Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The Beard was real, and so are the political ramifications for Bush, but they are still contingent on other things. Remember, in March, Bush beat Saddam in every other way than this one, and six months later, his approval ratings on Iraq were very low. This will boost it, but without Saddams interference (to the extent it was there), he no longer has the advantage of claiming that an obvious, charismatic enemy still at large as being behind all of it.

Translation: Bush may still end up losing on this, if Saddam’s capture is followed by a few months of death and destruction.

As for the economy, I don’t know if you’re aware of this but a number of things get in the truth value of your claims: One, more Americans are being born than are finding new jobs. Two, most of those jobs are McDonald’s type jobs in the service sector. White Collar and Industrial jobs are still losing ground.

The financial community is not optimistic. Signs are that the interest rates are going to go up, that the dollar is going to get weaker, and that the public will continue to stay away from active investing.

And why not? Why give your money to people you don’t trust? Why be a stockholder, if your interests are going to come second to those who you elected to the board of directors? The free market depends upon the good word of it’s participants to maintain the kind of trust that fosters growth. When that is that trust cannot be enforced, people cannot be bother to waste their money investing.

No more stock manipulation, no more destructive conflicts of interest, no more giving big money to people to reward incompetence and corruption. When these things are gone, so too will go American’s reticence about investing. You can either wait a generation or so for people to forget the lessons of this period, or you can advocate that regulators and businesses learn those lessons now, and have an economy that people can place good faith in. Your choice.

Everyone keeps missing the mark. Yes this is a great political coup for Bush, but we went to war on the premise that Saddam had WMD and was an “immenent” threat.

So we caught him? I don’t think this makes the war “off limits” by any means. There is still the whole problem with explaining PNAC and where the WMD’s are.

This is the Right wing “justification” of the war so far:

1.) They have tons of WMD’s!
2.) They *could* be linked to Al Quaeda
3.) Saddam was a bad man!

In no way does this fix all of the lies that put us into this mess.

—Joe

So he personally ordered 9/11 right?

Gone are the days of chastising Bush for not getting it done in Iraq. Now that we’ve achieved one of the most important objectives in Iraq—capturing Hussein—Bush has achieved a large political victory.

All things considered, capturing Hussein is a lesser objective. From what I’ve heard, he didn’t seem to be directing the “Saddam loyalist” attacks. His beard is evidence of 8 months of hiding to save his skin.

The primary objectives in Iraq are restoring stability, establishing a constitution and government, rebuilding the infrastructure, and setting up the country for prosperity and sustainance. And if there are, in fact, any weapons of mass destruction at large, finding them before they fall into terrorist hands should be a high priority.

Capturing Saddam Hussein is a very important symbolic victory, and a cause for widespread rejoice. But any political advantage to Bush is also purely symbolic. We’ve captured the figurehead of brutal dictatorial irreligious socialism. The figurehead of global terror (Osama bin Laden) remains at large. If the U.S. can capture him, Bush will have a much firmer victory.

So expect Democratic congratulations, but don’t expect Dean not to criticize the war plans.

C’mon guys! There’s gotta be a silver lining somewhere ;-)

Reminds me of the guy who was shown the land of milk and honey, but only saw fat and calories.

Like Bremer said, “We got him!”

This is far from symbolic. This is very real to all the people that suffered at his hands, in whose minds he had a larger than life image pumped up by his brutal terror.

In the video that Sanchez showed, Saddam looked like what he really was —- a tired, dejected, sad, rat coward.

A bad guy got caught. And that makes me happy — never mind all the political spin.

“The financial community is not optimistic”

Actually I’d say the financial community is quite optimistic, especially based on this report:

http://www.conference-board.org/economics/press.cfm?press_ID=2284

Yes, this is great news for many people, throughout the world - whether we supported, or opposed, the idea of going to war.

This news will hopefully boost the morale of our brave servicemen and women overseas, something that they could use at a time like this.

And this will hopefully also lift the spirits of Iraqis.

The posts in the other columns at this site, and the comment discussions, have been quite good.

Dustin is right to point out that this is good news for the Bush administration.

Bush and the GOP Establishment will attempt to use this for political gain. And in addition, Lieberman is already trying to do so against Dean.

But after something like this, we should all be happy that this has occured, and try to avoid playing politics with it. We should join together, and be glad that this has happened, and not focus on blaming and attacking each other.

Unfortunately, it seems that many war supporters (as well as some war opponents, perhaps) do not seem to be willing to do this, and may try to excessively use today’s good news for political gain.

That is not good.

Aakash is right. Regardless of supporting or against it, Saddam’s capture is a good thing. Using it as leverage against one opponent for anothers gain is not the thing to do, especially when the next months will really determine what counts.

For now, we should just be happy that something occured which will make life better for people.

Adam, “For now, we should just be happy that something occured which will make life better for people.”

WHAT?????????????????????????????

How about we do something that makes life better for the US?

This Iraq war is like a football game in December when your team is 1 and 15. That easy win in the last game means nothing.

Osama and the anthrax attacker acutally attacked the US.

Instead of finding them, we find a guy who was no danger to us. Ever.

W. is a horrible, horrible man.

We will overcome his presidency.

Jonesy, I completely agree with you. Bush is a despicable man and has caused more problems than he has fixed and gone on to shift the blame for almost everything to anyone else.

But, a tyrant is now gone and that is one step in the right direction. Now Bush just has to make sure he does not screw it up like he probably will.

Cheers

One tyrant may be gone but that doesn’t mean the world is now clean and clear for “freedom to ring everywhere”. Take the USA Patriot Act as an example, we (Americans) have willingly given up Constitutional rights. We allow the RIAA/MPAA to conduct search and seizures without having to get any court orders. There are countless stories of people who are wrongly accused of being “traitors” or having “al Qaeda connections” which the (current) regime doesn’t feel it needs to prove in any way, shape, or form.

I think one dictator just deposed another one — like Stalin helping to topple Hitler. Or the US providing money to the Taliban to drive out the Soviets. Here’s to the new boss, same as the old boss…

“I think one dictator just deposed another one — like Stalin helping to topple Hitler.”

And when I’m in a particularly partisan mode I hope you trumpet that as publically as you can.

Well, we do have a lot in common with other fascist regimes.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Dustin, appears your prediction of Dem’s silence for awhile was pretty dead on accurate. Except for Dean who is getting some press, there are no headlines from the Dem’s. However, as I peruse the RSS feeds closely, I see the Dem’s are in fact speaking on the issue, but, what they have to say can’t seem to match media’s criteria for headlines. Dean being front runner notably excepted. But, even Howard Dean’s remarks aren’t getting a lot of play.

Peculiar how Saddam Hussein for all of the dastardly and horrific acts he has committed is given such press and notoriety. Seems to me there would be a measure of justice if his name was never mentioned again in the press until he testifies, and then not again until he is sentenced, and then not again until he is dead, and then never again except in textbooks noting history. There is something unjust about his name now being set up there (albeit in infamy) with Hitler and Stalin whose names also, should be an exercise in memory recall.

Then that worn paraphrase, those who know not history are condemned to repeat it comes to mind. But, if that is true, and Hitler and Stalin are to this day names of easy recollection, how is it that Saddam Hussein ever came to be their equal?

Yes, Saddam’s capture is a good thing… he was a despot and deserved to be toppled long ago when we first knew of his actions both against Iran and against the Kurds.

Of course, the question isn’t “Would we be better off if Saddam was still in power?” The real question should be “Did it really need to cost so much, in both money and American lives, to get this job done? Was it worth the price we had to pay?” Our reason for going to war in Iraq was not to capture Saddam, but to make America safer. With Afghanistan still in disarray, our first responders underfunded, and our military stretched thin and ill-prepared to deal with any unanticipated threats, do you feel safer? Was it really worth it?

Vivek, It’s like being able to shoot the rabid dog after he’s taken a bite out of your rear. It’s a wonderful thing, granted, but our butt is still bit, and we still might end up foaming at the mouth later. I’ll be satisfied with Bush’s performance when I’ve got stitches and rabies shots from this particular war.

As for the other guy’s people, it’s not the folks I trust. The one’s I trust are telling me that the numbers are good for now, but are going to get worse later. Problem is, the Bush Administration firmly believes that one only needs a psychological pep talk to get the economy going. They ignore the obvious problems of trust that are going on. I mean, even now , we have the mutual fund industry admitting that employees were skimming off the top, and acting against their client’s interests.

This economy does work, in part, by competition, but not every business relationship in a healthy economy can be at cross-interests to one another. The interest of a stockholder and an executive, a mutual fund manager and a client, and a employee and an employer are relationships should all be common, well negotiated interests.

Other wise, why should the average American care about working, about investing, about anything in general? If we don’t enjoy the fruits of our labor, if we get less of a return, or a loss from investing, then how is it in our self interest to participate.

And please, those of you out there, don’t insist people should contribute to the economy just for the sake of the economy. That is definitely not what Adam Smith spoke of when he talked about market controls.

Jonesy is right. The leadership behind the attacks on America are still on the loose. It’s like a police department that can’t find a murderer so they pick up a homeless man with a history of violence and pin it on him to make the citizens happy. Meanwhile the real murderer and the real Anthrax killer are still in the mix and may pop up again any minute. Oh, the FBI and CIA are supposedly just behind them both, but until someone turns them in, like a relative, a neighbor, an ex abused girlfriend, or a rookie cop on patrol at 3AM spots them they will never be caught.

Remember when the American people took pride in important accomplishments such as liberating Europe from the Nazis during World War II? Compared to the really great things that our nation has done in history, toppling a weak Arab regime and capturing its tinpot ruler doesn’t amount to very much.

As soon as the last U.S. troops pull out of Iraq, another “Saddam” will come to power. You can’t suddenly transplant democracy into a country that has lived under a dictatorship for centuries. Who does Bush think he’s kidding anyway?

I’ll point you to Germany and Japan, both dictatorships before WWII and thriving democracies after. With the help of the United States both those nations achieved the holy grail of democracy. Why can’t Iraq?

>>Unfortunately, it seems that many war supporters (as well as some war opponents, perhaps)….may try to excessively use today’s good news for political gain.

That is not good.

I disagree. Running honestly on issues where there are strong disagreements of opinion is what elections are about. Of course each side will and should “exploit them for political gain.”

The problem is when one side or the other is deceitful in their presentation of either events or opinions.

At this point it’s generally Democrats who misrepresent both. Their claims that Bush had “no plan” for post-war Iraq is obviously false, as is their claim that he “lied” about WMD’s and other issues regarding the war.

>>Osama and the anthrax attacker acutally attacked the US.

Instead of finding them, we find a guy who was no danger to us. Ever.

W. is a horrible, horrible man.

First, Hussein tried to kill Pres. Bush Sr. Further, there are strong indicatikons that Hussein has been A) involved in both the first World Trade bombing the Oklahoma bombing, and B)was cooperating and training Al Qaeda.

Once we go through all the documents we find in Iraq and interview the people we’ve captured, I strongly suspect Bush will drop it all on Dean’s head before the election.

I have to wonder what’s going on in the heads of liberals when they demonize Bush. Geez, get a clue.

>>We will overcome his presidency.

Don’t hold your breath, heh.

Richard, I don’t know where you get your stories. I mean, the first WTC attack is one thing, but Oklahoma? I have no idea what kind of connection that would be, or what possible reason Saddam would have to blow up a midwestern federal building.

And as for dropping the evidence on Dean’s head in the debates, I can only ask: why wait? Why is allowing the support to erode from beneath him? Why isn’t he sharing this with the American public now? Isn’t it his job to share such information, especially when he has justified a war to us on a terrorist connection?

And let me give you a picture of what is in the Democrat’s heads now.

When 9/11 occured, there was a glorious time afterwards when it seemed like so many of our differences had washed away, where our nation was united against the threat, and people were actually leading and doing their jobs.

Then, slowly, it became apparent to us that the parties in power were not satisfied with simple cooperation. They were treating the tragedy as a boon to their agenda, a vindication of their policy picture of the world. Afghanistan was easy. Only the fringe opposed that.

But Iraq? When I got wind of Iraq, my first question was “Why?” I would have started putting pressure on Syria or Iran. I would have tidied up Afghanistan and put a serious effort into finding Osama Bin Laden before I even thought of going elsewhere.

Iraq was weak as center for terrorism, compared to it’s neighbors. I mean, we probably have more documentary evidence of Saudi Arabia supporting terrorism than we do of Iraq.

What Iraq’s done is make it clear that Bush is not as concerned about terrorism as he is about reshaping the politics of the Middle East. Maybe he’s convinced himself that it’s a way of fighting terrorism, but in the end this war on terrorism seems to be more about disarmament and neutralization of countries Bush deems “Evil”

Not a bad set of motives but there are a couple problems for us democrats out there: first he’s not being honest. He could tell us that as part of insuring the national security of this country that he is actively demanding the disarming of nations with WMD, and is putting in policies to limit their proliferation, but he doesn’t say that. Why? My guess is he doesn’t want to look like he’s doing nothing about terrorism. The truth is, though, many of us already have that perception already. The second problem is that he is steamrolling over the international law that makes the defense of our nation and our allies far easier, and that he is projecting the image of somebody who does not care about the rules unless it’s to his own advantage.

In other words, the man who represents our democracy gives the impression to the world of a man who does not believe in the rule of law. What is worse, is that his actions serve as precedent for leaders of more totalitarian countries to act without regard to international law. They can take the Bush Doctrine and make it their own. They’ve already used Bush’s stance on terrorism to crackdown on dissidents, what makes you think they’ll pass up this opportunity? Bush should understand that his attempts to free himself of the constraints of international law go both ways. If he pulls too much of the enemy combatant crap, our soldiers might end up suffering more for it, with us powerless to respond.

In short, Bush presents to liberals like myself a man who does not approach his office with the due humility of a public servant, but instead with the reckless arrogance of a monarch or a dictator. And we fear that, not in some weak kneed way, but in that apprehensive way one does when one faces the beginnings of a truly terrible crisis.

The fear I feel for this country, in the hands of George W. Bush, is the fear I felt the first time I saw the planes crash into the towers.

Not the fear of the terrorists. I only had anger for them. But the fear of what some in our country would do to our government in the face of such an extreme incident. The fear that this would be the incident that marks the beginning of the end for the just and democratic government that our fathers and fore-fathers had died to preserve for 200 years.

I knew looking at those burning towers that this event would test America’s integrity, it’s resolve to remain true to the promise of freedom and liberty for all.

I for one do not want to see 9/11 become the cause that has us destroy the rule of law that’s kept this nation clean of tyrants and dictators. I for one do not want to see us firing the first shot in war after war, with our agression justified with nothing better but flimsy evidence.

The truth is, whether or not Bush has done a good thing with Iraq, he’s done a terrible thing by taking the path he has with the war. It’s bad enough that he’s stirred up the hornets nest. I trust the country could survive quite a few stings. No, what makes what he’s done so reprehensible is the path that he’s guided us onto, the bad habits that will undoubtedly follow his administration if he becomes the example to follow. The better he does imposing his will on the world, and encroaching on civil liberties, the more we will cease being Americans as our founding fathers envisioned.

>>Richard, I don’t know where you get your stories. I mean, the first WTC attack is one thing, but Oklahoma? I have no idea what kind of connection that would be, or what possible reason Saddam would have to blow up a midwestern federal building.

Two women, one of whom was a TV journalist who gave up her job to pursue investigating this, came up with lots of evidence, including sworn eyewitness accounts, of an Iraqi who helped in the bombing. Do you recall how the FBI put out a report to be on the lookout for a dark-skinned, Middle-eastern looking accomplice? Very strange how that report was pulled back within hours.

Further, Timohty McVeigh took a trip to either the Philipines or Indonesia, I forget, home of Islamic terrorists, where he apparently disappeared for a few days. The Wall St. Journal went into some detail about incomplete evidence that he met with them and received training in explosives. Also McVeigh had made anti-US statements in sympathy for what was happening under the embargo in Iraq.

And Col. David Hackworth wrote a column for Newsweek asserting that there is no way a non-professional person like McVeigh could have set off a bomb that lethal, made from simply fertilizer. He said categorically that it had to be a “shaped charge” to have done that kind of damage. McVeigh never could have done this without extensive training.

>>And as for dropping the evidence on Dean’s head in the debates, I can only ask: why wait? Why is allowing the support to erode from beneath him? Why isn’t he sharing this with the American public now? Isn’t it his job to share such information, especially when he has justified a war to us on a terrorist connection?

Given the irresponsible and frequently dishonest claims by Dean and other Democrats, why not wait? Give them as much rope as they need to hang themselves in their irresponsibility. Democrats deceitfully have hammered Bush for making statements without absolute 100% proof, so why should Bush warn them in advance about incomplete proof?

>>When 9/11 occured, there was a glorious time afterwards when it seemed like so many of our differences had washed away, where our nation was united against the threat, and people were actually leading and doing their jobs.
Then, slowly, it became apparent to us that the parties in power were not satisfied with simple cooperation. They were treating the tragedy as a boon to their agenda, a vindication of their policy picture of the world.

Um, no offense, but Bush is under no obligation to split the difference with Democrats in exerting his Constitutional authority on foreign policy. Or his Constitutional obligation to defend the US. And from my perception, it was Daschle and the Democrats were most partisan, not Bush.

>> I got wind of Iraq, my first question was “Why?” I would have started putting pressure on Syria or Iran. I would have tidied up Afghanistan and put a serious effort into finding Osama Bin Laden before I even thought of going elsewhere. Iraq was weak as center for terrorism, compared to it’s neighbors.

Because there’s lots and lots of evidence linking Hussein with Bin Laden. And growing daily.

It was politically simpler to go after Hussein than the others. But it sets a precedent and puts fear into the rest.

>>What Iraq’s done is make it clear that Bush is not as concerned about terrorism as he is about reshaping the politics of the Middle East.

The two are inseparable.

>>Not a bad set of motives but there are a couple problems for us democrats out there: first he’s not being honest. He could tell us that as part of insuring the national security of this country that he is actively demanding the disarming of nations with WMD, and is putting in policies to limit their proliferation, but he doesn’t say that.

He has said that, if I recall.

Besides, how the heck can Democrats question Bush’s honesty, after so enthusiastically supporting a sociopathic liar like Clinton, whose word about nothing could be trusted?
>>In other words, the man who represents our democracy gives the impression to the world of a man who does not believe in the rule of law.

Geez, what “law” prevents him from overturning Iraq?

>> What is worse, is that his actions serve as precedent for leaders of more totalitarian countries to act without regard to international law. They can take the Bush Doctrine and make it their own.
Uh, not to bother you with reality, but totalitarian countries could care less about international law. The only thing that controls their behavior is the violent consequence from a country like the US.

>>In short, Bush presents to liberals like myself a man who does not approach his office with the due humility of a public servant, but instead with the reckless arrogance of a monarch or a dictator. And we fear that, not in some weak kneed way, but in that apprehensive way one does when one faces the beginnings of a truly terrible crisis.
The fear I feel for this country, in the hands of George W. Bush, is the fear I felt the first time I saw the planes crash into the towers. Not the fear of the terrorists.

Sorry, but you are a member of the truly clueless Left if you have no fear of Al Qaeda, yet fear of Bush. Al Qaeda has specifically expressed its intention of attacking the US with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons if it has the chance.

But you’re fearful of Bush? Get a grip on reality.

>>I for one do not want to see us firing the first shot in war after war, with our agression justified with nothing better but flimsy evidence.

We went duly to the UN to get a vote warning Hussein to give up his WMD’s. He did not. We had the legal and moral ability to overturn his evil regime. You don’t seem to understand that Islamic extremists have been attacking us for more than a decade now. The hornet’s nest was stirred up long before Bush took office. He’s simply the first person to take comprehensive action against the governments that support them.

Perhaps the hornets were flying around before, but even by Bush’s own admission, now they’re swarming.

He went to the UN, but he never went there with a mind to be bound by their decision. He was going to get his way whether or not the UN support him, which defeated the purpose of making the humble gesture of getting UN approval. If that was the way he wanted it, he could have used the pre-existing UN decisions as his causus belli, and saved everybody the trouble. As I remember though, Bush only had Majority approval on Iraq in the polls if he sought out UN support.

You know, we could have gone in, should have gone in, simply on the matter of his defiance, that he did not respect the UN’s right to inspect his country for the WMDs, that he was breaking the treaty under which hostilities were ended.

Of course, If Bush hadn’t tied things into terrorism or hadn’t been convinced to, it would look like Bush was taking a big detour from the war on terrorism, and not taking care of it. Oh, he couldn’t have that.

No matter that the refusal to allow unrestrained inspections could have been cause enough, especially if it were continued, and you would have never had to have proved one weapon even existed any more. Never mind that. Your people had to please the polls. Your people, for all their protests about doing things on their own, had to keep up appearances, instead of putting their money where their mouth was.

As I said before, I am not afraid of terrorists. I won’t allow myself to be. They want to change our behavior by force, and that is something I will never allow somebody to do. I fear what they can do, sure enough, but I believe that these people leave their own trails to be followed, and if we are diligent enough, we can roll up the terrorist networks, or at least compromise their efficiency.

But if our response is to become more of a police state to do so, then we have already lost, for then we replace the terrorist’s atrocities against our neighbor and ourselves with our own.

The founding fathers gave us the bill of rights so our government wouldn’t take it upon itself to try and make up our minds for us. We do not need our government becoming a law unto itself even if it’s supposedly to protect us from the bad guys. We will not preserve those freedoms by destroying them.

“Besides, how the heck can Democrats question Bush’s honesty, after so enthusiastically supporting a sociopathic liar like Clinton, whose word about nothing could be trusted?”

Would you accept this, Richard?

*Besides, how the heck can Republicans question Clinton’s honesty, after so enthusiastically supporting a sociopathic liar like Nixon, whose word about nothing could be trusted?*

Don’t like it, do you? Pigeon holes you too much. Leaves out the obvious question: Does the corruption of a political opponent who precedes you give you a free pass on those questions yourself? My answer: No.

Look, I think the Bush Administration is making a lot of bad decisions based on political expedience and lowered standards of evidence. We’re allowing ourselves to become undisciplined and sloppy in our international behavior because there’s this perception that our adherence to certain rules made us too rigid to deal with 9/11. I would disagree. It was sloppiness and a lack of discipline.

The trouble is, I don’t see the Bush Administration doing much to improve the discipline of the various agencies out there. I don’t see them seeking the absolute best standards of intelligence.

I see them saying they can get away with a bare minimum of cause for getting us into conflicts like Iraq, because they’ve had their Right-Thinking caps on and we should trust them without question.

Well, I don’t think that’s good enough for government work, thank you very much.

>>Perhaps the hornets were flying around before, but even by Bush’s own admission, now they’re swarming.

Yes, and isn’t it nice that terrorists are putting themselves against well trained and armed troops in a shooting gallery like Iraq? Rather than organizing in secret to attack soft targets inside the US? I’m suprised they’re so stupid as to do so.

>>He went to the UN, but he never went there with a mind to be bound by their decision. He was going to get his way whether or not the UN support him, which defeated the purpose of making the humble gesture of getting UN approval.

To repeat, the UN is a corrupt organization that for decades supported the Soviet Union over the US and its free allies. It’s also incapable of doing much of anything decisive, even when genocide is being committed. It sat on its hands during the killing in Bosnia and Rwanda, to cite just two.

Why should it matter that Bush did what was right, even if the French and Germans obstructed him on the final vote? Why are we morally wrong to overturn Hussein, just to free the Iraqi people?

Why aren’t you condeming France and Germany

>> If that was the way he wanted it, he could have used the pre-existing UN decisions as his causus belli, and saved everybody the trouble.

He arguably was too accomodating, but went the last time as a favor to Tony Blair. The vote certainly confirmed the near-uselessnes of the UN, if nothing else.

>>As I remember though, Bush only had Majority approval on Iraq in the polls if he sought out UN support.

Bush is not supposed to look at polls when defending the US. Clinton did, and the results were a disaster, even according to many of his former advisers.

>>You know, we could have gone in, should have gone in, simply on the matter of his defiance, that he did not respect the UN’s right to inspect his country for the WMDs, that he was breaking the treaty under which hostilities were ended.

Becaues Hussein had already been orderd by the UN to give up his WMD’s or face the consequences. He was in defiance for years. Nothing else was necessary.

>>Of course, If Bush hadn’t tied things into terrorism or hadn’t been convinced to, it would look like Bush was taking a big detour from the war on terrorism, and not taking care of it. Oh, he couldn’t have that.
No matter that the refusal to allow unrestrained inspections could have been cause enough, especially if it were continued, and you would have never had to have proved one weapon even existed any more. Never mind that. Your people had to please the polls. Your people, for all their protests about doing things on their own, had to keep up appearances, instead of putting their money where their mouth was.

This is blather.

>>As I said before, I am not afraid of terrorists. I won’t allow myself to be.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re afraid or not. You’ll still be dead if you’re near the attack.

I am not personally afraid the slightest, but I’m quite afraid that there in time will be a deadly attack using biological or nuclear weapons. It believe it’s likely eventually.

>>”Besides, how the heck can Democrats question Bush’s honesty, after so enthusiastically supporting a sociopathic liar like Clinton, whose word about nothing could be trusted?”

>>Would you accept this, Richard?

What’s “this?” You have yet to verify a single mistake or false statement by Bush. I continue to ask you to do so.

*Besides, how the heck can Republicans question Clinton’s honesty, after so enthusiastically supporting a sociopathic liar like Nixon, whose word about nothing could be trusted?*

I never thought Nixon was highly trustworthy, nor did most Republicans, but he was a model of virtue compared to Clinton.

>>Don’t like it, do you? Pigeon holes you too much. Leaves out the obvious question: Does the corruption of a political opponent who precedes you give you a free pass on those questions yourself? My answer: No.

I would never ask for a pass. Nixon was what Nixon was. I would strongly have had a different Republican as president. But I don’t believe Nixon as sociopathic; he lied for political reasons under difficult circumstances.

But I think it’s a legitimate question to ask how Democrats could in quick succession, go from supporting a sociopathic liar like Clinton, who lied about everythign sometimes for no reason at all, to questioning an HONEST president like Bush.

Cite me ONE SINGLE LIE by Bush. Not things that have not yet been verified, but a real lie.

>>Look, I think the Bush Administration is making a lot of bad decisions based on political expedience and lowered standards of evidence.

Look, attacking Iraq was anything but “expedient.” Look the word up. There would not have been much risk to doing nothing, if there was no case against Hussein. The real risk to Bush was going to war. It was an act of political courage.

Really, what advantage was there to go after Hussein? I expect an answer.