TPS

I'm always positive about the Bills. But when I make predictions, I try to make them based upon objectiveness. I believe this team will win more games than last year, and they might even compete marginally for a playoff spot.

While i"d like to bet on a win this week, I don't think we match up well with Jax. We want to run; they stop the run. We lose by 2.

Sorry, but I think Mickey dispelled that myth. We are smart, but not for our own good...

Oh, and let me make this clear, this isn't about Israelis or Jews in general, it's about Israeli policy. There are just as many Jews against Sharon's policies as there are for his policies.

Lobbying isn't. But there is an allegation and investigation of spying at the Pentagon going on at the moment. As I tried to say, what's fascinating to me is that the fued between analysts at the Pentagon (the pro-Israel group) and those at the CIA has become somewhat public. However, I will add that I would hope our foreign policy is based on what's best for us, not Israel. As for sway, you should know better: it's not the number of Jewish voters; AIPAC is a PAC, and, like any PAC, can (and does) influence any race in the country by pooring money into the campaign coffers of those who support their positions.

So you don't think AIPAC/Israel doesn't try to influence American foreign policy in favor of Israel? You don't think there might be people in the Pentagon who's Middle East policy is consistent with Israel's, so they help each other out in various ways? And certainly Israel has never spied on the US, Mr. Pollard? I think it's fascinating that the power struggle over the direction of US foreign policy in the ME appears to be being waged (somewhat) on the surface. And I don't think it's fantasy or conspiracy to believe that if the goals of the Neo-cons in the Pentagon are consistent with the goals of Israel, that these two groups would try to help each other out.

Interesting stuff... CIA vs Pentagon

I thought this was a follow up to Mickey's post....

It's not the same thing. Americans certainly have the choice to take the lousy-paying, hard-a$$ jobs that illegals take, but they don't. You're a chef; how many American cooks and dishwashers are there compared to Mexicans (and other Central/South Americans)? Outsourcing software development jobs is not the same as allowing immigrants to pick our produce and cook our meals. In the REagan recession of the early 1980s, I read an editorial by a construction worker who was out of work and went to pick strawberries; he lasted less than a week, and wondered how Mexican immigrants could stand the work...

The reason people say that is because the top 1% receive over 50% of the total cut: share of tax cut In addition, even though federal taxes went down, many people experienced overall tax increases because the slowdown in the economy caused states and localities to raise taxes and fees.

It must truly be a sad campaign when 90% of the arguments made here are, "but the other guy did (or didn't do) this..." And, by the way, we all know what the other 10% are, "It's Clinton's fault!"

Haven't decided yet. It won't be Kerry, and it definitely won't be Bush. I won't vote for our one-two party system. I've posted in the past that people need to start voting for alternative parties, and I am putting my vote where my posts are.

‘‘It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,’’ Cheney told supporters in Des Moines, Iowa. I would interpret that to mean, we will get hit again if we make the wrong choice on Nov. 2. Which means if we make the right choice, then we won't get hit again. As to your other points. I don't think terrorists care who is in office. I'm not sure "with who" you mean when you say Kerry wants to negotiate? In this day and age I doubt very seriously any elected president will take the threat of terrorism lightly. In terms of acting against terrorism, we disagree over whether Bush made the right decision using most of our resources to topple Saddam--I think that was a huge mistake. I think Graham's new book quotes Gen. Franks in saying that Bush was redirecting resources into Iraq 6-8 months before the invasion, and that we should've finished the job in Afghanistan, and then Yemen and another country (I can't rember) where Al Queda actuall is. While I'm not voting for Kerry, I do think he will do a better job of focusing on the terrorist that are a threat to America, and not waste all our resources going after countries that are a threat to Isreal. As for the title, lighten up Francis! It was meant as humor. Sorry if I'm not being PC....

It's not just PB. According to this article, it is being viewed by some globally as a power struggle between the pro-Israel neo-cons in the Pentagon and the CIA. Pentagon vs CIA

The point is that the statement is completely hypocritical. Cheney (or at least people in the administration) can't say on the one hand that another act is inevitable, and on the other another say an attack will only occur if Kerry is elected. Which is it? Is it inevitable or is it dependent on Kerry's election? Will he guarantee no new strikes then if they are re-elected? And if there is another act on our soil, will they resign?

For the past 6 months security analysts and administration officials have said another terrorist incident is inevitable, now Dick says "only if Kerry is elected." Dick knows no low. Terrorism and election By the way, while the linked article continues on a second page, I think it should've ended on the first page--with Edward's one-word quote...

Pat Buchanan is Connecting the dots

I read somewhere that Bush's people were trying to prevent the release of this book. Who knows, or who cares, if this **** is true; this is going to be one brutal campaign.... The kitty kelly book

Neither one. And I am going to vote.

Thanks. I also posted a similar link to an earlier thread. See below. Chechnya And I'm not trying to justify or support this, I just disagree with people who are trying to equate this to Al Queda's global Jihad. Would they also consider the IRA's violence in their effort for an independent North Ireland Al Queda related too?

Can you find the quote for me in the story where they mentioned Al Queda? They mention that 10 of them were from Arab countries and they mention they have been fighting Russia for independence.

I think this act is less about religion and more about independence. Chechnya has been trying to become an independent state, and Russia has brutally responded by killing thousands of Chechnyans. I wonder how people would view this if they were trying to break away from the old USSR regime? At any rate, it's a brutal act that no one should support, but it is incorrect to say their cause is similar to Al Queda's.

Maybe it's a little more complicated than saying "it's the religion." Background on Chechnya

Physics bets A little levity for the weekend. Of course, my bet is conditional on Kerry winning--Bush would never let Fusion become a reality...

9199[/snapback] I believe that politicians do engage in wagging the dog, and what easier way to do it than with some obtuse terror warning. As I recall, Jose Padilla was in custody for weeks, but they announced his arrest during that Congressional testimony by the female FBI agent from Minneapolis, who said that their investigation of Moussoui was squelched by DC higer ups.