: ” In my opinion, that is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity.”

You made this comment in reference to what another writer said. This is not Critiquing the Message, but the Messenger. It is important for your continued participation here to observe our policy stated at the top of each column.

American Pundit said: “joe, change the ARE to AREN’T and right back atcha.” in response to another writers claim of stupidity.

This tit for tat critiquing of other persons at WatchBlog will not be tolerated. Please observe our policy stated at the top of each column.

Sorry, David. I just assumed joe was talking in general terms. joe, no offense taken and none meant.

AP & Joe,
You both are missing the point. Both Al qaeda and Bush want this war to go on for years. This one move favors the Al Qaeda for they realize that the public will grow weary of deaths everyday. Thus just like Afganistan and Vietnam, the Al Qaeda will win as support for the US and our allies dwindle.

Bush, on the other hand, is looking out for the defense contractors and big business. His ideal plan shows that over the next 5-10 years the US government will need to spend $xxx billions on troops and security. Thus Bush’s motivation is to draw the war out so our defense department (etc.) can remodernize. Forget that we will need to increase the size of our military by 10%, never mind that Iran and North Korea have nukes, and to heck with the Palestine issue that started all this is not trying to be settled.

Al Qaeda knows from history that as great as the US economy is that OPEC back in 1970 was able to blackmail our political leaders. Buy the US running on debt, we face a real need to win the war quickly. Remember this is not a war of stupidity, my land your land that’s not the question. It is however a war of culutures and civilizations. America being the light to the future for the old world vs. Al Qaeda representing a group of people who still believe in the ashes of their brith.

The world has become to big and small at the same time. You must remember that by nature the Arab people are merchants. From the beginning of writen history, they have attended their flocks, worked their laws out among themselve and read their religion. Is that good or is that bad? I will not judge.

However, The West (Jews) introduced nations to tax the wealth and help the people. Thus written civilization. Now they see Americans living in luxury and can not understand why we are bitching about not having this or that. Stop and look at a day in a typical modern day middle easterner and your life. Do you really want to trade spaces? Unless America leads her allies to the next level of civilization and accelimate(sp) the middle eastern people into the process, this is going to be one long century. Facts are facts; the current world economic system does not work for anyone government!!! The changes needed are real and goes against the very nature of the Merchant. Knowledge and Consious(sp) does not fear the spirit, but the Merchant does not want to be cheated, hence Gold Financial System. How it is won is by Truth, our we ready for it?

Henry: “How it is won is by Truth, are we ready for it?”
- Not if we elect Bush OR Kerry

“From the beginning of writen history, they have attended their flocks, worked their laws out amongst themselves and read their religion.”
- So working out their laws includes stapping on bombs or hijacking aircraft and killing innocent civilians? So working out their laws means glorifying those that kill innocent civilians instead of condemning them?

The rest concerning Bush is just your opinion. For every reason the left comes up with putting Bush in bed with big business, the right can come up with reasons to place kerry in bed with someone also.

The two party paradigm is what is destroying this country.

Tim, I never said either Bush or Kerry had the right answer. The fact of the majority of all the world problems created is over money. Sad to say, but the current eomonic model for world DOES NOT WORK! While we set over here averaging $40,000.00/yr, the populace over in that region make at most $2,500.00/yr. Until we address how everyone in the world can afford the bare necessities in life than we will have terrorism. Who exactly that is I do not know (Hence, Truth). For would you be willing to fight if the shoe was on the other foot?

As far as Bush and company, you might want to read how a bunch of No Nothings try to rule our country.

So working out their laws includes stapping on bombs or hijacking aircraft and killing innocent civilians?

There’s actually been an upswing recently in grassroots condemnation of terrorism among Muslims. The Beslan school massacre (all the Muslims I know really love kids) seems to have sparked regular Muslims to rebuke their leaders on radio talk shows and in letters to papers and magazines.

The two party paradigm is what is destroying this country.

I agree. I’d love to see 3rd parties gain a little more strength. Somehow, the Republican and Democratic parties have become blanket parties for all kinds of seperate issues.

Why vote Green if the powerful Democratic Party says they’ve got you covered, right? Why vote libertarian if the ruling Republican Party is promising smaller government?

But this is a subject for our neighbors in the green column, isn’t it?

This topic is about how Bush is a failure at homeland security and a failure at fighting terrorism. He’s so bad, even the terrorists want him re-elected.

How’s that for staying on message?

Henry, thanks, nicely written. Money probably is at the root of most things as you say.
I would not fight over money, only my rights. I was forced to work three jobs in the late nineties, just to have the basics needed, I did not turn to violence for money. And if I am ever forced to fight, I would hope I would not be willing to kill innocent women and children in the name of my cause.

No nothings? I agree with you on that about Bush and company, only I had kerry/edwards to the top of that list.

AP: Didn’t mean to ignore you, lol.
But I honestly have to say, I totally agree with your post.

“This topic is about how Bush is a failure at homeland security and a failure at fighting terrorism. He’s so bad, even the terrorists want him re-elected.”
- Your absolutley correct. It’s really sad to. But I believe kerry would be a total failure. I do not know kerry personally, he might be an ok guy, but his views are not good for Americans.

Tim, Thanks.
Your right about Kerry, but Edwards understands the legal ramifications of not listening to the Wisdom of Elders. The difference is Kerry is willing to set down and talk, Bush wants to stay the course.

We Blog, You decide!

Tim, if you agree that Bush is a total failure, and you feel that way about Kerry (I don’t personally know him either, but he’s just what America needs right now), then why don’t you vote for a 3rd party?