Slashdot Mirror

Numbers:
Finding 300,000 is rather easy. Tony Blair once mentioned 400,000 but that was bad info so ignore that one. Saddam joined the Ba'ath party back in 1963 as a torturer which should be worry enough. He attacked Iran in 1980 with biological and chemical weapons. He tried to annex Kuwait in 1990. Throughout history every country has had a hands off policy about dictators who kill their own people. So long as the don't invade another country no one cared. Pol Pot for example. Pinoche, Stalin, Hitler until he invaded Poland. We often do this simply because no one believes these dictators could possibly be killing as many people as is reported. The Libertarian solution is to not respond unless we or our allies are attacked, and then come down with the heaviest of hands. Besides, all these discontented Iraqis should have been able to terrorize Saddam's regime just as easily as they could ours.

- obviously doesn't like me
- has murdered thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands
- has had desires for WMD his entire life
- flaunts UN inspections
- is Islamic
- waves a gun in the air berating western countries
- pretends he has what he doesn't for show purposes
- you name it, he did it

Where is the link on this one? I bet the link will look like this

You said he "has inferred it numerous times."
No, I've said he has led others to infer it, after which you ridiculed me for such inferences. To me, the questions he has been asked and the answers he has given, leave no room for doubt about what he admits to: bad appointments, not getting questions before hand, and miscalculating how fast we would overtake the Iraqi army. He deciding to invade Iraq because of exaggerated claims of WMDs, without the UN's blessing but with it's resolutions to justify the action. And this is all that he admits to doing wrong. Shame on me for inferring that he thinks he did everything perfectly." To me, that is insisting that he did nothing wrong in his Iraq policies. I guess slipping in some comments about not wanting sit on couches or letting historians judge give him a bye. Go ahead claim to critically look at his actions, but let him get away with this one. You are just lying to yourself. It is your choice to lie, not mine.

That you are imagining things and blaming other people for it reflects poorly on OTHER people?
Explain, please. You make no sense here. My inference reflects poorly on me - only to Bush supporters. Anyone with half a independent mind would come to similar inferences, or at least understand where I could infer what I did. Your revisionist version of pre-war events are the only thing that require imagination. But I'm not blaming anyone for that. I understand that you have bought the party line, and do not blame you for it.

Bullshit. I know lots of Bush supporters, probably a lot more than you, and none of them think this.

nor did i claim that. 'When he claims no mistakes, non-supporters hear "I'm perefect".'


We have been leading the world in many areas
Yes, but in the cases you listed, we were either the "leaders" prior to Iraq (North Korea), or the situation is one that requires simple leadership (Haiti, Darfur/Sudan, and Libya). If we acquired intelligence that required military action, who would believe it. You admit that you wouldn't by saying you've never believed WMD claims that we used to justify the war in Iraq. That is a credibility gap that has developed that will prevent us from truly leading in the near term.

We had a great opportunity after 9/11 to be leaders. Instead we attacked Iraq. Why?

because we were led by a fool, and fooled by our leader. Any better explanation is filled with lies and distortions. An incredible amount of insiders have spoken out against the administration and have been publicly ridiculed, including Richard Clark stating that Iraq was a desired target on 9/12. The 9/11 commision, that the president fought against (wonder why?), brought credibility to Clark. Condi Rice, on the other hand, was a joke at the hearings, and very much discredited the adminstration. Watch her opening set of questions/semi-answers for proof. All CYA, all the time.

Your reply: "Et al" in this case must mean "and numerous other intelligence servies around the world, and the United Nations."

Actually, no. I meant the Bush administration shills who trumpeted that "we know where the weapons are." Again, not true. The case was overstated, and no WMD have been found.

"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked, probably would have a nuclear weapon this decade," Roberts said during the press conference. "Well, today we know these assessments were wrong."

Sure Saddam wanted WMD, but there was no way he could produce them within a decade after sanctions were lifted. I would appreciate more facts from you before taking your argument seriously.

I wrote: Bush et al said (or strongly implied repeatedly) that Iraq had significant connections to Al Qaeda

Your reply: They did have significant connections (friends in common). They just weren't working directly together. Perhaps you should look at the findings of the 9/11 Commission a little more closely yourself.

As for the "connections to Al-Qaeda" claim, the 9/11 Commission (bi-partisan), said:

The Sept. 11 commission's final report cites al-Qaida contacts with Iran and Iraq but does not conclude either of the "axis of evil" countries developed a close working relationship with the terror network. [Bin Laden explored a possible alliance with Iraq in early 1990s] However, the report says, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein never had an Islamist agenda, and bin Laden had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. A collaborative relationship never developed, the report found.

Please, explain how Iraq & Al-Qaeda worked together, and be sure to use facts from reliable sources. Rush Limbaugh and Drudge do not count.

Your sig said: Iraq war justified

I took a look, and wow, you really found text in there that does not exist. I did find nice quotes like these:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability- which was essentially destroyed in 1991- after sancions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized.

Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability.

Please let me know how this "proves" the war was justified. It admits Saddam did not have the WMD that Bush claimed, and that sanctions had to be lifted and Iraq's economy normalized before WMD could be developed. FYI, that doesn't happen overnight.

No matter how much wild conjecture gets repeated, facts are stronger.

Coincidence?

"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire

That's a great quote that is highly relevant here. I think the folks that are outraged by the media's reports on this issue need to step back and consider the evidence that supported the allegations, because it was very weak.

Sinclair never publicly announced that it was airing "Stolen Honor" in its entirety, but the media has claimed that it did. Even now, after the airing of the unbiased special, the LA times falsely claims that "Sinclair announced plans to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," an anti-Kerry documentary". The Washington Post claims that Mark Hyman told them that the entire documentary would be shown unless Kerry agreed to an interview, but a quick review of their articles reveals no quote of Mark Hyman that says that. Ever since this controversy started, Sinclair execs have been claiming that they were not intending to show "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. On October 12, Mark Hyman said that "nothing has been shot" but the media still insisted that they were going to show the whole documentary.

The best evidence of their alleged nefarious intentions were some TV listings (possibly accidental mistakes), a fired employee that said they were discussing airing the documentary (but weren't sure what they were going to air), and the fact that they were considered conservative. For that, their advertisers were harrassed, their investors were contacted with requests to sell their stock, and the execs "endured personal attacks of the vilest nature". It was obvious to me that the media's reports caused things to get out of hand, and the assault upon the demonized Sinclair was incredibly premature.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

by JUDD LEGUM

[from the November 8, 2004 issue]

Click here to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.

IRAQ

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html
Fox News article, saying Islamic Terrorists endorse Bush.

Try this one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134007,00.html

OT I know, but the CBS bashing is a bit much considering their record vs fox on real reporting. Besides, according to the CMPA, main news networks were more postive toward kerry, but all networks were negative toward bush over the past month. And Fox was 5 to 1 negative toward kerry. Of course, if you want faux news, read fox's summary of the report that says they are fair and balanced.
Fox version

Official study

The study found abc to be the most balanced, but it didnt actually discuss the quality of the evaluations.
--------
The Fox News Difference

Fox News Channel was about as negative towards Bush as the broadcast networks, but Kerry's evaluations were negative by a five-to-one margin. There was little difference in the evaluations of party- and campaign-based partisan sources, but Bush fared over four times as well as Kerry among non-partisan sources.

...during the gay marriage debate:

Isn't that important? Isn't that the ultimate homeland security -- standing up, defending marriage, defending the right for children to have moms and dads, to be raised in a nurturing and loving environment? Isn't that what this debate is all about?

Link

Ok, ok, you may be right. Lets see if any of the main sites seem to be blocking access to someone that is on 48 state balots:

CNN = 0
FoxNews = 5
msnbc = 4
abc = 5

For someone that has made it on 48 states don't you think there should be at least some media coverage? Replace Badnarik with Nader and you will get over 500, replace with one of the two heads and you will get about 4 times what nader gets.

I think I have been in the news more than Micheal Badnarik. Why is that?

Assuming nobody has one, there is a transcript available.

I know Badnarik won't win. I'll vote for him anyway. Why? Because I am sick and tired of seeing corporate shill #1 versus corporate shill #2

Neither guy has the balls to balance the budget. Neither guy delivers on his promises. The government grows ever larger, civil liberties are being removed, ignored and trodden upon.

Our government IMO is like a crack addict on a binge. They'll keep taxing and spending or borrowing and spending just to keep their 'high'. No one seems to care we are in debt up to our eyeballs.... Yet we keep voting for these guys. Wake up people, someone is going to pay for the bread and circuses. It will either be you or your kids!

The only way this is going to change is if people start saying "Screw This!" and vote for ANYONE else, Nader, Badnarik,Peroultka, Cobb etc.

This was an on-air interview with Libertarian Presidential Nominee Gary Nolan before the primary.

I concede that Fox has not done a good enough job of giving attention to the libertarian party (or any 3rd party for that matter), I'm just saying they're better than CNN or any other network sans C-SPAN.

O'Reilly censors all his guests, just because 1 show did something stupid doesn't mean the 3rd party advantage defaults to another network. A search of CNN, for instance reveals 0 results for Badnarik.

When added to reports that FOX is censoring guests, it leads one to ask: Is this a democracy or a puppet show?

I see people from the Cato Institute one to two times a day on Fox news.

Also, look at these interesting articles hosted by fox news (the top 3).

IMO FNC is probably the 2nd best cable channel for any 3rd party (with C-Span dominating the 1st place spot).

I don't think the problem (in this example) is cloning, but rather creating human life (albiet tiny life that may or may not have a "soul" depending on who you ask) simply to experiment on it and then destroy it. It's a big moral question. And for the record, stem cell research is not some panacea. It will be decades before stem cell research could yeild any real world results. I think this link sums it up nicely.

Schwarzenegger has no Nazi ties other than his father.

Schwarzenegger can't shrug off his 1986 toast as a momentary gaffe. There was a long-standing relationship that continued well past the time when the full extent of Waldheim's association with Nazi atrocities had been documented. A more complete renunciation will be necessary.

Moreover, your insinuation that he "stole" the Governorship shows you to be a partisan hack and a sore loser, with contempt for the judgment of your fellow citizens.

Diebold
Hatch

I'll be thinking of you as I celebrate the re-election of George Bush three weeks from now.

You should look into the history of the Bush family and their Nazi involvement. Seriously. If you really care about America it is your patriotic duty.

Odd, http://fixingamerica.org/ DNS is broken, use http://209.150.130.116/ for now.

They got Osama bin Laden!

Osama bin Laden has been captured!

$20USD a month for what? Jesus, I don't pay any stupid tax like that and look at all I get.

Yrg'f ubcr COF qbrfa'g qvr be ryfr jr'er nyy fperjrq. Jrypbzr gb nzrevxn.

Fox News mentions him on their site, albeit not recently....
Link.
Guess that makes them more fair and balanced after all, eh?

Apparently Kerry doesn't like the lights either.

Contact/feedback pages:

FoxNews: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3303518/
Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4925877/site/newsweek/ ?contact
NY Times: http://nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservd irectory.html
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/service/help/abccontact.html
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_for m.shtml
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm

Associated Press: http://www.ap.org/pages/contact/contact.html
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/-helpSection.jhtml;p=contac tUs

hey, i'm not going to take a side, except to say that it'd be awesome if we knew what was going on here. a prominent critic of a sitting president has been silenced, setting a bad precedent. furthermore, they did not charge the critic, but subpeona'd the ISP. that's not good.

so, let's force the people with access to start asking questions.
nytimes
newsweek
o'reilly
msnbc


plus you can go to various other websites and fill out their forms--CNN, for example.
again, no sides taken, but let's try and cause a stink--this is a big deal. I'll even make it easy for you--copy'n'paste!

The FBI has effectively shut down Indymedia.org (IMC) by issuing an order to RackSpace US to hand over server hard drives located in London. As a result, over 20 local Indymedia sites have been shut off. At this time, no one knows why the FBI wants the drives or what they are investigating. It is also unclear why Rackspace US complied with a demand for materials held by Rackspace UK. Indymedia is a vocal critic of the Bush Administration, and also of the mass media. There is some history of this administration's dislike of Indymedia: before the RNC, there was a Secret Service order to shut down nyc.indymedia.org, which was organizing protests. More information can be found at the general Indymedia site, http://www.indymedia.org.

This is for all the responding posts to the parent asking for corroboration. 10 minutes of Googling later, here (requires registration) are some related links.

No one has been able to fully enumerate the five Congressional members and their offspring who are serving in Iraq. However, some facts pointed out in this discussion:

1. Moore never asserted in his movie that the children of US Congressmen are under-represented in US forces in Iraq. See the movie transcript to verify from primary source. Instead, he asked the people that authorized the Iraq war (members of Congress) if they would send thier kids to Iraq.
2. Equally factual is that in the United States, you can only enlist in the armed forces when you are of the age of majority. Meaning your parents (the Congressmen Moore was posing his question to) cannot do what he posits. They can no more send their children to Iraq than violate some fundamental precepts of the Constitution.
3. Quote: Senators and Congressmen (and Pentagon workers, and the President himself) ARE on the front lines of this war, and have been since its opening salvo. They don't need their children to be put in harm's way to show their bravery and resolve. They need only show up for work. If you don't think Washington, D.C. is a target, you haven't been listening to Osama.
4. The Congressional members who are known to have children serving in the Enduring Freedom theatre of operations or are expected to be there soon are: Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD, son Brooks Johnson, 31, a staff sergeant with the Army's 101st Airborne Division; Rep. John Kline, R-MN, son, Dan Kline who is slotted for shipping out.
5. For anyone who still wants to play the statistics game and still assert that Congress members' families are under-represented, fine. Let's see where the numbers take us. Quote: The correct comparison would be to compare the total number of parents in the US with children of military age over the total number of troops and then the same comparison in the Congress - number of Reps with children of military age vs. number serving...assume that all people from the age of 40 to 79 have children of military age and likewise all Congressional Reps. - the errors are likely to be in the same direction (overstated in both cases) and so even out. There are around 130 million in the 40 to 79 age group. So the rate of service is around 1 per thousand potential parents. Applying this to Congress, you'd expect less than 1 child in Iraq. Instead, we can count one for certain, possibly another four depending upon your sources. So the representation, in known terms from primary sources, is at least the enlistment rate of the general population.
6. This is just immediate family members. Including first relations, representation of Congress members' families is likely to go much, much higher. If you are a Moore fan, would you care to chase down primary sources on that, which will only widen the gap further, o

...to a woman in a sunfire. stinking mac at school wont let me log in... anyway...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110216,00.html

You're the one who needs to do his research.

Iraq did participate openly in the Cash sponsorship of terrorism. Saddam and cronies openly paid $25,000US cash bounties to the families of Palestinian Homocide Bombers. It's a well known fact. That's cash sponsorship of terrorism.

That said, ongoing investigation into the UN Oil-For-Food program is finding that Iraq was pumping millions into companies that are direct sponsors of Al-Qaeda.

See more on that here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

I know you don't like where the facts lead, but that doesn't give you liberty to misrepresent them ...

Who do you regard as a credible news source? Fox News? They don't just get stuff wrong, they make silly stuff up about the Democrats. (See their retraction.)

The fact is that all news sources make mistake and they all have biases. The Times, at least, will occasionally question the aims and motives of it's own party, unlike most of the right-wing organs in this country.

And Sadam did have illegal weapons, he even used some of them in the war.

And if you happen to have a joint in your house, it's okay for the cops to bomb it to bits? "Illegal" doesn't mean, "I get to destroy your country." Hussein didn't have the WMDs that the US claimed he had, the ones we supposedly invaded him over. If Bush had said, "We're gonna put Saddam out of power because he's a bad guy sitting on a heap of oil that we want, plain and simple," then we as Americans could have decided, before the fact, whether we'd jump on board with him. But he didn't say that. Up until the last moment, he engaged in the blatant pretense of waiting for Saddam to "disarm" his nonexistent WMDs. He lied.

Sorry, but even Fox News is admitting that the polls say Kerry won.

Regarding your sig:

The "The Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri (Al Qaeda)" has put out an endorsement for Bush following the Madrid bombings, as reported by Fox News.

Just trying to point out that there are two sides to every issue. We now return to your regular thread.

I hate to have to explain this, but whenever the President is in public there are dozens of cameras trained on him watching his every move. He wasn't 'projecting calm' to the kids in the room- they had no reason to be scared. But the thousands of people that had just seen 2 planes fly into buildings did have a reason to be scared.

BUSH: I was thinking America was under attack, I was collecting my thoughts, and I wasn't about to panic a bunch of kids. And the program was winding down, I waited for the end of the program, I excused myself and I went to action. And what the American people will judge me on is whether or not I handled that crisis, in a way that lets them know that, that I'll lead in this war on terror, that's what they need to look at, and I think they are looking at it that way.

I'll play devils advocate here and suggest that perhaps O'Reilly wasn't wasn't trying to deride Stewart for having an influence on the election, but rather its frightening that the politcal views of his audience are influenced by a comedy show. Then again, I only read the transcript but it seems like the interview was done in good fun. But I do think O'Reilly has a point: my vote, despite exhaustive research on issues and candidates, carries with it precisely the same voting power as someone who learns of the issues by accident while channel surfing. It may be fair, but it is still terrifying.

With talk of Commercial Space Flight soon being a reality, I would think this issue will soon be solved.

Let's look to the US Space Program for an answer. Does NASA not solve the issue of intense light by tinting the glass in space vehicles?

Of course, there is the question of the source of the light, but that is for conspiracy theorists to imagine, er, solve.

Recently, there was a case whereby a black man was being arrested by the cops, a fight ensued, and the guy died in the struggle. Much video on TV, blah, blah.

A couple of frames from that video, taken out of context, would look really bad for the cops. 2 white cops beating a gentle black man to death, just because. Viewing the whole thing, and the medical info to follow, though, shows a different story.
A 350 lb crackhead, on PCP, with an enlarged heart, attacking the cops. (Them being called out because he was being irrational in a fast food store)

Report the story, but report the whole story. Not just the parts that fit your personal biases. (Dan Rather, this means you)

Mustard gas found by Iraq weapon hunters
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq

The Fox story even talks about the issue the original post was pointing out. The BBC piece just mentions it then goes into a comparison of the different voting methods the country uses.

Maybe if you actually watched Fox News for once instead of blindly believing its opponents' propaganda you could come up with a better criticism.

"Can you please explain the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror?"

I think that many people don't differentiate between the two. Let me tell you about two editorials that I read.

First, I read this opinion piece about the Iraq war. The author interviews military experts who say:

• The idea that [Iraq] is going to go the way [the Bush administration] planned is ludicrous.
• There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan.
• We have a growing, maturing insurgency group.
• Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators.
• There's a significant majority [of military officials] believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida.

I wondered, how good is this analysis? On one hand, it's entirely consistent with the news coming out of Iraq: the U.S. is suffering a lot of damage despite its lack of accomplishments. On the other hand, an op-ed by a former Clinton aide appearing in The Guardian may not be the most objective source for analysis. I wondered if I was missing something.

I decided to check Fox News for a counterpoint. Indeed, I found a viewpoint linked from the main page, titled " Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal". It was dated Friday, one day after the Guardian article, which had a few comparisons to the Vietnam war.

Bingo. This should be a good read.

It says Vietnam is the wrong analogy for Iraq. WWII is is a far more accurate comparion because "both wars began for the U.S. with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy."

Huh? Is that a reference to 9/11? Did Iraq destroy the World Trade Center?

Oh, I see: he's using "Iraq" and "Al Qaeda" interchangeably. Apparently, he disagrees with the 9/11 commission's determination that the U.S. had no reason to believe that Saddam had significant cooperation with terrorists despite some incidental contact between them.

He continues his WWII comparison saying:

We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents about Al Qaeda and Islamist terrorism (the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998; the USS Cole bombing (in 2000), but in 2001 as in 1941, we lacked the "hard" intelligence requisite to convince a country at peace that it was about to pitched into war.

Still talking about Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Moving on...

Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission...

...except when they don't have to be. In Iraq, the U.S. did have other options besides invasion. The U.S. could have continued containment. The reason that America didn't do that is because Bush insisted that Saddam had WMD and that he was a severe and urgent threat to America.

And now for the conclusion:

We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.

Thanks for that fine comparison of World War II to the war on terrorism. Brilliant analysis. But what about Iraq?

Confident?
Secure?
Empowered?

I think I'm browsing different web sites that the test subjects.

Read the news! Al Qaeda endorsed Bush. Here's the reporting from Fox News, of all places:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.

Those would all appear to be really good reasons. So why did Bush focus on fictional Weapons of Mass Destruction and totally improbable links between Saddam and Bin Laddan?

Why are the majority of Americans seemingly so happy that the President outright lied to them? Clinton lied about getting a blowjob and the entire world grinds to a halt, but Bush lies about a war were hundreds of service men and women have died and there is barely a peep.

You seem to not know what the word fictional means. There have been WMD found in Iraq.

Also, name one lie that Bush said. I don't think you can do it.

Patrick

As a matter of fact, my guess is, if it weren't for the United States, Osama bin Laden would turn on Saddam Hussein. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is the head of a Ba'athist party -- a secular, socialist party. He is anathema to the kind of world that Osama bin Laden wants to reinstall So he's part of the problem; he's not part of the solution. That doesn't mean they can't cooperate, and might not cooperate. But what I'm saying is we need to get our priorities straight, and we've got them straight right now. We're going after number one target.

"For example, people like Orielly are nothing but paparazzi in disguise. Didn't he work for inside edition or some equally worthless tabloid? And now he is a news reporter? Wouldn't that be about the same if Jerry Springer decided to anchor the news?"

O'Reilly did work for six years on the TV-tabloid Inside Edition according to his bio on the FOX News website. It looks like a career low for O'Reilly, no matter what your opinion of FOX News is you'd have to say it is at least more credible a news source than "Inside Edition."

Oh, and it's Geraldo Riviera, not Jerry Springer that FOX News employed as a war correspondant, not an anchor. Now judging from the quality of personnel that FOX News employs they probably did think about Springer but they probably knew he has too much intelligence and integrity to ever work for them.

I believe I speak for many of us when

I don't think you do! I suspect that most people prefer to see their enemies at the most laughable, and would rather watch the defeat of yet another hapless strawman then face the discomfort of a serious challenge to their beliefs. At least, judging from ratings, that's what viewers want...

Here's a brief synopsis of Kerry's Senate accomplishments:

Instrumental in passing most recent minimum wage increase; introduced bill to significantly increase commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS; passed law addressing nurse shortage; expanded early childhood development efforts; introduced plan that expanded children's health insurance coverage; stood with consumers against big banks on the bankruptcy bill and led and won the fight to pass the anti-money laundering act to stop terrorist and drug financing; secured assistance for families of Agent Orange; and led inquiry into savings and loan cleanup.

To keep things fair and balanced, here's a view from a Kerry-Edwards site, and one from Fox News.

See this on Fox News today:

"The term, an apparent reference to the stans of central Asia, is described as insensitive and offensive not just to "new citizens" but also to the Native Americans from whose language the word Dakota derives from"

Gaaak! All they really need is a proofreader.

A shell? What, a whole one? That couldn't just be a shell mislaid from earlier times?

Worst of all, we didn't need to attack Iraq. We had Blix inside, troops massed on Iraqs borders. Any chemical attack, and we'd have been right to go right in.

Bush/Cheney [vs] Kerry/Edwards
What a great choice to make; nuclear war or learning Spanish as a new national language. Hmmmmm, what's that half life again?

I hope you live in a "swing state"! This Google search on Bush's amnesty plan for illegal aliens turns up almost 7,000 hits. From just the top ten hits we have the Washington Times, a top ranked Conservative Christian site, GOP USA, and even FOX News ALL criticizing Bush's plan.

Perhaps you prefer the general Republican platform on immigration to the general Democrat platform on immigration, but in this case Bush is so pro-business that his policy is to protect business's "right to employ illegal aliens" and to encourage businesses to import even more cheap immigrant labor.

Bush refuses to to call it an "amnesty" program. The Whitehouse website attempts to explain it is not an "amnesty" program. However every news story I have seen calls it an amnesty program and immigrants are calling it an amnesty program. And it *has* trigged a surge in Mexicans flooding the border.

I may not be thrilled with people voting for Bush because they agree with him, but that's still a million times better than people being mislead by Bush spin and mistakenly voting for him.

P.S.
This isn't really an issue I care about. I have about a hundred other reasons to want Bush out.

-