Mickey

These are difficult issues to discuss when there is a gaping black hole at the center of the controversey: Where did CBS get those documents? We know nothing of where they came from. All they said was that "CBS has obtained..." so-and-so's documents from his personal files. CBS could end up between a rock and a real hard place. They may need to reveal the source to either establish the authenticity of the documents or to exonerate itself from responsibility for a hoax. They would face a choice between protecting their source and defending themselves. Crazy stuff. I just hope it is all vetted before the election and not after. If they are fakes then I hope that is unquestioningly determined before the election as well as who is responsible. If they are genuine, same thing. Certainly this has little to do with who should be President but still, you can't help but be drawn in to the theatre of it all.

My key to this game: Run the ball successfully.

At the same time, Freeney's legs got chipped out from under him by a blocker going by who was actually blocking another player. Otherwise, Brady was toast. Brady is a very good player, no doubt but he just got lucky there.

Yeah but OBL is the inspiration that draws the recruits and the tacit assisstance of "ordinary everyday" Muslims.

Martha Stewart used inside information to dump bad stock before it tanked, sticking it to the investors that didn't have that information. How is that similar to the President lying about a consensual affair that was ruled to be irrelevant to the case in which he was being deposed? Was the evidence used to prove Martha's guilt obtained in violation of law by a friend taping private conversations and duping another friend into revealing private information? Was information required to be disclosed to Martha before her testimony withheld inorder to set a "perjury trap" known to every lawyer who even came close to passing the bar? I guess other than the incidents involving different people, different charges, different laws and entirely different circumstances, they are exactly the same.

What if Afghans freely choose the Taliban and to provide a home for AQ? If given the freedom to choose, those are the choices they would likely make.

I think they ranked right in the middle, at 25. They can't even decide if they are dumb or smart. Nice beaches though.

That's impossible, they didn't invent closing 4's until 1982, the technology just simply didn't exist.

I second that :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

They didn't have the same information in fact. Prior to the war Bush had a meeting to go over once and for all the case they had for WMD's. Kerry wasn't at that meeting and didn't receive the briefing the President received. After receiving that briefing, Bush was incredulous, "This is it???" he said. It wasn't very prersuasive and the President himself thought that it came up short, way short. That is when Tenet made that comment that it was a "slam dunk". The President knew we had no proof, he saw and recognized that but as long as Tenet was willing to take responsibility for it, he was willing to set aside his own judgment. Its all in Woodward's book and the WH has never denied the author's version of that meeting. Where on earth would you get the idea that a Senate Committee would get the exact same info as the President? Have you never heard of "For the President's Eyes Only"? As for your crayon insult :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

Sorry, one of my secretaries usually does my typing for me so I am not very good at it.

Turns out that Tenn is a really stupid state as it ranks 44th on the list. Naturally, Bush won there.

Warning: Taking this post seriously can be hazardous to your health. Just for the fun of it, I thought I would look at the Blue and Red states from a different angle and checked out the US statistical abstract, state rankings for percentage of residents with a bachelors degree or better. I then looked at who won those states in 2000. As it turns out, Gore won 11 of the 15 "smartest" states while Bush swept the five "dumbest" states. Gore won the smart states by an average of 15.6% while Bush, in the 4 smart states he won had an average margin of victory of only 8.5%. Kanasas, ranked 12th and he won there by 21% which really inflated his average since in the other three states he won by an average of only 4.25%. Instead of using colors to designate the democrat and republican states, maybe we should just use smart states and dumb states. The fifteen states with the highest percentage of residents holding a bachelors degree or better are, in order from highest to lowest: Maryland, Colorado, Virginia, Mass, Conn, NJ, Vermont, Minn, NH & RI (tied for 9th), Del, Kansas, NY, Wash. and Cal. The five dumbest states, all won by Bush, are, in order from pretty dumb to incredibly dumb: Miss, Oak, Wy, Ark and West Virginia. The conclusion to be drawn? I have too much time on my hands. That is what happens when you have a big case settle unexpectedly just before the start of trial.

Agreed. Now what are the odds of that?

These folks are the descendants of Lebanese immigrants that came over in the 1800's. They have been in this country, living as a minority, surrounded by and living within the most democratic, tolerant and mulit-cultural society on the planet for well over 100 years. I am not sure what their experience reveals, if anything, about the chances for democracy in the hinterlands of Afghanistan. It was not my point that there was some sort of Arabic genetic pre-disposition that made democracy untenable in the Middle East. I am certain that even in Afghanistan you could find people who passionately want a secular state with a plural, democratic society. You could round them up, move them to Oxnard and they would probably do pretty well. Unfortunately, they are very much a minority and in fact, calling them a "minority" probaly overstates their numbers and influence. Here is some general information on the Pashtun: The warlike Pathans [or Pathan, Pukhtun or Pushtun] form one of the world's largest tribal societies (about 16 million) and are divided into numerous sub-tribes and clans.... The Pathan hill tribes all have a passion for freedom and independence, and defend their territory and honor against all invaders. They are fearless guerilla fighters who know the hills and valleys intimately, are crack shots and wear clothes that blend with their surroundings (khaki is a local word meaning 'dusty, and it was as a result of the wars in this region that the British army abandoned its bright red uniforms for the inconspicuous dust-colored khaki). No one has ever managed to subdue or unite them: the Mughals, Sikhs, British and Russians have all suffered defeat at their hands." "The Pukhtunwali (the Way of the Pukhtuns) is an inflexible ethical code by which all true Pathans traditionally abide. Pukhtunwali requires that every insult be revenged and, conversely, every guest protected. To safeguard his honor, o the honor of his family or clan, a Pathan will sacrifice everything, including his money and his life. He will return even t he slightest insult with interest. According to a Pathan proverb, 'He is not a Pathan who does not give a blow for a pinch.'" The PATHAN (Pashtun) people form the dominant ethnic and linguistic community, accounting for just over half the population. Tribally organized, the Pathan are concentrated in the east and the south. As they gained control over the rest of the country in the 19th century, however, many of them settled in other areas too. The Pashtuns mostly speak Pashtu (although some residing in Kabul and other urban areas speak Dari) and are generally Sunni Muslims. They are divided into tribal and sub-tribal groups to which they remain loyal. These tribal divisions have been the source of conflict among Pashtuns throughout their history. Even today, the Pashtun parties are divided along tribal lines. The majority of Pashtuns make their living off of animal husbandry and agriculture as well as some trade. In Afghanistan, Pashtuns have traditionally resided in a large semi-circular area following the Afghan border form north of the Darya-e-Morgab east and southward to just north of the 35' latitude. Enclaves of Pashtuns live scattered among other ethnic groups in much of the rest of the country, especially in the northern regions and in the western interior due to the resettlement policies of Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, who ruled Afghanistan from 1880 to 1901. From its founding in 1747 by Ahmad Shah Durrani, Afghanistan has traditionally been dominated by the Pashtuns, who before 1978 constituted a 51% minority in the country. However, as a result of the 1979 Soviet invasion the population distribution in Afghanistan has changed. About 85% of the 6.2 million Afghan refugees who fled to Iran and Pakistan and around the World due to the Russian invasion and the war that followed it are Pashtuns. This, accordingly, lowered the percentage of Pashtuns inside Afghanistan temporarily and raised the percentages of the country's other ethnic groups. By the mid-1990s many of the refugees returned restoring the Pashtuns to their status of the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan constituting about 45% of the population. The Soviet invasion of December 1979 has been the major determining factor in Afghanistan's ethnic relations since that point in time. From that time Until mid-1991 the various factions of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, all dominated by Pashtuns, controlled the country's government. All other factions either opposed or aligned themselves with the PDPA (with most in the opposition), including several Pashtun factions. It is not within the scope of this chronology to document the constant shifts in alliances between various factions, both between the opposition and government camps and within them. However, it should be noted that most of the factions were ethnically homogeneous and were engaging in a constant shifting of alliances worthy of traditional balance of power theory and continue to do so today. The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 has only affected the power relations among the country's various factions but has not changed the fact that they are in constant competition with each other. The Dari-speaking TAJIK are the second-largest community, accounting for approximately 25% of the population. They are strongly identified with sedentary farming and town life, mostly in the fertile eastern valleys north and south of the Hindu Kush. Some 11% of the population are Turkic, mostly UZBEK and TURKMEN, who live in the northern plains as farmers and herders. The central mountains yield a meager living to some 1.1 million HAZARAS, a Mongoloid people who mostly speak Persian. There are many smaller communities, the most important of which are the NURISTANIS of the high mountains of the east and the BALUCH of the desert south. Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun himself, was initially a supporter of the Taliban although he was an official in the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani, an ethnic Tajik who was President from 1992 until 1996 when he was overthrown by the Taliban. Karzai stopped supporting the Taliban when he questioned their close ties with Pakistan. Karzai refused a position in the Taliban government and fled to Qetta while Rabbani became the leader, such as it was, of the Northern Alliance. As for Karzai, his actual authority outside the capital city of Kabul is said to be so limited that he is often derided as the "Mayor of Kabul." Although he has little or no popular support outside Kabul, the incumbent Karzai appears likely to defeat his 22 opponents in the country's presidential election on October 9th, 2004. Endorsement by the second Bush administration, incumbency, the brief one month campaign season, and the paucity of news coverage in the country about his opponents make him the probable winner in an election expected to be flawed by violence and vote fraud. Looks like an eventual recipe for disaster. 16 million, that is a lot of bad guys.

Nominatins are always a battle, how bad it gets depends on the nominee he submits. It also depends on who is being replaced. For example, if Rhenquist retires, the democrats could let another ultra conservative nominee make it to the bench because it wouldn't alter the balance on some of the more critical issues such as abortion. However, if Sandra Day O'Connor steps down and she is replaced with an ultra conservative, that would alter the current balance on the court and the democrats would likely fight that pretty hard.

Beleive me MichFan, I want democracy to be a viable government system in the Middle East as much as you do. The history, culture, traditions and actions of the region argue strongly to the contrary. The Afghan Pashtun Mujehideen who sent the Soviets packing did not endure that struggle to install democracy, they did so to toss out a foreign invader. When they did, it was their intention to install an Islamic government, a theocracy basically. We bagged them and instead backed returning Afghan exiles who sat out the war in Europe because they were like us, educated in the west and for democracy as long as it didn't result in the free election of Islamic fundamentalists. In short, we backed the minority against the majority, the cowards against the hardknuckled fighters who won that war. It took about 9 years or so of civil war but eventually the Pashtuns, the Taliban, won. It is absolutely a legitimate and reasonable concern that we are making the same mistake again. Raising it does not make me an anti-bush loon or a raving partisan. It is a concern that has been raised as much by conservatives as anyone else. The Afghans, whatever their potential to form a non-theocratic government, are simply never going to accept a foreign power running the country and will always view the government they installed as nothing but puppets. Add in the unlikelihood that the largest and most powerful tribe in the country will accept a government dominated by minority Uzbeks and it is not hard to see why any notion that our Afghan policy will succeed is nearly delusional. As for Dearborn, they are your example of why the view I am presenting is wrong. I've done my research and shared it with you, I think it is a little unfair to require me to do your research as well. Post the info, I'll read it. My mind is not made up on this and the primary reason I raised it was to draw out information on the other side of the issue. After all, I have to spend at least part of my day worrying about J'ville and the game on Sunday. Somewhere along the line I have to get some work done.

Right. The hockey playing vet who volunteered to get shot at and did is the pushover and the cheer leading, duty shirking, 12 stepper whose wild youth didn't end until he was 45 or so is the stud. Makes sense. Lets see, DWI conviction=stud; bronze star=kitty. Okie dokie. Not that it is within a thousand miles of relevant but when it comes to being "tough", I'll go with the combat vet over the cheer leader.

Because they believe that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are the best thing that ever happened to AQ. They hated Saddam and from their stand point, we got rid of him and the Baathists for them. Now they will harass and kill our troops until we leave and the government we installed collapses. Then it will become part of the caliphate they are trying to build. I could go on but the point is that a rational argument could be made either way as to who the terrorists would prefer to have in office. It is all speculative crap but I have heard that so many times here, that the bad guys want Kerry, that I thought it time to balance it. Frankly, I don't think the terrorist give a damn who is leading the "great satan".

What does Turkey have to do with anything? What are you blathering about with that "violent, incompetent muslims" crap? Peaceful and competent muslims could conceivably find democracy to be a useless form of government. Just because we love democracy doesn't mean every one else would if we would only be so kind as to impose it upon them by force of arms. By taking the position that democracy will not likely work in Afghanistan or Iraq, I was not at all commenting on whether they are incompetent or violent. The Turks have a history with democracy and embracing western influences being, as they are, as much a part of Europe as they are of the middle east. Their history with democracy goes back a long way and it wasn't imposed upon them by a foreign power at the point of a sword. The Ottoman Background Constitutional and democratisation movements in Turkey during the Ottoman period go back to the end of the 18th century. At the time, Sultan Selim II envisaged the formation of an advisory assembly. The Tanzimat Decree issued in 1839 assured the subjects of the Empire respect for basic rights. At the time, the Empire was suffering its first defeats and starting to rapidly lose its territory. The Ottoman Empire sought salvation in a series of reform movements and established education institutions taking after the western institutions which had shown great developments after the Renaissance. The declaration of the "Tanzimat" Reform movement in 1839 is considered a major link in the chain of modernization events which had continued unabated since the beginning of the 17th century. The Tanzimat Decree is considered to be a kind of constitution which gave Turkey the means to enter road to contemporary civilization. The principles inherent in the Tanzimat Reform Decree thereby laid the basis for the constitutional regime of modern Turkey and the realization of secularism. (Turkish History) That is a history and tradition that easily separates Turkey from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Democracy and Islam, even in Turkey has not always worked. Democracy was "interrupted" by the military in Turkey in 1980 and free elections were not restored until 1983.

First of all, he never claimed to be a uniter, just a "unificator". Second of all.... well, actually that is about it.

I don't think we should worry what terrorist think one way or the other as to who should be our president. That is our decision. Since you brought it up however, I think they much, much prefer Bush over Kerry. Not even close.

Once one side has come up with credible proof, the burden shifts to the other side to disprove it. Bush is not in criminal court or even a civil court. There is neither a presumption of guilt nor of innocence. If official documents show his absence from service, all he has to do is explain that absence. My understanding is that the document show he was gone for around 7 months or so. He claims to have requested and been granted leave to help out a campaign of a crony of his father but that request covered only 3 months of his absence. It is a ridiculous issue after all is said and done. However, given the whole swifty situation I see no reason for the left to take the high road here. The voters reward these efforts which is really the sad part of the whole story. Until this stuff stops working, it is going to keep going on.

Democracy won't work in the middle east. It is hard enough to establish a stable democracy when the people themselves want it. It is impossible to do so where the people have no interest at all in such a government and in fact are hostile to it. It is even less likely that democracy could arise where it is being imposed by the force of arms and by a foreign, non-Islamic, power. I don't think we are going to see a government in Iraq that is going to survive beyond our willingness to keep them in power by force. The same is true of Afghanistan where we have not defeated either AQ or the Taliban. We have simply ran them out the cities. That having been said, we now have little choice in the matter and have to just do the best we can. I think there is hope in Iraq that some sort of durable government can arise. Afghanistan though is another story. I don't think we should really care much whether the government the emerges is democratic or not. Stability and Islamic without the jihad part is good enough. We do need to make resolution of the palestinian question a top priority but simply doing so will not actually solve the problem. The Isrealis have been pressured in the past and they have put on the table about as much as they are ever going to and Arafat turned them down because it wasn't enough for the Palestinians. If the only successful strategy to fight terrorism depends on a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are in big trouble. I don't think our military presence in the middle east is propping up moderate regimes. In fact, it is destabilizing those regimes. It makes it that much easier for the Islamists to argue that those regimes are nothing more than corrupt apostates who sold out Islam in exchange for opulence. Conventional armies are not a very effective tool against terrorist attacks. Our troops in the middle east are not at all preventing attacks in Riyadh or in Karachi. Attacks are occurring there because Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cooperating with us. The rulers of those countries are supporting us, for now. The people of those countries pretty much hate us and their government for supporting us. There have been two attempts on Musharraf's life so far. That is going to continue and they only have to get lucky once. What then? I know it is a depressing picture but better we be realistic and know what we are up against than deluding ourselves to the point of ignorance. No pixie dust as a substitute for oil is going to fall from the sky any time soon. Democracies are not going to spring from the sands of the middle east and our enemies are not going to suddenly become our friends.

Actually, I think I should get the credit. I was very fiscally sound over those 8 years. I aggresively moved towards a policy of growth, investment and opportunity. I wisely invested in the future and in America. I harnessed the synergy of imagination and capital to build a brighter future for you, me and every American.