From the Chicago Sun Times: "Inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers, Fleming said. Inspectors visited the site again in March 2003, but didn't view the explosives because the seals were not broken, she said."
The story must have changed slightly because, ABC News leaves out the definitive "seals were not broken statement": "The nuclear agency has no concrete evidence to suggest the seals were broken, Fleming said."
From the Boston Globe: "The explosives that were looted from the Al Qaqaa nuclear facility, apparently in April and May of 2003, had been sealed and monitored by international nuclear inspectors before the invasion." That certainly seems to imply that they went missing in April of May of 2003, before or during the invasion.
The Washington Post writes, "US officials suggested that the munitions may have disappeared before the US-led forces established full control over the country."
The Washington Times cites a Pentagon statement as saying the explosives could have been moved before US troops arrived. "Although some believe the Al Qaqaa facility may have been looted, there is no way to verify this."... "Another explanation is that regime loyalists or others emptied the facility prior to coalition forces arriving in Baghdad in April."
From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "And the US State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli, told us the ordnance went missing before US-led forces had a chance to secure the area."
So, are you clear on it yet? Every single source, except the New York Times, at least mentions that a very real possibility is that they went missing BEFORE the invasion.
Republicans impeached Clinton over perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of the High Office of President. But I hear the "blowjob" is now just a euphemism of all that.
Even then, Democrats didn't get up in arms over Republican abuse of our democratic processes.
They didn't? Wow... I must have imagined all those people on TV screaming about how biased, stupid, arrogant, etc. Ken Starr was.
like an antigay *Constitutional amendment*
I'm not antigay, but I don't support gay marriage. You know why? Because Marriage has been defined, ever since the beginning of Time, as a union between man and woman. I don't support gay marriage because it demeans the people who've spent their lives trying to tell young people that marriage is a sacred institution. Oh, and for the record, I feel just as much contempt towards Britney and the rest of Hollywood who get married at least twice a month.
I have no problem with a civil union. Of course, I still haven't heard any serious evidence that gays are being treated differently. I never had any problem at all getting into a hospital to see anyone... ever. Nor have I heard my gay friends tell me of such difficulty.
requiring creation myths taught as science
What? I assume you're talking about Stem-Cell Research. You should keep in mind that Bush is allowing federal funding to go towards research on already-existing lines of stem cells. He's just not giving federal money to people to create more. Oh, and in case you think it's a "ban"... it's not. A "ban" is something that's prohibited. Stem Cell research isn't prohibited, it's just not funded at the federal level. If you have some stem cells, or a means to make/grow some, go for it. Nobody will stop you.
handouts to taxfree churches
I have no idea what you're talking about, but since the last 2 items had to do with religion in general, I'm assuming this is some kind of strange religious dislike, or, even worse, a church-and-state argument. Whatever the case is, I've never heard anything about any handouts to churches, and even if I had, I wouldn't have thought anything of it since I'm sure whatever you can possibly dig up can be attributed just as much to Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, etc. as to Bush 43.
When your boy turns "uniter, not a divider" into cranked up division at every turn, you can't just ignore his lies and their vile consequences.
Again, who's doing the dividing? Who can't stop themselves from bitching and moaning? If Gore was in office, wouldn't you get tired of hearing Republicans scream and whine about how he stole the election, how he was evil, how he wants to destroy personal property rights, how he thinks SUV's are anti-environment, etc.?
You can't just ignore a recount when everyone knows the original count was wrong. Not if you're honest.
You can't ignore the fact that the only recount Gore wanted was only supposed to be in his heavily-Democratic counties where most of the election officials were Democrats. Why not recount the whole state? Why was he so opposed to that idea? All he had to do was carry his own home state, and we'd all be saying "Hail Gore".
But any sane observer knows that Bush's Terror War is making the world less safe, and can't remove the actual threat.
Yeah, I guess you're right. We can't remove the actual threat of the Soviet Union. We shouldn't even try.
Even Bush, who flipped back to his Summer flip-flop, saying the possibility of victory in the Terror War is "up in the air".
Obviously you didn't read the whole quote. Let me add the whole excerpt here for your enlightenment:
"Whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up -- you know, is up in the air. I would hope we could make it a lot more safe by staying on the offensive. We have no actionable intelligence. I mean, if I knew that there
Bush is a moron, an insane christaliban fool whose allegiance to untestable faith and Saudi oil power have exposed America to terrorist attacks during his term...
He must be REALLY efficient at it too, since the 9/11 Commission found that Al Qaeda was working on 9/11 for at least 2 years beforehand. So, aside from 9/11, what other attacks on America have occurred? Can you name a 3-year period in the last 20 years or so that haven't had an attack, aside from Sep. 11, 2001 - now?
destroyed much of our economy's ability to recover from even a mild recession...
Wow, here I thought the consumers at large, the stock market, and The Fed managed most of the economy. So, aside from pushing tax policy through Congress, what power does the President have over the economy? Also, the recession began in March of 2000, give or take a few months, long before Bush was elected.
divided our people beyond our famous ability to compromise and move on from and setback...
So... who's divided again? Who is screaming as loudly as possible, and bitching, complaining, and whining to anyone that'll listen about how terrible our current administration is? Our nation has always been divided, but at least in the 90's, the Republicans weren't bitching this much about Clinton. Damn man, are you deaf and blind? Haven't you seen any of Kerry's, or Kennedy's, or Dean's, etc. speeches? Haven't you seen any of the Democratic leaders scream the evils of Bush at crowds with red faces? Don't you know who calls the President "selected, not elected"? Who was responsible for all the division in Florida? Who kept calling for recount after recount, until his preferred result came out? Do you ever wonder what would have happened if Gore finally won a recount with about 50 votes? Would you be satisfied then? Would you be calling for another recount, since it was such a small number? Would you call for a full-scale recount of the whole state, rather than only heavily-Democratic counties? And you have the audacity to say it's BUSH'S FAULT that this country is divided? Open your eyes and look in the mirror for a little while, and maybe you'll get a clue.
Sorry, don't watch NBC. Took the link from Google News, but finding other examples wouldn't be too hard. Iraq isn't more secure now than it was under Hussein.
Well, your first example has been discredited. Every example you find since April of 2003 is irrelevant because you can't say for certain how secure Iraq was when Hussein was in power. The reason you can't is because Hussein controlled what the news agencies in Iraq would and would not report. However, in the last year, we've uncovered over 300,000 bodies in over 250 mass graves. I wonder if they would think Iraq is more secure now than it was then?
A selective war on terrorism? How could it not be?
Oh, so you admit that you want to go after ONLY Al Qaeda, but ignore anybody else until they strike us in a major 9/11-style attack? That sounds great. Let me know how that works out for you... I'll be hiding in a bomb shelter for the next 100 years. I wonder... in the year 2000, would you have supported going into Afghanistan forcefully and removing the Taliban in an attempt to prevent an alleged terrorist attack?
However, my problem with the war against Iraq isn't so much that it is unfair as that I don't believe it will work as a part of this 'war against terrorism'.
So you're more for a selective war on terrorism? We only kill the terrorists that kill us first?
As an example, take the recent looting of explosives south of Baghdad.
I guess you didn't watch NBC last night. They had a report saying that they were embedded in the 101st Airborne division that was the first at that place, and those explosives weren't there. The IAEA said they last saw them in Jan. of 2003. That means they disappeared between Jan. of 2003 and Apr. of 2003. That's not very recent in my book. Oh... and yes, Hussein was in power then.
The key word though in my sentence wasn't "terrorist" but rather "nukes"- as in the ability to destroy entire cities.
Biological and chemical weapons scare me a hell of a lot more than nukes. With nukes, at least you know basically what to expect... half the people will die instantly. With biological or chemical weapons, the effect could take months or even years, and it could kill ten times the number of people.
They were relatively contained- and easy to keep contained with the armements we already had in place.
The problem with keeping them contained is the same problem as keeping AIDS, or SARS, or Ebola contained. It only takes a tiny bit that gets through yout defenses, and you'll wish you would have wiped them out when you could have.
There was NO chance of Saddam gaining nuclear ICBMs in the near future, the way North Korea had and the way Iran was begining to (and still is).
Actually, the Dulfeur report said that Saddam had all the parts and people in place and was actively promoting the lifting of the UN-imposed sanctions, which, if accomplished, meant he could start building nuclear ICBM's immediately.
As far as North Korea goes, we're in the process of doing exactly what John Kerry wanted us to do with Iraq, which is get multiple nations to sit down and basically demand that they stop whatever it is that they're doing. Now John Kerry doesn't want that approach. He wants to sit down with Kim Jong Ill, one-on-one, and succumb to any demands he might have. What's John Kerry going to say to Mr. Ill that Bush, along with Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, etc. aren't saying now?
Which do you think is the more imporant target, an old man who hasn't been able to do anything more than saber rattle in a decade, or a new nuclear threat?
It sounds like you're referring to North Korea here. Kim Jong Ill played this game in 1994 too. Then-President Clinton sent Jimmy Carter over there to barter with him. Obviously, that turned out just swell.
However, I do agree with you on Iran. So what's your position on it? Should we invade and take out the terrorist regime?
Having said that, however, the whole region is very dangerous, and we'd be MUCH better off if we had no interests there, business or otherwise, and practiced a hands-off policy in the region entirely.
I tend to take this view with most of the world, but current technology prohibits the theory from being put into practice. It's impossible not to have any interests in any way at all in the middle east. So, taking that into consideration, along with your "damned if we do, damned if we don't" point of view (which I also agree with), I say we go ahead into Iran and take them out. Hell, why not? I'd also say we head our military into Syria to look for Saddam's WMD's... not invade... just inspect.
OTOH, it's a war that has little to do with the attacks 9/11 2001, so as a part of the actual war against terror, it's a soft stick (a slapstick, a theatrical device).
For people that always say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, I have 2 questions. First, was Saddam Hussein a terrorist? Second, if not, could you define terrorism in a way that does not include mass murder, genocide, religious-based hatred, rape rooms, daily torture, etc.?
I just thuoght we'd have some truth in advertising for once. You readily admit you're a Marxist, so any opinions you might have should be put through the appropriate filters.
...our army is being wasted on an enemy that hasn't invaded anybody within the last decade...
Well, I admit I'm not up on current events as much as I could be, but has any other country has invaded another (as of Jan. 2003) since 1991?
...we've got nothing left for the real threats of terrorist countries who have already gained nukes.
Can we please define a terrorist country? If a terrorist country is one that harbors terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that is headed by a terrorist, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that supports terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that pays terrorists' families' after they commit an act of terror, then Iraq qualifies. I'm not saying that Iran doesn't qualify, but let's be clear here. If you want us to do something about Iran now, why won't you accept that we had to do something about Iraq then?
There's a more detailed graph of the last few thousand years on the next page.
I was waiting for someone to point that out. If you look at those graphs, in the last 40 years, the line bounces up and down like a rubber ball. In fact, on graph #4, they don't even have a line for more than 40 years ago. I'm left believing that they don't have reliable data for more than 40 years ago, and any data shown for pre-1960's is implied, at best.
Will a dataset covering 500x that long be sufficient?
No, it will not. Not unless you can zoom in and see hard data for this millenium. Each vertical bar in that chart shows a period of 10,000 years. Considering that each vertical bar is about 10 pixels wide, that means 1000 years is represented by 1 pixel. Noting that the last 150 years is of peak importance, you'd have to show a close-up of that chart that's about 200x that size.
Global warming may cause areas to cool off. The climate of the entire world warms up. A warm area in one place may cause coolness in another because of how all the tides and jet streams interact. It's counter-intuitive, certainly, but have a run of cold weather doesn't mean there is no global warmning.
Yeah, I saw that movie too. I went for the special effects... I didn't think much of the plot or the acting. But seriously, why won't anyone even acknowledge the increase in sun activity over the last 30 years? Also, why won't anyone provide any evidence that the average temperature has increased more in the past few decades than it historically has in similar timeframes before modern industry (i.e., back a thousand years or so)?
And the UK is expected to get colder in the short term due to GlobalWarming.
So are you suggesting that the poles will remain cold? That's going to hurt your argument for stopping global warming due to the melting of the polar ice caps...
We may not have an accurate record, but we can say that CO2 levels have increased over the past decades. How could they not?
Little trivia fact for the global warming pundits: There are more trees in North America now than there were in 1970. It's true.
(For the less-intuitive of you, here's a very brief explanation.) Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Yet global warming people don't advocate killing everyone in China and India, which would reduce human exhalation of CO2 levels by nearly 40%. Now here's where the trivia fact comes in. Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.
We've come up with many many ways to pump out more of it, and we weren't doing that a few hundred years ago.
I would expect you to provide some evidence showing CO2 levels and the average global temperature from a few hundred years ago. I think going back 1000 years should be sufficient for this exercise. Most experts agree that the average global temperature was higher in the middle-ages than it is now... except those experts who don't like to talk about things like that.
First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.
I find that in particular hard to believe. I don't know what kind of thermometer you have, but the last few years where I live (Pennsylvania, USA) have been much colder than usual. In fact, it's been a running joke around here. Whenever someone mentions how cold it is, inevitably, someone says "Yeah, must be that Global Warming."
In fact, we're on track to beat a record for the number of days without seeing a 100+ degree day in summer. It's been at least 2 years now, and we definitely won't see it for another year at least. It used to be at least once a year that we'd see a few days that hit 100+ degrees.
Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.
IANAS, but doesn't less energy mean that the Earth will cool down? If I run my laptop with half a battery, it won't run hotter... in fact, after a long enough period, it'll cool down quite a bit.
If you accept that the average temperature around the world is rising (which I do not yet), would you suppose it has nothing at all to do with sunspots or solar flares? Is the fact that the solar activity has increased greatly in the last few decades of no consequence? Have you taken into account the previous thousand years, and worked the reported data into your algorithms to see if modern industry is truly the culprit? Have any of these possible explanations been tested and studied?
If I lost my job I'd blame the president. Who's fault is it that the barrel shot up to 52$?
The Chinese. They're buying more of it than ever before.
Petrol prices aside, he's also lowering taxes the wrong way.
It makes a lot more sense if you look at it as percentages of income, not as raw dollars. For instance, if I make $200,000 a year and get a $2000 tax rebate, that's only 1%. If you make $5,000 and get a $200 tax rebate, that's 4%. Suddenly it doesn't look like the rich are getting all the money back, does it?
Of course, some real numbers are worth taking a look at. Bush only cut the Federal Income tax, which is the only part we're concerning ourselves for the purposes of this discussion. Did you know that the top 1% of the country makes 17.53% of the money in the country, but pays 33.89% of the Federal Income tax? (Note: To be in the top 1%, you must make more than $293,000 or so.) The top 50% of the country makes 86.19% of the money, but pays 96.03% of the Federal Income taxes. What are the bottom 50% of the population doing, if they're not reporting their income and paying tax on it?
The President has some influence on who gets taxed and how much, and that has a serious effect on the economy.
While you are correct in a round-about way, it takes an act of Congress to pass any type of tax legislature.
As to either of the candidate's positions, do people really think that business owners (AKA Employers) should be taxed more? Aren't those the people that we depend on to create jobs?
Where in Constitution does it say that it's the government's job to create jobs and make sure people have them?
Are you seriously comparing major American cities to Iraq? You can't be serious.
Why not? Why is that such a terrible example? Most of the USA is peaceful, with only the major cities being hotspots for crime, just like Iraq. How many murders were there in Chicago last year, or LA, or New York? Iraq is a country of 25 million people, and New York has what... 10 million or so? Take whatever the number is for New York and multiply it by 2.5 and you'll get a number much higher than the deathtoll in Iraq in 2003.
There's only 3 arguments when it comes to casualties: either Iraq is better than the USA, they're the same, of Iraq is worse. My above argument addresses the first 2, and my next one will address the third.
Oh, and by the way, according to Michael Moore's movie, Bowling for Columbine, crime in the US seems to be pretty bad, with several thousand deaths every year from firearms... so by using that logic, since Iraq has a far higher ratio of firearms:people, Iraq SHOULD have more firearm-related deaths.
You can't be serious. Germany and Japan were utterly defeated in World War Two. Their cities lay in complete ruins millions of people (military and civilian) were dead and (most importantly) we had broken their will to keep fighting.
Forgive me, but don't you see skinheads praising Hitler in the streets, even today? We obviously didn't kill every white-supremecist, so I guess we didn't "utterly defeat" them. By the same token, we'll never kill every terrorist in the world, but what we can do is show them that it's not worthwhile to try to kill us because the penalty is far greater than the potential reward. That's why the remnants of the German and Japanese armies (particularly the Japanese, due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) stopped fighting back, and that's why the terrorists in Iraq will stop fighting eventually.
By the way, here's a question for you: Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist? (Keeping in mind that he "ruthlessly crushed his own people".)
Hillary has a lock on the 2008 election because she has a lock on the Dem nomination, and the Republicans can't field anyone with anywhere near the name recognition and experience.
I'd put Condoleeza Rice up against Hillary any day of the week. A few months ago, when there was a question about whether Cheney would be Bush's VP again, I was pulling for Rice to be put in the VP spot. It would probably bring in some women voters now, and set her up for the Presidential ticket in 2008. Can you imagine the fallout from the first black AND the first woman President?
The words "liberal" and "conservative" have no precise meaning, and should not be used in a logical discussion.
Historically, being "liberal" means that you support personal freedoms, like abortion and drugs, while being "conservative" means that you support economic freedoms, like lower taxes and not welfare / social security. If you don't support either personal or economic freedom, you're an authoritarian or totalitarian. If you support both personal and economic freedom, then you're a libertarian (or in extreme cases, anarchist). I like my freedoms, so I'm Libertarian, which makes me both liberal and conservative. Since economic freedom impacts me more directly, and more consistently, than the freedom to have an abortion, or the freedom to be gay, I identify more with Republicans (conservatives) than I do with Democrats (liberals). I hope that clears things up for you.
It's an old debate. If the politician just does what his constituents want, then he's "pandering" or "just voting according to the polls". If he doesn't than he's "ignoring his constituents".
If you want to get technical about it, Senators should be doing neither. They should be voting for what the state government wants, and what would be in the best interests of the state government, not what the people want. The whole purpose for having a Senate was to represent the states, not the people (that's why it's not called the "House of Representatives"). Of course that all changed when they pushed through the 17th Amendment, the 2nd nail in the coffin for the United States (the 1st was the 16th Amendment).
Do you think some imposed notion of "freedom" (remember we are talking about a country with no Democractic traditions whatsoever) enforced under the boot of an occupying country...?
Like Japan in 1945? Did they have electricity for more than 2 hours a day back then?
And they have a lot going for them now? Again, I ask you, what does freedom mean if you can't even keep normal crimes (murder, robbery, rape) under control?
Like New York City... now? Or LA? Or Chicago in the 1930's?
That's not even talking about the insurgency (car bombings, shootings, assassinations, etc) which is also taking it's toll on the Iraqi people. Why the hell do you think the Taliban was initially popular among the Afghani people in spite of their policies?
Like the Nazi's after WWII? Wasn't there continued fighting for quite a while after the treaty was signed in 1945? Oh, and what's FDR's exit strategy for Germany and Japan?
It's really a good thing that Germany and Japan never became free. They were going just fine the way it was... they didn't need democracy. They probably wouldn't have known what to do with it anyway. Those silly Japs / Nazis.
It says it conflicts with cd emulation software. It really detects cd emulation software and refuses to run. They try to make it sound like there's an overlap in resource utilization, or an incompatibility of some sort, but it's a lie. They just don't trust you.
I find that particularly troubling, because I've had Easy CD/DVD Creator, Nero, CloneCD, Alcohol 120%, AND ISO Buster installed for well over 6 months. Of course, even with all those programs installed and used regularly, I'm still able to run The Sims 2 without any problems whatsoever. I ran it for about 2 hours last night. The only error I ever saw was "Please insert the game CD into your E drive."
I'm not saying it's not an issue... but maybe, just maybe, could it be either user error, or possibly something with a pirated version of the game? Is it at all possible that EA isn't at fault here, and that it really IS some kind of strange incompatibility? If EA truly was at fault, and "doesn't trust me", you'd think I would be unable to run the game.
Nevertheless, the Republican Party's historical "dirty little secret" is the manipulation of racism to win votes.
First of all, you're quoting a Democrat preaching to Democrats about a Republican's dirty little secret... not exactly proof, is it? Second, when was the last time you heard the Republican Party start class warfare and racism allegations? It seems to me that only the Democratic party is the one that always wants to divide the Blacks against the Whites. Third, if you think Republicans are so hateful of Blacks, while Democrats love them so much, why don't you show me the shining examples of prominent Black Democratic leaders? I don't mean like Al Sharpton, which almost nobody takes seriously. I mean cabinet-level position in a department that actually matters, like Secretary of State (Colin Powell, Republican), or National Security Advisor (Condoleeza Rice, Republican, and a woman... double-points), or Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas, Republican). Can you tell me again how many black people in cabinet-level positions the first "Black President", Bill Clinton, had?
Probably shouldn't point this but you are engaging in the very kind of thinking that causes the problem you are lamenting. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth but you seem to be saying Asian's are hard working and industrious so they are successful while blacks are not.
In an attempt to craft a sharp-edged argument to show the bigotry of racial profiling, you sir, have only succeeded in racially profiling Asians. By comparing one minority to another, by definition, you're stereotyping all Asians to be successful businessmen, and all Blacks to be poor and (presumably) criminals. While I belong to neither of these groups, I'm offended at your suggestions.
Take this mind set and put it in a prospective employer interviewing Asian and Black candidates. In the employers mind the Asian candidate doesn't have all the social baggage the black candidate does. As the stereotype goes the Asian is much more likely to work hard and be successful, maybe the black guy grew up in a slum, doing drugs and listening to rap music. He's going to hire the Asian candidate unless he is filling a quota.
There are several things that this scenario doesn't account for. First of all, is the hiring manager a Black or an Asian? Is the hiring manager a woman? Is he/she white? Human beings are naturally social animals, and social animals tend to form groups with similar social animals. If we assume that everything is exactly the same between both candidates, I'd say that a Black manager would hire the Black candidate, while a White or Asian manager would hire the Asian candidate.
However, the parent message was trying to demonstrate the shortcomings of stereotyping, and the failure of society to view people like Bill Cosby who genuinely want to improve society by pointing out the faults of one or two particular minorities. Therefore, I'm led to believe that you agree with the parent, even though you're trying to disagree with him.
It is a fact of life in America if you are black you are inherently at a disadvantage in life. You are going to be racially profiled by police and hassle more than any other ethnicity. You are going to be at a disadvantage in nearly every interview.
The parent also addressed this issue. In short, he said that life isn't fair, nobody ever said it was going to be, and it's futile to try to make it so. The only thing people can do is the best with what they have.
I might also point out that police racial profiling, from my studying of it, is not a direct result of a suspect's skin color. It seems to be the result of a larger percentage of crimes committed by a minority... so police naturally tend to be more suspicious of members of that particular ethnicity. Here's an example for you. If, over 2 months, 50 cars were stolen in a neighborhood with exactly a 50% white, and a 50% black population. If every eye-witness saw a black man stealing those cars, would you scream "racial profiling" if the police started questioning black men? A similar practice is being avoided in airports. The overwhelming majority of terrorist threats are from Arabic men from middle-east countries. However, contrary to common sense, airport security is deliberately ignoring Arabic men from middle-east countries in an effort to avoid racial profiling.
You may choose to forget it but America, especially the South, was practicing something resembling apartheid barely 40 years ago. The Republican party and many whites are still rascist, either overtly or with a thin veil. Its kind of naive to think blacks are going to jump from deeply oppressed, and in social tatters, to a level playing field in the space of a couple of generations.
I feel that a brief history lesson is in order. Perhaps you'd like to read up on Abraham Lincoln before we go any further. You'll notice that the first sentence says very clearly that Abraham Lincoln, who is commonly among the top 5 rated Presidents in the
Slashdot Mirror
From your link:
... "Another explanation is that regime loyalists or others emptied the facility prior to coalition forces arriving in Baghdad in April."
From the Chicago Sun Times: "Inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers, Fleming said. Inspectors visited the site again in March 2003, but didn't view the explosives because the seals were not broken, she said."
The story must have changed slightly because, ABC News leaves out the definitive "seals were not broken statement": "The nuclear agency has no concrete evidence to suggest the seals were broken, Fleming said."
From the Boston Globe: "The explosives that were looted from the Al Qaqaa nuclear facility, apparently in April and May of 2003, had been sealed and monitored by international nuclear inspectors before the invasion." That certainly seems to imply that they went missing in April of May of 2003, before or during the invasion.
The Washington Post writes, "US officials suggested that the munitions may have disappeared before the US-led forces established full control over the country."
The Washington Times cites a Pentagon statement as saying the explosives could have been moved before US troops arrived. "Although some believe the Al Qaqaa facility may have been looted, there is no way to verify this."
From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "And the US State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli, told us the ordnance went missing before US-led forces had a chance to secure the area."
So, are you clear on it yet? Every single source, except the New York Times, at least mentions that a very real possibility is that they went missing BEFORE the invasion.
Republicans impeached Clinton over a blowjob.
Republicans impeached Clinton over perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of the High Office of President. But I hear the "blowjob" is now just a euphemism of all that.
Even then, Democrats didn't get up in arms over Republican abuse of our democratic processes.
They didn't? Wow... I must have imagined all those people on TV screaming about how biased, stupid, arrogant, etc. Ken Starr was.
like an antigay *Constitutional amendment*
I'm not antigay, but I don't support gay marriage. You know why? Because Marriage has been defined, ever since the beginning of Time, as a union between man and woman. I don't support gay marriage because it demeans the people who've spent their lives trying to tell young people that marriage is a sacred institution. Oh, and for the record, I feel just as much contempt towards Britney and the rest of Hollywood who get married at least twice a month.
I have no problem with a civil union. Of course, I still haven't heard any serious evidence that gays are being treated differently. I never had any problem at all getting into a hospital to see anyone... ever. Nor have I heard my gay friends tell me of such difficulty.
requiring creation myths taught as science
What? I assume you're talking about Stem-Cell Research. You should keep in mind that Bush is allowing federal funding to go towards research on already-existing lines of stem cells. He's just not giving federal money to people to create more. Oh, and in case you think it's a "ban"... it's not. A "ban" is something that's prohibited. Stem Cell research isn't prohibited, it's just not funded at the federal level. If you have some stem cells, or a means to make/grow some, go for it. Nobody will stop you.
handouts to taxfree churches
I have no idea what you're talking about, but since the last 2 items had to do with religion in general, I'm assuming this is some kind of strange religious dislike, or, even worse, a church-and-state argument. Whatever the case is, I've never heard anything about any handouts to churches, and even if I had, I wouldn't have thought anything of it since I'm sure whatever you can possibly dig up can be attributed just as much to Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, etc. as to Bush 43.
When your boy turns "uniter, not a divider" into cranked up division at every turn, you can't just ignore his lies and their vile consequences.
Again, who's doing the dividing? Who can't stop themselves from bitching and moaning? If Gore was in office, wouldn't you get tired of hearing Republicans scream and whine about how he stole the election, how he was evil, how he wants to destroy personal property rights, how he thinks SUV's are anti-environment, etc.?
You can't just ignore a recount when everyone knows the original count was wrong. Not if you're honest.
You can't ignore the fact that the only recount Gore wanted was only supposed to be in his heavily-Democratic counties where most of the election officials were Democrats. Why not recount the whole state? Why was he so opposed to that idea? All he had to do was carry his own home state, and we'd all be saying "Hail Gore".
But any sane observer knows that Bush's Terror War is making the world less safe, and can't remove the actual threat.
Yeah, I guess you're right. We can't remove the actual threat of the Soviet Union. We shouldn't even try.
Even Bush, who flipped back to his Summer flip-flop, saying the possibility of victory in the Terror War is "up in the air".
Obviously you didn't read the whole quote. Let me add the whole excerpt here for your enlightenment:
"Whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up -- you know, is up in the air. I would hope we could make it a lot more safe by staying on the offensive. We have no actionable intelligence. I mean, if I knew that there
Bush is a moron, an insane christaliban fool whose allegiance to untestable faith and Saudi oil power have exposed America to terrorist attacks during his term...
He must be REALLY efficient at it too, since the 9/11 Commission found that Al Qaeda was working on 9/11 for at least 2 years beforehand. So, aside from 9/11, what other attacks on America have occurred? Can you name a 3-year period in the last 20 years or so that haven't had an attack, aside from Sep. 11, 2001 - now?
destroyed much of our economy's ability to recover from even a mild recession...
Wow, here I thought the consumers at large, the stock market, and The Fed managed most of the economy. So, aside from pushing tax policy through Congress, what power does the President have over the economy? Also, the recession began in March of 2000, give or take a few months, long before Bush was elected.
divided our people beyond our famous ability to compromise and move on from and setback...
So... who's divided again? Who is screaming as loudly as possible, and bitching, complaining, and whining to anyone that'll listen about how terrible our current administration is? Our nation has always been divided, but at least in the 90's, the Republicans weren't bitching this much about Clinton. Damn man, are you deaf and blind? Haven't you seen any of Kerry's, or Kennedy's, or Dean's, etc. speeches? Haven't you seen any of the Democratic leaders scream the evils of Bush at crowds with red faces? Don't you know who calls the President "selected, not elected"? Who was responsible for all the division in Florida? Who kept calling for recount after recount, until his preferred result came out? Do you ever wonder what would have happened if Gore finally won a recount with about 50 votes? Would you be satisfied then? Would you be calling for another recount, since it was such a small number? Would you call for a full-scale recount of the whole state, rather than only heavily-Democratic counties? And you have the audacity to say it's BUSH'S FAULT that this country is divided? Open your eyes and look in the mirror for a little while, and maybe you'll get a clue.
Sorry, don't watch NBC. Took the link from Google News, but finding other examples wouldn't be too hard. Iraq isn't more secure now than it was under Hussein.
Well, your first example has been discredited. Every example you find since April of 2003 is irrelevant because you can't say for certain how secure Iraq was when Hussein was in power. The reason you can't is because Hussein controlled what the news agencies in Iraq would and would not report. However, in the last year, we've uncovered over 300,000 bodies in over 250 mass graves. I wonder if they would think Iraq is more secure now than it was then?
A selective war on terrorism? How could it not be?
Oh, so you admit that you want to go after ONLY Al Qaeda, but ignore anybody else until they strike us in a major 9/11-style attack? That sounds great. Let me know how that works out for you... I'll be hiding in a bomb shelter for the next 100 years. I wonder... in the year 2000, would you have supported going into Afghanistan forcefully and removing the Taliban in an attempt to prevent an alleged terrorist attack?
However, my problem with the war against Iraq isn't so much that it is unfair as that I don't believe it will work as a part of this 'war against terrorism'.
So you're more for a selective war on terrorism? We only kill the terrorists that kill us first? As an example, take the recent looting of explosives south of Baghdad.
I guess you didn't watch NBC last night. They had a report saying that they were embedded in the 101st Airborne division that was the first at that place, and those explosives weren't there. The IAEA said they last saw them in Jan. of 2003. That means they disappeared between Jan. of 2003 and Apr. of 2003. That's not very recent in my book. Oh... and yes, Hussein was in power then.
The key word though in my sentence wasn't "terrorist" but rather "nukes"- as in the ability to destroy entire cities.
Biological and chemical weapons scare me a hell of a lot more than nukes. With nukes, at least you know basically what to expect... half the people will die instantly. With biological or chemical weapons, the effect could take months or even years, and it could kill ten times the number of people.
They were relatively contained- and easy to keep contained with the armements we already had in place.
The problem with keeping them contained is the same problem as keeping AIDS, or SARS, or Ebola contained. It only takes a tiny bit that gets through yout defenses, and you'll wish you would have wiped them out when you could have.
There was NO chance of Saddam gaining nuclear ICBMs in the near future, the way North Korea had and the way Iran was begining to (and still is).
Actually, the Dulfeur report said that Saddam had all the parts and people in place and was actively promoting the lifting of the UN-imposed sanctions, which, if accomplished, meant he could start building nuclear ICBM's immediately.
As far as North Korea goes, we're in the process of doing exactly what John Kerry wanted us to do with Iraq, which is get multiple nations to sit down and basically demand that they stop whatever it is that they're doing. Now John Kerry doesn't want that approach. He wants to sit down with Kim Jong Ill, one-on-one, and succumb to any demands he might have. What's John Kerry going to say to Mr. Ill that Bush, along with Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, etc. aren't saying now?
Which do you think is the more imporant target, an old man who hasn't been able to do anything more than saber rattle in a decade, or a new nuclear threat?
It sounds like you're referring to North Korea here. Kim Jong Ill played this game in 1994 too. Then-President Clinton sent Jimmy Carter over there to barter with him. Obviously, that turned out just swell.
However, I do agree with you on Iran. So what's your position on it? Should we invade and take out the terrorist regime?
Having said that, however, the whole region is very dangerous, and we'd be MUCH better off if we had no interests there, business or otherwise, and practiced a hands-off policy in the region entirely.
I tend to take this view with most of the world, but current technology prohibits the theory from being put into practice. It's impossible not to have any interests in any way at all in the middle east. So, taking that into consideration, along with your "damned if we do, damned if we don't" point of view (which I also agree with), I say we go ahead into Iran and take them out. Hell, why not? I'd also say we head our military into Syria to look for Saddam's WMD's... not invade... just inspect.
OTOH, it's a war that has little to do with the attacks 9/11 2001, so as a part of the actual war against terror, it's a soft stick (a slapstick, a theatrical device).
For people that always say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, I have 2 questions. First, was Saddam Hussein a terrorist? Second, if not, could you define terrorism in a way that does not include mass murder, genocide, religious-based hatred, rape rooms, daily torture, etc.?
... by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) ...
...our army is being wasted on an enemy that hasn't invaded anybody within the last decade...
...we've got nothing left for the real threats of terrorist countries who have already gained nukes.
I just thuoght we'd have some truth in advertising for once. You readily admit you're a Marxist, so any opinions you might have should be put through the appropriate filters.
Well, I admit I'm not up on current events as much as I could be, but has any other country has invaded another (as of Jan. 2003) since 1991?
Can we please define a terrorist country? If a terrorist country is one that harbors terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that is headed by a terrorist, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that supports terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that pays terrorists' families' after they commit an act of terror, then Iraq qualifies. I'm not saying that Iran doesn't qualify, but let's be clear here. If you want us to do something about Iran now, why won't you accept that we had to do something about Iraq then?
While we're on the subject, maybe you could answer Bob Woodward's 22 questions for Kerry. I'm sure your answers will be very telling.
There's a more detailed graph of the last few thousand years on the next page.
I was waiting for someone to point that out. If you look at those graphs, in the last 40 years, the line bounces up and down like a rubber ball. In fact, on graph #4, they don't even have a line for more than 40 years ago. I'm left believing that they don't have reliable data for more than 40 years ago, and any data shown for pre-1960's is implied, at best.
Will a dataset covering 500x that long be sufficient?
No, it will not. Not unless you can zoom in and see hard data for this millenium. Each vertical bar in that chart shows a period of 10,000 years. Considering that each vertical bar is about 10 pixels wide, that means 1000 years is represented by 1 pixel. Noting that the last 150 years is of peak importance, you'd have to show a close-up of that chart that's about 200x that size.
Global warming may cause areas to cool off. The climate of the entire world warms up. A warm area in one place may cause coolness in another because of how all the tides and jet streams interact. It's counter-intuitive, certainly, but have a run of cold weather doesn't mean there is no global warmning.
Yeah, I saw that movie too. I went for the special effects... I didn't think much of the plot or the acting. But seriously, why won't anyone even acknowledge the increase in sun activity over the last 30 years? Also, why won't anyone provide any evidence that the average temperature has increased more in the past few decades than it historically has in similar timeframes before modern industry (i.e., back a thousand years or so)?
And the UK is expected to get colder in the short term due to GlobalWarming.
So are you suggesting that the poles will remain cold? That's going to hurt your argument for stopping global warming due to the melting of the polar ice caps...
We may not have an accurate record, but we can say that CO2 levels have increased over the past decades. How could they not?
Little trivia fact for the global warming pundits: There are more trees in North America now than there were in 1970. It's true.
(For the less-intuitive of you, here's a very brief explanation.) Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Yet global warming people don't advocate killing everyone in China and India, which would reduce human exhalation of CO2 levels by nearly 40%. Now here's where the trivia fact comes in. Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.
We've come up with many many ways to pump out more of it, and we weren't doing that a few hundred years ago.
I would expect you to provide some evidence showing CO2 levels and the average global temperature from a few hundred years ago. I think going back 1000 years should be sufficient for this exercise. Most experts agree that the average global temperature was higher in the middle-ages than it is now... except those experts who don't like to talk about things like that.
First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.
I find that in particular hard to believe. I don't know what kind of thermometer you have, but the last few years where I live (Pennsylvania, USA) have been much colder than usual. In fact, it's been a running joke around here. Whenever someone mentions how cold it is, inevitably, someone says "Yeah, must be that Global Warming."
In fact, we're on track to beat a record for the number of days without seeing a 100+ degree day in summer. It's been at least 2 years now, and we definitely won't see it for another year at least. It used to be at least once a year that we'd see a few days that hit 100+ degrees.
Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.
IANAS, but doesn't less energy mean that the Earth will cool down? If I run my laptop with half a battery, it won't run hotter... in fact, after a long enough period, it'll cool down quite a bit.
If you accept that the average temperature around the world is rising (which I do not yet), would you suppose it has nothing at all to do with sunspots or solar flares? Is the fact that the solar activity has increased greatly in the last few decades of no consequence? Have you taken into account the previous thousand years, and worked the reported data into your algorithms to see if modern industry is truly the culprit? Have any of these possible explanations been tested and studied?
If I lost my job I'd blame the president. Who's fault is it that the barrel shot up to 52$?
The Chinese. They're buying more of it than ever before.
Petrol prices aside, he's also lowering taxes the wrong way.
It makes a lot more sense if you look at it as percentages of income, not as raw dollars. For instance, if I make $200,000 a year and get a $2000 tax rebate, that's only 1%. If you make $5,000 and get a $200 tax rebate, that's 4%. Suddenly it doesn't look like the rich are getting all the money back, does it?
Of course, some real numbers are worth taking a look at. Bush only cut the Federal Income tax, which is the only part we're concerning ourselves for the purposes of this discussion. Did you know that the top 1% of the country makes 17.53% of the money in the country, but pays 33.89% of the Federal Income tax? (Note: To be in the top 1%, you must make more than $293,000 or so.) The top 50% of the country makes 86.19% of the money, but pays 96.03% of the Federal Income taxes. What are the bottom 50% of the population doing, if they're not reporting their income and paying tax on it?
The President has some influence on who gets taxed and how much, and that has a serious effect on the economy.
While you are correct in a round-about way, it takes an act of Congress to pass any type of tax legislature.
As to either of the candidate's positions, do people really think that business owners (AKA Employers) should be taxed more? Aren't those the people that we depend on to create jobs?
Where in Constitution does it say that it's the government's job to create jobs and make sure people have them?
Are you seriously comparing major American cities to Iraq? You can't be serious.
Why not? Why is that such a terrible example? Most of the USA is peaceful, with only the major cities being hotspots for crime, just like Iraq. How many murders were there in Chicago last year, or LA, or New York? Iraq is a country of 25 million people, and New York has what... 10 million or so? Take whatever the number is for New York and multiply it by 2.5 and you'll get a number much higher than the deathtoll in Iraq in 2003.
There's only 3 arguments when it comes to casualties: either Iraq is better than the USA, they're the same, of Iraq is worse. My above argument addresses the first 2, and my next one will address the third.
Oh, and by the way, according to Michael Moore's movie, Bowling for Columbine, crime in the US seems to be pretty bad, with several thousand deaths every year from firearms... so by using that logic, since Iraq has a far higher ratio of firearms:people, Iraq SHOULD have more firearm-related deaths.
You can't be serious. Germany and Japan were utterly defeated in World War Two. Their cities lay in complete ruins millions of people (military and civilian) were dead and (most importantly) we had broken their will to keep fighting.
Forgive me, but don't you see skinheads praising Hitler in the streets, even today? We obviously didn't kill every white-supremecist, so I guess we didn't "utterly defeat" them. By the same token, we'll never kill every terrorist in the world, but what we can do is show them that it's not worthwhile to try to kill us because the penalty is far greater than the potential reward. That's why the remnants of the German and Japanese armies (particularly the Japanese, due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) stopped fighting back, and that's why the terrorists in Iraq will stop fighting eventually.
By the way, here's a question for you: Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist? (Keeping in mind that he "ruthlessly crushed his own people".)
Hillary has a lock on the 2008 election because she has a lock on the Dem nomination, and the Republicans can't field anyone with anywhere near the name recognition and experience.
I'd put Condoleeza Rice up against Hillary any day of the week. A few months ago, when there was a question about whether Cheney would be Bush's VP again, I was pulling for Rice to be put in the VP spot. It would probably bring in some women voters now, and set her up for the Presidential ticket in 2008. Can you imagine the fallout from the first black AND the first woman President?
Slice of PATRIOT, anyone?
Didn't the Congress vote on the PATRIOT Act? I could have sworn they did...
The words "liberal" and "conservative" have no precise meaning, and should not be used in a logical discussion.
Historically, being "liberal" means that you support personal freedoms, like abortion and drugs, while being "conservative" means that you support economic freedoms, like lower taxes and not welfare / social security. If you don't support either personal or economic freedom, you're an authoritarian or totalitarian. If you support both personal and economic freedom, then you're a libertarian (or in extreme cases, anarchist). I like my freedoms, so I'm Libertarian, which makes me both liberal and conservative. Since economic freedom impacts me more directly, and more consistently, than the freedom to have an abortion, or the freedom to be gay, I identify more with Republicans (conservatives) than I do with Democrats (liberals). I hope that clears things up for you.
It's an old debate. If the politician just does what his constituents want, then he's "pandering" or "just voting according to the polls". If he doesn't than he's "ignoring his constituents".
If you want to get technical about it, Senators should be doing neither. They should be voting for what the state government wants, and what would be in the best interests of the state government, not what the people want. The whole purpose for having a Senate was to represent the states, not the people (that's why it's not called the "House of Representatives"). Of course that all changed when they pushed through the 17th Amendment, the 2nd nail in the coffin for the United States (the 1st was the 16th Amendment).
Do you think some imposed notion of "freedom" (remember we are talking about a country with no Democractic traditions whatsoever) enforced under the boot of an occupying country ...?
Like Japan in 1945? Did they have electricity for more than 2 hours a day back then?
And they have a lot going for them now? Again, I ask you, what does freedom mean if you can't even keep normal crimes (murder, robbery, rape) under control?
Like New York City... now? Or LA? Or Chicago in the 1930's?
That's not even talking about the insurgency (car bombings, shootings, assassinations, etc) which is also taking it's toll on the Iraqi people. Why the hell do you think the Taliban was initially popular among the Afghani people in spite of their policies?
Like the Nazi's after WWII? Wasn't there continued fighting for quite a while after the treaty was signed in 1945? Oh, and what's FDR's exit strategy for Germany and Japan?
It's really a good thing that Germany and Japan never became free. They were going just fine the way it was... they didn't need democracy. They probably wouldn't have known what to do with it anyway. Those silly Japs / Nazis.
It says it conflicts with cd emulation software. It really detects cd emulation software and refuses to run. They try to make it sound like there's an overlap in resource utilization, or an incompatibility of some sort, but it's a lie. They just don't trust you.
I find that particularly troubling, because I've had Easy CD/DVD Creator, Nero, CloneCD, Alcohol 120%, AND ISO Buster installed for well over 6 months. Of course, even with all those programs installed and used regularly, I'm still able to run The Sims 2 without any problems whatsoever. I ran it for about 2 hours last night. The only error I ever saw was "Please insert the game CD into your E drive."
I'm not saying it's not an issue... but maybe, just maybe, could it be either user error, or possibly something with a pirated version of the game? Is it at all possible that EA isn't at fault here, and that it really IS some kind of strange incompatibility? If EA truly was at fault, and "doesn't trust me", you'd think I would be unable to run the game.
Nevertheless, the Republican Party's historical "dirty little secret" is the manipulation of racism to win votes.
First of all, you're quoting a Democrat preaching to Democrats about a Republican's dirty little secret... not exactly proof, is it? Second, when was the last time you heard the Republican Party start class warfare and racism allegations? It seems to me that only the Democratic party is the one that always wants to divide the Blacks against the Whites. Third, if you think Republicans are so hateful of Blacks, while Democrats love them so much, why don't you show me the shining examples of prominent Black Democratic leaders? I don't mean like Al Sharpton, which almost nobody takes seriously. I mean cabinet-level position in a department that actually matters, like Secretary of State (Colin Powell, Republican), or National Security Advisor (Condoleeza Rice, Republican, and a woman... double-points), or Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas, Republican). Can you tell me again how many black people in cabinet-level positions the first "Black President", Bill Clinton, had?
Probably shouldn't point this but you are engaging in the very kind of thinking that causes the problem you are lamenting. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth but you seem to be saying Asian's are hard working and industrious so they are successful while blacks are not.
In an attempt to craft a sharp-edged argument to show the bigotry of racial profiling, you sir, have only succeeded in racially profiling Asians. By comparing one minority to another, by definition, you're stereotyping all Asians to be successful businessmen, and all Blacks to be poor and (presumably) criminals. While I belong to neither of these groups, I'm offended at your suggestions.
Take this mind set and put it in a prospective employer interviewing Asian and Black candidates. In the employers mind the Asian candidate doesn't have all the social baggage the black candidate does. As the stereotype goes the Asian is much more likely to work hard and be successful, maybe the black guy grew up in a slum, doing drugs and listening to rap music. He's going to hire the Asian candidate unless he is filling a quota.
There are several things that this scenario doesn't account for. First of all, is the hiring manager a Black or an Asian? Is the hiring manager a woman? Is he/she white? Human beings are naturally social animals, and social animals tend to form groups with similar social animals. If we assume that everything is exactly the same between both candidates, I'd say that a Black manager would hire the Black candidate, while a White or Asian manager would hire the Asian candidate.
However, the parent message was trying to demonstrate the shortcomings of stereotyping, and the failure of society to view people like Bill Cosby who genuinely want to improve society by pointing out the faults of one or two particular minorities. Therefore, I'm led to believe that you agree with the parent, even though you're trying to disagree with him.
It is a fact of life in America if you are black you are inherently at a disadvantage in life. You are going to be racially profiled by police and hassle more than any other ethnicity. You are going to be at a disadvantage in nearly every interview.
The parent also addressed this issue. In short, he said that life isn't fair, nobody ever said it was going to be, and it's futile to try to make it so. The only thing people can do is the best with what they have.
I might also point out that police racial profiling, from my studying of it, is not a direct result of a suspect's skin color. It seems to be the result of a larger percentage of crimes committed by a minority... so police naturally tend to be more suspicious of members of that particular ethnicity. Here's an example for you. If, over 2 months, 50 cars were stolen in a neighborhood with exactly a 50% white, and a 50% black population. If every eye-witness saw a black man stealing those cars, would you scream "racial profiling" if the police started questioning black men? A similar practice is being avoided in airports. The overwhelming majority of terrorist threats are from Arabic men from middle-east countries. However, contrary to common sense, airport security is deliberately ignoring Arabic men from middle-east countries in an effort to avoid racial profiling.
You may choose to forget it but America, especially the South, was practicing something resembling apartheid barely 40 years ago. The Republican party and many whites are still rascist, either overtly or with a thin veil. Its kind of naive to think blacks are going to jump from deeply oppressed, and in social tatters, to a level playing field in the space of a couple of generations.
I feel that a brief history lesson is in order. Perhaps you'd like to read up on Abraham Lincoln before we go any further. You'll notice that the first sentence says very clearly that Abraham Lincoln, who is commonly among the top 5 rated Presidents in the