Third Party & Independents: Archives

You mean.. what were the Justices thinking when they stopped the re-counts which allowed Bush to steal the election….

Well enough American had to vote for the man for it to get even that far…

Yes, Edward, thats exactly what I was saying when I supported Orin Hatch for president in 2000. me and about 10 other people. Bush won simple because republicans thought he had the “best chance” to beat gore (remind you of anyone else? cough.. john kerry… cough). The problem is that neither Gore nor Bush would have made very good president, so people just voted with whose party affiliation they liked best. We have the same situation again- neither Bush or Kerry will make a good president, so again, what choice will people who want someone “intellect, of vision, of wisdom”? I was considering making a protest vote for the libertarian party candidate, but I read his blog, and he rather intellectually dim.

On a side note, when Republican did have someone with vision and intellect as president (Reagan), the Democrats still called him an idiot and said all the things they say now about Bush. While I agree basically with the view that Bush isnt very sharp and isnt a good president, democrats tend to say that about every conservative (either that, or they call him a bigot), so the American people have tuned out that particular rhetorical tool. Its like the political party who cried wolf…

To Mark-
I am so sick of the line that the supreme court somehow “stole” the election from the good-hearted liberals who just wanted every vote to count. lets settle this, once and for all. There were two “high court” decisions rendered about the THIRD round of recounts to be ordered. First, there was the Florida supreme court- which by a 4-3 decision decided to change the date and method of recounting away from what the legislature said. All 7 justices were liberals (all appointed by democrats ect), including the chief justice, who wrote a scathing dissent. Then the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court were all the liberal justices chose for more recounts, while all the conservatives justices, chose for no more recounts. So lets do the final tally.

# of justices who said there should not be yet ANOTHER recount: 5 conservatives, 3 liberals

# of justices who said there should be yet another recount: 8 liberals

How which side looks more partisan to you? just some food for thought (I actually think BOTH the Florida supreme court and the United States supreme court were wrong in this case- the Florida supreme court contravened the will of the people as expressed through the legislature and the U.S. supreme court violated federalist principles). Also, keep in mind that every single recount done by Gore’s standards post Florida came out in favor of Bush, often by even bigger margins. Finally, note that liberal did everything they could to exclude absentee ballots from being counted on all kinds of technicalities- simply because absentee ballots tend to be more conservative (cause they are from the military). Ok I am glad I got that off my chest.

Misha,

Your argument about the Supreme Court in 2000 is mostly strong, but you lose my interest when you complain about Democrats excluding absentee ballots on “technicalities” like being cast after the election.

I dont believe they were cast AFTER the election- they were cast before, but there were some problems with post-marks and delivery of the ballots from oversees that were not the fault of the actual voters. Rather than going by the “every vote must count” principal, dems. tried to get as many as they could thrown out on technicalities. Of course, had the shoe been on the other foot, and absentee ballots been historically pro-Democrat, I am sure Republicans would have been trying to get them thrown out. All I was saying is that to say the democrats had some sort of moral high-horse in terms of counting ballots of “every voter” in Florida 2000 is just partisan rhetoric.

For an absentee ballot, the definition of being cast is having a postmark. When the postmarks were after the election, the ballots were cast after the election. To assume that the choices were selected before the election and were thus somehow valid despite the standing law is very, very strange way to determine a legal vote.

How can you possibly assume that a ballot with an invalid postmark is legal? How can you expect an election commissioner to ethically make that call?

Imagine my shock to see that you guys weren’t won over by Bush tonight! And that you’re still mad that the Florida Supreme Court wasn’t allowed to pick the president in 2000!

Well, actually, I’m glad that this is back in the open—ever since the Florida recount, many of us have suspected that these lingering resentments (which come down to not winning) have played a big part in the left’s interpretion of any and all subsequent events. There’s a war on, we’re in a crucial stage in Iraq, and some want to go back to talking about hanging and dimpled chads! Amazing!

Many of the reporters tonight made themselves look ridiculous—all those canned repetitive questions about the PDB, did Bush feel responsible for 9-11, did he want to apologize for it, etc. Imagine if all reporters could think to ask Roosevelt on D-day was if he wanted to apologize for Pearl Harbor. Their incredible shallowness and lack of appreciation of ongoing events was on all full display as they tried, with increasing desparation, to manufacture soundbites and headlines like “Bush Begs Forgiveness for 9-11” and “Bush Offers Prostrate Mea-Culpa Before the World.” Most of them might as well have worn their John Kerry t-shirts tonight—they were that transperant and off the mark.

Lawnboy- I dont disagree that technicalities might require that votes be thrown out- i never said that throwing out the absentee ballots was wrong. Just like technicalities caused some votes by democrats not be counted- and that was probably not wrong either. My only point was that the fight to exclude absentee ballots was out of pure political motivation and the left shouldnt pretend like it had some sort of moral high ground about it in Florida. Both sides wanted to enforce technicalities (rightly or wrongly) that would help their candidate win- any other view is revisionist, partisan history.

Misha,

I agree that both sides were fighting for what they thought was the best scenario to win the election. Both sides relied on technicalities to try to push the count their way, so neither has complete ownership of the moral high ground. However, I don’t think that excluding votes cast after the election is a good example of Democrat dirty tricks.

I can think of some examples from the Republicans off the top of my head (I’m not going to get into that now), but I can’t think of any good ones from the Democrats. Go figure - I’m a Democrat - I’ll tend to remember what offended me, not what was done for my side. It’s the nature of human nature.

That “press conference” was a joke. How can the president take no responsibility for anything and provide no plan for the future?

Martin,

I’m curious what questions you would consider fair. I thought that some of the attempted traps were a bit lame, but there were also a couple useless softballs (“You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?”).

But when the postwar effort has been bungled as badly as it was, the 9/11 Commission and the PDB bringing up some serious questions, and the WMD issues unresolved, do you think that tough questions are uncalled for?

In my opinion, the questions from the March 2003 pre-war press conference were almost exclusively softballs, and no one asked tough questions. A New York Times reporter explained the softballs this way:

I think we were very deferential because…it’s live, it’s very intense, it’s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you’re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country’s about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time. - Wash Post

I’m glad the seriousness of the situation we are now in lead some reporters to ask tough questions and not be too deferential. It’s their job, and it’s not because they want Kerry to win.

I know some would have preferred to see Bush say, “Jeez, you know, everything from 9-11 to Baathist terrorists is a result of my incompetence and somebody else should be president.” In fact, nothing less would have satisfied his domestic opponents—but sorry. Bush’s resolve and determination was the real story tonight, and doubtless what many Americans saw who until now have only been spoon-fed soundbites from a hostile Kerry-sympathizing media corps (which though on full display failed utterly tonight to draw any blood).

Get used to it, he’s going to be your President for 4 more years!

I’m not enjoying how the press is covering last night’s press conference. We’re seeing excerpts from the speech, not the question period, so of course he doesn’t look disarmingly incompetent. The questions period, however, was almost too embarrassing to watch. What have we gotten ourselves into by electing this man? And why doesn’t the press include in its soundbites even the possible implication that the emperor has no clothes?

He laid out his vision, and why he was morally right in his past decisions, but he didn’t give us any reason to believe that he is capable of achieving those goals. It’s still all “Plan A,” without a Plan B in sight. It’s terrifying to me that this man leads our country.

Get used to it, he’s going to be your President for 4 more years!

Don’t break out the champagne yet. He has to be re-elected first. In the first half of april, around seventy soldiers have died.

Now, this is just speculation, just spitballing, but I want to make a point to you.

Let’s say the rate after today drops in half. Fine, 35 soldiers die in half a month.

Total for April: 105.

at that rate it’s seventy for each month afterwards. probably won’t be, but this is abstracted here.

Total soldiers killed after april:
May: 175
June: 245
July: 315
August: 385
September: 455
October:525

So, from the beginning of april to the end of october, we lose 525 soldiers. That’s going at half the rate for each two week period afterwards. The total at this point is 674 American soldiers killed, so, adjusting for how many soldiers have died since the beginning of the month, that means we’ll be adding 450 deaths to the roles following the pattern I put forward. 450 + 674= 1124.

So, if the trend continues at half the pace we have now, then the result will be that Americans have lost more than a thousand soldiers by election day.

I don’t know. It could get better, it could get worse. if we keep this pace up, then 140*6= 840 add seventy to that, and you get 910. 910+674= 1584 deaths.

Of course, these are just abstracts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush has at least a thousand Americans dead in Iraq by the end of the year. God I hope that’s a conservative estimate.

I share Misha’s disgust with hearing the Democrats constant whining about the 2000 election. The real thiefs, or attempted thiefs, at least, were the Democrats. Despite President Bush winning the original vote count, winning the count after all the write-ins, winning the automatic recount, winning the recount started by the Florida Supreme Court, winning the imaginary recounts done by a LIBERAL mass media, including winning by the standard Al Gore wanted, somehow BUSH stole the election? What a joke. The Supreme Court agreed 7-2, a landslide vote, that the Florida Supreme Court stepped way out of bounds. They also agreed by the 5-4 vote that there was no more time to implement a solution.

Not to mention, all PROVEN allegations of voter fraud (buying homeless votes for cigarettes in Milwaukee, et al), were committed by Democrats.

The Democrats tried their utmost to steal the 2000 election. Despite absolutely NO evidence, none, zip, zero, nada, that Al Gore won Florida, they nearly succeeded. Since they failed, they try to turn it around and blame the thievery on Republicans. Don’t let them fool you.

Lawnboy, the wording of the softball you mentioned:

(“You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?”)

That may have been softball wording, but it does shine light on the heart of the issue. If one goes all the way PREEMPTIVE in one’s approach, one is castigated for not having dotted all the i’s or crossed all the t’s intelligence-wise and international-support-wise; if one goes all the way REACTIVE in one’s approach, you get all the blame games of the Left in the 9/11 Commission that really just amount to “how DARE you not be a psychic and not know the exact time and place they would strike! For SHAME mister president! IMPEACH!!!”

It’s silly. There is no perfect antiterrorist policy because it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Just like the Mess O’Potamia right now: we’re damned (to lose more American lives) if we stay, and damned (to look like we abandoned Iraq and didn’t clean up the mess we made) if we leave. There is no winning it.

I will say this: we had the option to not invade Iraq. We did not have the option to not make the terrorists hate us.

So while I give Bush (yes, AND Clinton) a pass for 9/11, I do not give Bush a pass for Iraq. Iraq might not have been better off with Saddam in charge of it, but the U.S. certainly would have been. And Bush is supposed to be OUR president, looking after OUR interests, in the world.

Ciggy,

My complaint is the softball wording. I agree there’s a good question at the core of it. In fact, that reporter’s second question was a much better rephrasing (“And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?”).

The problem with the first question is that it inherently says “Your opponents are being hypocritical. Would you care to respond?” There’s just nothing to that question.

Unfortunately, Bush never really answered either form of the question. He said “The American people need to know my last choice is the use of military power”, which doesn’t tell us anything.

Stephen: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush has at least a thousand Americans dead in Iraq by the end of the year. God I hope that’s a conservative estimate.”

Are you kidding me? Rooting for the deaths of Americans now because you think it will help defeat Bush? We know Democrats do this all the time—but for god’s sake, YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ADMIT IT! (mind if I send your post around to some of my favorite right wing websites?—they love these little windows into the Democratic mind).

I forgot to spout off on the so-called “stealing” of the election:

There are only so many recounts prescribed by law, and the Supreme Court upheld that law and the number of recounts given. The count was the count was the count. Bush did squeak by in Florida, in spite of idiots who piped up later saying “gee, I didn’t know I was voting for Bush when I hit his chad.” If there were a minimum IQ requirement for voting they’d be screened out anyway, so they can just have a nice hot cup of STFU if you ask me.

I don’t really blame Gore for not wanting to give up without a fight, but to claim the election was “stolen” after the last recount was done, that’s just childish. How many recounts did he want, fifty thousand?

About the electoral college, I will say that it was made the way it was because of the state of technology in the 18th century. I really don’t think the Founders would have a problem with direct elections by popular vote if they knew about real-time computer systems, etc.

I also don’t get what all this luddite fear is about computerized voting. There can be verifiable electronic trails and hand-offs and tokens and semaphores in such a system, along with bar-coded printouts of what a person’s vote was in case a paper recount is needed. If anything it’s easier to get away with vote fraud when it’s all paper because boxes of paper ballots can disappear into the river or at the landfill, if you know what I mean.

It amazes me to no end the free pass Bush gets by our national media. Do you conservatives laugh as much as I do when someone mentions the “liberal media?”

Earlier this year, Howard Dean was humiliated by the networks constantly running and re-running footage of his scream speech. Last night, I watched in disbelief as our President stammered, stuttered and looked altogether bewildered at every question he was asked. Will any of this footage show up in the news? It’s unlikely. They will probably focus on his 17 minute prepared speech, which is fine, but what of the rest of the press conference? This is a man I have little love for, and even I felt sorry for him under questioning.

Do you Bush supporters really believe he was simply dodging the media elites to talk directly to the common American? Do you really have such a low opinion of American citizens?

Yes, Lawnboy, I would say that ultimately,
(“Your opponents are being hypocritical. Would you care to respond?”) that would be a good hardball question to the opponents, but just a meaningless monologue setup for Bush himself. I see your point.

I do think that when Bush said (“The American people need to know my last choice is the use of military power”), this must be a new and different policy after learning from his mistake in Iraq. If he could just admit that as being a lesson learned, I could almost come reasonably close to respecting him for it.

Bo, the media is both liberal and conservative. By some coincidence, the American people are both liberal and conservative. Neither group is a monolith, nor are their populations homogenous.

If you want more liberal coverage, try the Washington Post. If you want more conservative, there’s Fox News.

Is this still brain surgery to you?

And do you think it’s the CONSERVATIVE agenda that plays and replays Howard Dean’s screaming meltdown speech? Democrats had an interest in making sure Dean didn’t get the primary nod. Republicans would have loved nothing more than to have an opportunity to put Bush against Dean. Kerry’s a tougher nut to crack because of his military record.

Oh boy.

Martin, please give Stephen a chance to retract before spreading that line around. I earnestly think and hope that Stephen just mistyped.

Stephen?

Democratic fundraisers in Florida call for the assasination of Donald Rumsfeld:
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGALA0QS0TD.htmlAfter

Stephen hopes that a thousand deaths in Iraq will be a conservative estimate.

And if you’re wondering how much lower the Democratic party will sink, check this out.

http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/001113.html

This is what the Democratic party has come to—villifying, hoping for or even calling for the deaths of anything that stands in the way of turning the White House into an episode of the West Wing (that elitist alternate reality where Dems run the show, liberal policies don’t fall flat on their faces, and everybody knows that a Texas accent equals a buffoon).

Okay, I’ll hold my fire for now—but I don’t see how you “mistype” so many words and numbers in succession. You’re hoping that Bush doesn’t get elected, you start adding up the numbers that might make your wish come true, you realize that the larger the number the more likely your political agenda is to be realized—you want that number larger and larger! What could be clearer?

Ciggy, you seem to be agreeing with me, despite your insult. I was posting in reference to what Rob Berkes posted above: “winning the imaginary recounts done by a LIBERAL mass media.” I never claimed the media has a conservative bias. Not many people make that claim, but millions of people seem to cling to the myth that the media is some kind of liberal propaganda machine. Why don’t you chastize Rob if you think the media has equal biases to both parties?

Martin,

There are conservative extremists (some on this board) who have suggested Nuking Iraq to glass and starting over. There are conservative extremists who made up insinuations that Clinton murdered one of his best friends.

There are extremists on each side who go to far (and I again hope Stephen will clarify his remark), so it’s bluster to point to liberal folly and ignore the folly in your own ranks. Please don’t resort to such rhetoric when there’s so much to debate for real.

Berkes,

I suppose you would prefer to ignore the fact that Bush’s BROTHER was the Governor of Florida at the time, and that the co-chair for his election effort in Florida was the SECRETARY OF STATE in charge of CERTIFYING THE VOTE!!! Conflicts of interest like that make Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself from the case pending regarding Cheney’s Energy Task Force pale in comparison.

I suppose you would also like to ignore the documeted efforts of the same Secretary of State to wongly exclude from the voter rolls those entitled to vote who were also conveniently likely to vote Democratic.

To say that Bush et al were innocent school children merely trying to resist the filthy intentions of Gore et al to steal the election is a remarkable demonstration of gross ignorance.

I agree that it is inflammatory to say that Bush “stole” the election. Let’s just say that I’m not exactly comfortable with the results — too many questions unresolved, too quick a rush to judgment. There was no pressing need to determine the president-ELECT so hurriedly.

Despite this, what is most discomforting is that despite outcome of the Electoral College, Bush lost the popular vote by close to half a million votes. Meaning - he doesn’t have a clear mandate from the electorate. He probably has approval governing from the center-right, but this kind of extreme right approach is not what people voted for. He demonstrated no sensitivity to his precarious position — a win was a win in his book.

This is all old news, however, What’s done is done — water needs to pass under the bridge. Democrats have a right to be bothered by the results of Election 2000, but to fixate on it is to only extend the perception of Democrats as sore losers. However legitimate the gripes may be, people don’t like it, and that’s that. What is at issue right now is Bush’s lack of leadership, mandate or not.

I agree with the poster in that Bush has stunningly relied on a “faith-based” approach to leadership. Basically it’s: don’t make me explain stuff, just trust me. The problem is that Bush has a credibility gap now, and that line of reasoning doesn’t work any more. The American people deserve answers as what is line of reasoning is for fighting the War on Terrorism , and the war in Iraq, not just summary conclusions, like we will win. How? Using what means? Bush had an opportunity to do this last night, and he blew it. Bush’s leadership has been a lesson in ambiguity — “We’ll be there as long as it takes.”

Finally, with regard to requests for an apology, or some admission of a mistake, people aren’t asking for a mea culpa. Don’t blow this out of proportion. People aren’t looking for the President to apologize for the actions of bin Laden. People understand that an apology doesn’t equate to guilt for the actions of another. Do you think that the administrators of Columbine High School didn’t apologize to the parents and family of the victims there? It is simply a demonstration of the willingness to be accountable for things that happen on your watch — something Bush has strenuously avoided. He’s never wrong (where are those WMDs again?), he never makes a mistake (he’s sure he’s made some, but he conveniently can’t come up with any), and he doesn’t have to apologize for anything (is asked directly, and blatantly avoids it). I’m sorry, but by my definition, that’s not a leader.

FACT 1: Iraq was not and has never been a threat to the security of the United States. He had no nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missles. We knocked him out in two weeks, twice.
FACT 2: Hussien threatened the stability of the Middle East by invading Kuwait in 1991.
FACT 3: Hussien was once a. threat to the security of Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia.
FACT 4: Israeli and US force coupled with UN sanctions crippled Hussien militarily.
FACT 5: We know Hussien had weapons of mass destruction because we provided the technology and encouraged their use against Iran during that hostage crisis. But the key word is “had”.
FACT 6: The changing basis for war in Iraq is an exercise in deception and hypocrisy which 90% of the American press and 50% of the voting public has bought hook line and sinker. Why are people so stupid?

Martin, you are reading into Stephen’s comment what you want to see. He gave numbers 50% larger than the 1000 by the end of the year. He is hoping the conservative estimate, i.e., the lower estimate is the real one and not the 1500+ he referred to.

It is consistent with hoping for lower casualties if you read it for its intent instead of for spin.

Believe me, it’s not what I want to see any American saying. I’m reading it just for what it says. Its intent (as evidenced by the lead-in quote) is to look for a reason the hoped for dream of defeating Bush might occur—and in this case, that reason is the deaths of American servicemen.

Perhaps the post doesn’t mean what it says and the poster just succumbed to momentarily emotional hyperbole, but when your main political goal is to defeat Bush shouldn’t you be very careful about using not only real but projected numbers about the deaths of Americans to make a political point? Even if that’s not your intention, can’t you see the danger in appearing to take political satisfaction at a rising death toll?

I want to give the poster the benefit of the doubt here because I agree that the sentiment seems inconsistent with the other posts of an established and usually fairly reasonable poster here. I await a full explanation—which we definitely need when somebody says he hopes a thousand deaths will prove a conservative number.

ciggy, I would say some of the luddite fear is well founded. as an IT professional, it may be odd for me to say that, but I think it is of the utmost importance that any system have a CLEAR and VERIFIABLE way of proving who you voted for. It is possible to accomplish that with tech, but we’re not there yet, and definitely not there yet with educating the public on how it would work. the possibility of fraud is just too great, although maybe not much greater than our current system.

TUBE,
yes, I would dismiss Jeb Bush being governor of Florida. He dismissed himself from the process immediately, before anyone even asked him to. Katherine Harris being his campaign chair only implies the possibility of wrong-doing. yet it appears she followed the letter of the law to a t.
both of these are just unsubstantiated implications of wrongdoing with no proof that anything untowards happened. yet PROOF of fraud, such as the Milwaukee videotape of campaign workers bribing the homeless to vote Democratic, was ignored by the liberal media.
You can’t dismisses the fact that Bush won every single count of the votes ever taken and every single count that was proscribed by Florida law. Democrats whining about the result of those votes is just sour grapes.
to say there was no pressing need to decide the vote by a certain time ignores federal law and the meeting of the electoral college to determine the winner. Al Gore was ready to subvert the entire system in order to try to find a vote count where he came out ahead. The U.S. Supreme Court only stopped an unlawful process that was unprecedented, violated the Constitution, Florida Law, and threatened a VERY REAL constitutional crisis.
to say the Democrats tried to steal the election is inflammatory, but I think also justified. that IS what they tried to do in my opinion.

Bo, I haven’t statistically studied the preponderance of biases within the media, outlet to outlet. I do know there is variation, liberal to conservative, but I’m not prepared to say it’s an exact 50/50 distribution. Talk radio tends more toward the conservative, while print and TV news tend to be more liberal. I say that from the gut, though, not from a statistically-analyzing spreadsheet. I would also say that with few exceptions, media on the right will admit to their bias, while media on the left will not—will pretend to be “non-biased”. (That damages their credibility when they pepper their “news” stories with editorializing adjectives, or play favorites in which politicians to skewer with their reports.)

Because there are certain issues where my own view falls on the liberal side, there are times when I welcome that viewpoint being expressed in the media. And there are other times when I find myself throwing popcorn at the TV set, whether it’s Sean Hannity saying something stupid about gay marriage, or some preening smarmy soi-disant “policy analyst” on a PBS station saying that terrorism must be appeased to diffuse violence, etc.

As a social libertarian, economic centrist hawk, I can always find a bone to pick with just about any media outlet for disagreeing with me on some issue somewhere, but then I can also sit back and enjoy the ride when I agree with the opinionated tirade of the talk show host, be it Rush Limbaugh about tax policy, or Al Franken about income disparity between CEOs and line workers in corporate America.

One of the statements that astounded me most was the assertion by Mr. Bush that some people are arguing that brown skinned people can’t be free.

Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free, that if you’re Muslim or perhaps brown skinned, you can’t be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that. I reject that because I believe freedom is the deepest need of every human soul. And if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.

Just who is making that argument? The KKK? Bush’s friends? The Whithouse staffers?

I thought that was a bit bizzare.

Rob,

My argument was not that Katherine Harris definitely didn’t follow the letter of the law during the recount (although I would beg to differ with regard to her handling of the voter rolls before the election), just that in something as important as deciding the Presidential Election, there shouldn’t even be the IMPLICATION of a conflict of interest. If that happens, if an unbiased third party (Like an international elections monitoring team, or if possible, an independent commission made up of career public servants)presides over the recount, we aren’t having this conspiracy theory conversation today. It’s like Scalia and this Cheney thing — for something as important to the U.S. as the Supreme Court, regardless of the facts of the matter, there shouldn’t be even a CHANCE for a conflict of interest to enter the conversation.

As for strict adherence to the rules, I think that’s a little too narrow of a view. What is the larger goal here? A president who has full and credible support of the results BEFORE inauguration (rather than after, as is the case here), or meeting deadlines arbitrarily created without any knowledge of the potential for such a debacle? I would argue that the U.S. would be much better off under the former situation then the latter. However, since the latter situation took place, you and I are having this conversation today.

Finally, the ominous notion of a “constitutional crisis” is hogwash. How is there a “crisis” in properly verifying the winner of the Presidential Election? Since Constitutional questions always look at the intent of the Framers, I would not be at all hesitant to argue that they would believe legitimacy of an election to be the ultimate end sought.

The fact still remains:

Bush: coke-head.

Kerry: dim wit.

Nader: ???

Greg, what you are referring to is a very clever way to deal the “race card” in justifying the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It’s a fall-back position because no WMD were found.

I started to have trouble with Bush policy, not so much the letter but the *spirit* of it, back when he was giving speeches to the effect that we have to launch strikes when we think a world power MIGHT become a threat rather than has proven itself to be a threat. That gave me the willies because a personal parallel to that would be to shoot your neighbor if you think he might have a gun, and he looks at you funny. I may be a HAWK, but I’m a hawk against real threats, not imagined ones.

I would say that *BOTH* Bush and the media elements critical of him, are hypocritical on this. The media’s hypocrisy is in saying America should have been more preemptive in “preventing” 9/11 out one side of their mouth, while saying Iraq was too preemptive in the way they just got done demanding of the POTUS. Bush’s hypocrisy is in saying he did the right thing in two diametrically opposed, contradictory ways, with methodical caution (against Bin Laden) and extreme zeal (against Saddam), throwing caution to the four winds.

Bush might have more of an excuse for his form of the hypocrisy by saying 9/11 was a learning experience, but even there, if that’s his take-away from 9/11 it’s the WRONG one. You don’t “learn” from a terrorist strike that you have to go off half-cocked with sketchy, ephemeral innuendo for “intelligence”; and you don’t “learn” from a terrorist attack that you have to be void of analysis and understanding of a target nation’s culture and political realities while marching in there to invade them. It’s not an intellectually defensible position. Indeed, he should have consulted his own father on that.

What the media critics of Bush SHOULD have learned from Iraq is precisely that you don’t go off half-cocked on sketchy and ephemeral intelligence, which is exactly what was in Bush’s lap on 9/10/2001.

I continue to stand by giving Bush a pass for 9/11 but NOT giving him a pass for Iraq. The common thread here is that you have to have very good and accurate and reliable intelligence before you go in guns blazing.

Las Vegas new homes for sale · Las Vegas real estate · Henderson new homes for sale · Henderson real estate · Las Vegas real estate values · Las Vegas retirement communities · Las Vegas real estate buyers · Las Vegas real estate sellers · Boulder City Homes for sale · Boulder City real estate · Las Vegas city map · Las Vegas custom estate lots · Las Vegas real estate discounts · Las Vegas estate neighborhoods · Las Vegas featured homes · Henderson featured homes · Las Vegas information links · Las Vegas real estate selling tips · Las Vegas home inspections · Las Vegas horse real estate · Las Vegas golf course homes · Las Vegas country club homes · Las Vegas Realtors · Las Vegas land · Las Vegas luxury condominiums · Las Vegas market analysis · Las Vegas real estate foreclosures · Las Vegas marketing strategies · Las Vegas master planned communities · Las Vegas schools · Las Vegas school zone maps · Las Vegas neighborhood descriptions · Las Vegas relocation · interest rates in Las Vegas
http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com