TPS

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.

Does it really matter what the target is? All you need is a terror warning. In fact, seems to me that using VA hospitals has a greater impact than something people would expect. Do a Google search tomorrow and see what got more press. BTW, I noticed Drudge had the terror warning, but not the poverty numbers....

Yes, and the right never claimed that Clinton bombed Sudan (or Iraq?) to take the heat off of the Lewinsky scandal.... Gee, yes, I really believe that politicians never try to manipulate the media. Karl Rove would never do that would he?

As I've said for the past year or so, if Bush gets reelected, he will raise taxes and cut benefits, and most of the taxes will be pushed onto the middle and lower classes.

I'm sure the timing of the warning has nothing to do with yesterday's report that 4.5 million more people have fallen into poverty in the past 3 years, average family income has fall by $1,400 over that same period, and 1.4 million people lost health insurance last year.... Yeah, watch out for those terrorists at VA hospitals.