MichFan

Yeah, I can't wait for the news conference where Kerry says "I have just learned that UBL is hiding in the cave shown here in Pakistan. I am immediately dispatching the military to capture him." Somethings are better left secret. Bush mentioned the need for secrecy in this war in his post 9/11 speech. He got 90% approval at the time. Quit yer crying.

Watching this thread is like watching someone .... well, let's just say that EZC is probably the one with a sticky keyboard today.

As always, it's America's fault. It always comes back to this common denominator among you libs... This is also another fine example of living, breathing hypocracy in action (no, not from Tennyboy ). If Bush had only considered Afghanistan a terrorist threat following 9/11, and if Saddam was in power today with U.N. sanctions rolled back -- you'd be screaming that Bush was inept in fighting the war on terror, asking how he could allow Saddam to stay in power after Clinton handed him a policy of removal, and flouting intelligence that Saddam was reviving WMD programs.

Any credibility you may have ever had is instantly shot when you try to defend the Carter economy. I doubt even the staunchest libs on this board will try to defend you on this one. If I'm a right-wing homer then you surely are a left-wing lunatic.

Since when does the Federal government count votes? No. But he is wrong to derive from this that "the United States does not have an acceptable democratic system because voting systems vary so much between the 4,000 counties within the country". The United States is a representative republic that uses the electoral college to decide presidential elections. Each state makes their own decision. As long as each state treats each person's vote equally, they can use an whatever voting system(s) they want. It is contigent upon the individual to accurately use the system provided and if they are confused to ask for assistance. Carter put his foot in his mouth on this one and I am frankly disgusted with the man for giving credibility to blatantly crooked elections for "peace's sake" and then questioning our elections. Jimmy Carter -- :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: . You'll couldn't even carry Reagan's jock and you never will be able to. We had enough misery during your 4 years as president. You did us up the rear in N. Korea. You are a walking, talking foreign relations disaster. Enough already. Just leave us the heck alone.

Yet another reason I like Bush. Instead of surgically getting himself made taller, he comes up with a simple and creative solution. Kerry on the other hand resorts to Botox and bronzing lotion. Great message for our youth -- if you don't like your appearance just get it taken care of regardless of health risks. Maybe they can do a special edition of Extreme Makeover for Kerry. It could be what he needs to put him over the top in the election.

This is really such a silly question. How could I send my family member to a war? Do I call the Army and say hey, here's my son, take him to Iraq? Obviously not. But, in the context of the question, no, I would not "send" my family member to Iraq. Now, on the other hand, if an ADULT family member made a PERSONAL DECISION to join the military and defend our country, I would be very supportive of them going to Iraq. I would pray for their safety 24/7, I would be very concerned for them, and I would be extremely proud. I would respect their decision to follow through on their commitment to the country. I would recognize that they are getting the opportunity to bring principles of freedom and democracy to an oppressed region. A much bigger cause than I'll ever be part of living my cushy life in America.

Must be a Carter Liberal -- America bad, evil dictators who force their people to live in oppression good.

If Jim Jeffords stands in the way of any key legislation...

and you thought Kerry and Edwards looked cute together...

Just a sip. Teresa's got some fantastic new French wine waiting for me on the bus.

Seems to me the opposite approach didn't work too well with Carter/Clinton in N. Korea. I agree, if that is actually what Bush said verbatim in quotes as you indicate. However if you are paraphrasing what he actually said and putting your spin on it, then I think it is foolish of you to interpret what he really said in this way.

Interesting article. I don't think we can predict which war Iraq will appear more similar to until we see how U.S. policy unfolds. As long as U.S. leadership remains steadfast and considers Iraq a beachhead in the war against terror, the Guadalcanal analogy is most appropriate. If we begin to get weak-kneed, the Vietnam analogy will be most appropriate. The shame is that those who claim this war is a second Vietnam are the ones whose policies would actually turn it into a second Vietnam if they are put in power.

Syria could have taken care of this guy without collateral damage. They didn't. They harbored him instead. They exposed their populous to what happened. The Bush doctrine is pretty clear about this stuff.

One of the few things Republicans seem to respect Kerry for is his debating skills. He is not going to stutter in the debates, he will be highly polished. One risk he runs is coming off as arrogant as Gore did in the 2000 debates. The other risk that Republicans need to have a ready response team in place for is that he says things to sound good in the debate that completely contradict his record.

Mick, you're getting caught up in a circular argument about what is really a pretty simple situation. The legislature thinks the judiciary is overstepping their bounds so they are giving them a taste of their own medicine. I agree with those legislators who believe that some State supreme and Federal circuit courts have made decisions that constitute legislating from the bench. 'Nuff said.

I think you've got a strong basis for the Kerry concession speech here (in case one is needed). Just change Western Europe in the 30's to Vietnam in the 60's and it's a dead ringer. Want me to see if I can get Joe Lockhart to call you about this?

Nice overreaction, Mickey. What is going on right now in Florida and in Congress involves one branch tweaking the other to try to bring them back into their Constitutional place. The fact is that the legislature represents the people and a majority of the people want to keep "under God" in the pledge. Our founding fathers used numerous references to God, so it should be fairly clear that they didn't intend to cleanse the word "God" from all things. So yes, the courts that have intervened in this pledge case on behalf of the plantiff have overstepped their authority by misinterpreting the original intent of those who wrote the law for purposes of driving their ideology from the bench. Anytime the courts legislate from the bench they overstep their authority and it has been happening a little too much lately. This in no way is a constitutional crisis -- branches will test the boundaries of their separation powers from time to time.

A conservative 527 could save a lot of money on ad development if they just used that segment for a commercial.

I guess in the DNC's mind, Allawi should have gotten up and front of Congress and pulled a Kerry. He should have said: - This war is a quagmire and there is no hope for American principles to succeed. - American troops are all war criminals (maybe even had his ear cut off prior to the speech for dramatic effect) - Bush is lying - The only sensible path forward is for American troops to withdraw. Then, instead of milling around D.C., he should have flown to Paris and met covertly with bin Laden and Zarqawi to strategize terms of giving up the fight in Iraq.

I particularly like how he goes from: Straight to: Oh the hypocracy...

I guess they prefer Brits over Americans. Mush be Bush's fault.

- The equivalent might also be the judiciary deciding that the legislature meant something completely different in passing a law than public records indicate they clearly intended. - My understanding is that the Supreme Court did not reverse the case on the merits, rather they decided the father had no right to pursue the case on behalf of his daughter. It is still an open issue. - I don't think it is good for any branch to fiddle and tinker with the foundations of government. But when one branch takes the initiative to do so, I understand the other branches trying to defend themselves.

I find it disgraceful that Kerry wasn't in attendance as the Senator from Mass. I guess he couldn't decide which John Kerry should show up and just opted out altogether.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. Take away activist judges who pander to the most radical elements of the ACLU and there wouldn't be a pissing match between the Federal legislature and judiciary.