YellowLinesandArmadillos

Yes to both questions. Hmmm, (rw) Goldwater, Bush... v. Carter, Mondale.

OK, I'll bite, who are you talking about? If it was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist that even Sadam tried to eliminate and didn't get going till after we invaded, hardly a reason to go into Iraq instead of focusing full bear on Afghanistan, which we have only now how many years later? Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. You lump all these countries together. They all have their problems, but are very different and while some terrorists come out of there, their governments especially Jordan, hardly support the efforts. P.S. you left out a few even bigger terrorist state the actively support terrorism such as Yemen, Lebanon, and the Sudan. P.S. it is called the West Bank, and the Gaza strip...., there is no Palestine, oh yeh, you mentioned Israel. Once again this proves you don't know what you are talking about. Go back and read a map and some history before you post something again of which you know nothing.

You are useless... this was published by the non-partisan congressional research service and is plain jane history of what happened. What a little piece of informative scare you. That is all ewe spew is propaganda. Who do you get your narrow minded info from, Michael Savage... because it certainly isn't based in facts.. P.S. I drafted an amendment to the legislation to make it subject to further review so that China had to meet certain labor standards, it was accepted because it was just a review, relatively useless, but at least it would have brought more light to China's labor abuses, but the amendement made in unpalatable to trade at any cost Republicans and the legislation was never passed. I think it fell a couple of votes short. But my explanation doesn't matter because you obviously don't read and you can't spell propaganda, so you can't know what that means.... Big word, you pay someone to write it?

I was political, worse... Still trying to justify going into Iraq as "taking the war to wence it came." Pathetic. It does now, after a misguided effort.

On to trashing McCain

I have no ill wishes for Cindy McCain. I have posted this before, but my brother died due to issues related to his addiction to drugs, so I hope all the best for her. Rush is different if only for the fact that he is such a nasty human and if there is anyone that deserve the derision back that he has spewed it is oxy boy. Still, in both cases, I hope they never return to that kind of pain...

A reasonable question, but you have to eliminate the central head. There will for the foreseable future be fundamentalist Muslims in the Arab world that are willing to commit acts of terrorism against the West. There are many reasons including Israel for this. But, having a safe haven and icon figures such as bin Laden and his close henchmen running loose with their singular purpose to attack the US needs to be addressed.

And then there was that! Really, though, I was talking about destroying the Al Qaeda network including Osama bin Laden, not controlling Afghanistan.

So you believe that Iraq caused 911, not Osama bin Laden?

I didn't approve of Bill's zipper problem then and I don't approve of this. At least all Bill was doing was getting a hummer. These guys were using it as a commodity. Did they pay taxes on their profits? Did they get fair market value or did they just give it away, those dirty little @$!@#$s.

Wrong again. The issue was under consideration but got put off in the House because there were not enough votes. I know, I was there! See http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL30225/20...6-07%2000:00:00

I doubt it. In fact from what I have read about how much Governors get briefed on these things, I find it unlikely. But I won't discount it altogether, because she likely had one staffer cleared to handle those issues.

Get a clue, never mind. I am not going near any of the cool aid your drinking. Go Betty Ford and detox before you post anything else. For those who have a mind, Iraq was not where the terrorists were before Bush invaded Iraq and largely they still aren't. They still are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Had Bush finished the job there, before invading Iraq we wouldn't have our military resources stretched too far. For evidence go to a recruiting office, they are looking for any warm bodies to send over there, recruitment is way off. Just talked to a guy who had been over 4 times and they wanted to send him back. He is in his late 40s and managed to back out because of a worsening ailment, but they were ready to stick him on a plane again until this cropped up. When this kind of crap is consistently being reported by our own military, don't tell me Bush hasn't mismanaged the war on terror and reports are the Al Qaeda is re-arming waiting for an opening. I am all for protecting our country by all means necessary, just be intelligent about it. There are more than one means and all should be employed, Exhaustion is not one of them and stretching resources to thin makes for stupid decisions and mistakes. P.S. I believe OBama and if McCain runs the show, not the neo-cons, he to will do the right thing, get us out of Iraq as soon as possible and finish the job in Afghanistan.

May be to get at those 1100 emails she is holding back.

Now now, get your facts right. Congresses approval rating was 25%, Bush's was 37%. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/us/politics/21poll.html Since the Dems took over Republican approval has slipped from 50% to 19% http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congress...cordLow-14.aspx and Democratic support initially rose to 44% has dipped all the way down to 11%. One can interpret that a number of ways, but it appears the Dems are more pessimistic about Congress than the Republicans.

Huh? And what has been the Republican strategy in this campaign and the last 8 years under Bush.. . Lee Atwater taught us it works, but you go on saying that. Is that the only response you can come up with? Now there is a response strategy that doesn't hunt.

I have thought about that too, but I am not sure it is correct. I think the splash she made at the Republican convention had to be addressed by the Dems, they had to drive her negatives up. Once the debates begin between Obama and McCain, then the focus can return to them. But experience tells you, you have to take your opponent's significant positive campaign tactic and put a negative spin on it fast and effectively, no matter where it comes from. Palin is definitely a stroke of good for McCain unless she is debunked before the debates. Making her a known quantity with some established negatives is better for the Dems, hence what is happening right now. If the shoe was on the other foot, the McCain camp would be doing, in fact was doing the same thing with Obama. That being said, it is a difficult task to accomplish and if Palin holds up it will be a net positive. However, the Dem attacks are starting to have some effect and her interview last night did not do her any favors. It didn't destroy either, but it did bring the positive veneer off her. That voice sounded like a female version of one of GWs grating unknowledgeable responses without the word butchering. OOF!

I would have to agree with you, don't know the demographics of seats, retirees etc, but given the close elections during the last decade, I would believe that any wind can change things significantly, even if it is a light one. That being said popular polling or generic polls mean little or nothing at this point in congressional races.

And that is the rub where her neo-con views are exposed. Inviting Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO is picking a fight. Sometimes it is important to pick-one, in this case even the mention of it is just stupid!

Nice sarcasm, but really Congress gets pissed on all the time, that is why there are two rivers flowing near the Capitol underground. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/artsa...oday/story.html

That would be good for Dems, then they could lose Pelosi.

Interesting question, I am sure we have some scientists here with opinions. My initial reaction is that even if there are natural factors adjusting and causing more change, I believe in my gut that is was started by man. The only caveat I have is that I don't know enough about the sun's cycle and the earth's relative position on its orbit to the sun. I understand that the southern ice cap is expanding and that the earth's access has shifted 3 degrees. Is that true? It would lend credence to positions that Man has created this problem, but is not the only influence. As far as Palin's interview, I thought she did okay, she was a little herky on the Bush Doctrine question, but initially, I would have had some problems associating the term with the doctrine itself although I recognized it as soon as it was pointed out. That is her handlers screw up. She came across as a little testy with an aggressive don't cross me attitude. Almost a little like Bill Clinton, it wasn't becoming, kind of like when you knew he was lying. That being said, not a bad interview, a little boring, but still don't want her as VP let alone President if McCain bites the big one. The whole I don't blink thing was probably honest, but it shows me that she doesn't feel she can reveal much about about her introspection if she had any at all. I guess in the same position, I would have wanted to run it by my spouse and family and think about it for a few seconds, but in today's politike, I am not sure you want admit it, especially as a woman. She could have relaxed a bit with that question, but her reaction shows me her lack of confidence.

Given your posts... I am just responding with as much intellectual effort as you ... na daa

Glad you are committed, I figured you for a padded wall kinda guy. Do you top size 50 on the "I love me jacket"?