#4: Place your bets? > Hoping for Disaster?

THREAD BEGAN: September 28th, 2004

BOB: Alright, it’s only about 100 days until the Election in Iraq.
Place your bets now…Choose an outcome from the list below.
ELECTIONS WILL TAKE PLACE AS PLANNED:
(A) …with little or no interference
(B) …despite persistent terrorist attacks
ELECTIONS WILL HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS:
(C) …only a ‘partial’ Election will take place
(D) …the vote will result in a recount / scandal
(E) …mass protest / rioting will break out
(F) …there will be unrest when U.S. intervenes in candidate selection
ELECTIONS WILL BE ‘POSTPONED’:
(G) …because of terrorism / security concerns
(H) …because of Civil War
Feel free to add to the list if I forgot anything.
(I want to hear from everyone, even Maney)
Winner gets to say, “I told you so” come January.

ZELIN: Tony Blair voiced the following words today as he makes his bid for re-election: BRIGHTON, England, Sept. 28 — Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged today that there had been a decline of public trust in his government over the military campaign in Iraq and he offered the assembled delegates of his governing Labor Party a qualified apology for some of the judgments he had made in taking the country to war."The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons as opposed to the capability to develop them has turned out to be wrong," he told hundreds of party leaders and delegates as about 8,000 protesters against the war and against a ban on fox hunting demonstrated outside the hall in this seaside resort on Britain's southern coast.My question is, why can't Bush come out and say something along these lines? Seriously, to his own credit. I think if he was able to publicly relay some sense of honesty about the war to the American people, he could win over (okay, maybe not win over) liberals like myself who are questioning his actions. But, he is to narrow minded and focused on the upcoming election to level with the American people and portray a sense of honesty regarding Iraq.Jay, regarding our previous email on poor Southerners fighting the war and rich liberals debating it. I guess, it takes some educated liberals such as myself and yourself to argue this war, and question our president's policies, in order to keep you and me out of Iraq. Don't worry, the liberals will take care of questioning an unjust war to make sure none of use get drafted.

JAY: Zelin, I also read an article concerning Blair's re-election. Here is the site if anyone else wants to read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3692996.stm. It's from the BBC. The following sentence that Zelin omitted states, "But the prime minister told Labour delegates in Brighton he could not apologise for having been involved in the effort to remove Saddam Hussein. Blair was interrupted by a protester and responded, "That's fine sir you can make your protest - just thank God we live in a democracy." Sounds familiar. Did I say that to you libs a while ago. Blair went on to say, "The problem is I can apologise for the information being wrong but I can never apologise, sincerely at least, for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison."
bob, i will answer your survey after i think about it for a little bit. the sad thing about this survey is i think you would prefer a disaster/civil war just so you can say "i told you so." i really think that. it's pretty sick.
My response to this survey stating how i thought bob wanted to see a disaster got me thinking. This is the one problem i see w/ a bi-partisanship. I see a huge conflict of interest. When you guys make your arguments stating how the war in iraq is going to shit, i think that's what you want. you and all the democrats want to see bush fail so it hurts his campaign around election time. his failure equates to democratic success. do you see a conflict of interest? the worse things go in iraq (the more deaths), the better kerry will do in the election. if you are one of those guys that want to see a disaster in iraq (more civilian and us soldier casualties) just to get a democrat in office or to say "i told you so", then you are disturbed. so, after what i just said, who wants to see a disaster in iraq? i want to hear from all the democrats.

ZELIN: Jay, I guess I will respond to one of your 16 emails you sent in the past 5 minutes. You mention that us liberals, mostly Chuck, are unable to look at both sides are so considerably one-sided, that we cannot have a debate. I invite you to look on the blog and re-read a trail of your previous emails. You simply try to argue every point that we make without even considering the possibilities of our rational. In that case, I think you are guilty of the same crime. Furthermore, to also say that we are hoping for more casualties so Kerry will win, is ridiculous and immature. No Jay, we are just realists, people who look at the situation for what it is and try to see that things are not going so well in this war. That is all. Our president and you want to put a fucking rosey color stamp on all the news, to increas our morale. I think that is shortsighted and irrespnosbile. As I stated before Jay, just questioning what is going on, that is all. Seriously man, take it easy. From the tone of your emails I feel that I could email saying my shirt is yellow and you would find some fucking way to argue that it has an orange hue. What the fuck did law school do to you.Jay, I agree that it was good to get Saddam out of power. My point was, I think the Bush administration could be a bit more honest about the current situation instead of trying to paint a beautiful picture for pre-election boners. That is all. Okay, agree, with the other issues regarding Saddam.

BEN: hewitt in response to your little poll question....if Bush wins: B) will take place despite terrorism and C) only a partial election will take place. If Kerry wins: B) will take place despite terrorism and F) when the US intervenes there will be unrest

CHUCK: Okay serious problem: Since there is no WMD, no 9/11, no imminent threat, why are we in Iraq? Well, the acceptable answer is to spread democracy in a region in need of help. Well, that is a nobel cause. Problem: Our the current White House does not want a legitimate democracy.
A story broke this week (which was way underreported) that exposed a CIA planned to financially influence the outcome of the Iraq election. Can you believe it? We want to spread democracy, but then think about rigging the election, so we get a pro-US winner. Bush has now rejected the idea. But when? After Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) found out and led a charge to NOT fix the election. What would have happened if the 'secret' documents didnt get out.
So to summarize: We want to spread democracy. White House wants to secretly 'influence' the Iraq election. Democrats lead charge to not 'influence'. Thanks to democrats we will not influence the election. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041004-702122,00.html

ZELIN: Can one Bush Supporter please Answer Chuck's first question?
Okay serious problem: Since there is no WMD, no 9/11, no imminent threat, why are we in Iraq?
Please, I am interested in your case for this question.

BOB: Jay, I WANT TO SEE DISASTER!
But not for the reasons you suggested. My reason is simply this:
I believe that it is wrong for us to invade another nation pre-emptively, overthrow their government (even if it is a bastard like Saddam), and ‘install’ one that suits our interests simply because we say that it’s a threat. ESPECIALLY IF IT ISN’T!
If the United States gets away with this, it sets the precedent. This current policy needs to be stopped before it gets out of hand. As long as our foreign policy is viewed by non-Americans the world over as imperialism, it will only breed anti-Americanism (which I believe is the real root cause of terrorism.)
So for the sake of the next generation of U.S. soldiers, all the other countries on Cheney’s To-Do list, and most importantly: the safety of the American people, I am rooting for a moderate failure in Iraq.
By moderate failure I mean:
----A situation that is unsuccessful enough (unprofitable enough) that the American people realize that this pre-emptive, go-it-alone, imperialistic, nation-building crap is fundamentally wrong.
----A situation that is unsuccessful enough that the U.S. (Republicans and Democrats) are forced to return to the ‘irrelevant’ U.N. with their tails between their legs and say, “We need your help, please, thank you.” (Not for troops, as much as legitimacy in the eyes of the Arab world)
However, no one wants to see the situation spin out of control and the region turned into a breeding ground for terrorists the world over. (Although, it’s looking more probable with every bloody month.)
We are at a foreign policy crossroads right now. Everything is pivoting on the success of this Iraq experiment. Will we realize that our hypocritical, smash-em-all foreign policy is actually breeding more terrorism than it’s eliminating? Or will we ‘stay the course’ until the majority of non-Americans celebrate when a bomb goes off in New York City?
I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer. Do you think that I am disturbed?

JAY: zelin, i didn't say you liberals. i addressed that towards chuck. reread my e-mail. you'll see. the more boners the marrier. blair doesn't apologize for going into iraq, and that's how i think your message was misleadingchuck, that's what i'm talking about. you take every question and instead of anwering it, you throw in a bush comment. only bob anwered my question. where are the rest of you democrats? conflict or what?

ZELIN: I answered your question yesterday. Said that your accusations are ridiculous and immature.

JAY: how is it ridiculous iif bob answered in the affirmative. something is not ridiculous if it is true. so you are telling me that it is ridiculous to think that some/most/all (whatever) democrats would like to see bush's occupation in iraq fail? you don't think some would like it to fail horribly to help kerry's position on iraq? chuck, i'll look into your "way underreported story." see, I'll do that b/c i want to hear all sides and make an intelligent decision based on all views. when i discussed the oil-for-food scandal you immediately bashed bush for something cleary irrelevant to the topic (unless you were saying somehow it was bush's scandal; i don't think that's what you meant either) you know the answer for this question. bush had intelligence that was wrong (allegedly so far). if you were president and recieved such intelligence, what would you do? i'll tell you what kerry would have done. he would have gone into iraq b/c that's what he voted for. i still think there was a threat. wait until the report comes out. didn't you get my e-mail about the report where i analogized w/ conspiracy. i ask b/c nobody responded. before you answer, research for yourself on the inpections report and then tell if you think there was any threat whatsoever.

ZELIN: Jay, And then you know what my response will be. Let's get into N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and even Israel. They all have nuclear weapons and certain countries possess threats that are to grave for us to even think of. We should send troops to all of these nations to free to world of terror and make sure all persecuted people are liberated. In that case, add Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, Colubmia, and shit, why not Canada. We can all get drafted and serve our dear leader.

JAY: don't worry. i'm sure sooner or later we'll be dealing w/ one of those countries. however, that argument conflicts w/ one of your arguments. it's often argued that bush is spreading our resources too wide by invading iraq during our occupation in afghanistan. if we now go into one of those countries you mentioned,wouldn't that strengthen your argument? If you couldn't grasp from my email, I was being sarcastic about invading all those nations. Zelin, in another article I read blair stated, "In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. on Wednesday Blair suggested, however, he did not think that the “basis upon which we went to war was wrong. We took the action as a result of Saddam’s failure to comply with U.N. resolutions, and that noncompliance still stands."I like his reasons, what about you? Bob, First off, you stated in your response "go-it-alone." That is a blatant lie. How many countries were in the coalition? I know it doesn't meet your standard, but it is one of the largest coalitions ever. How many people have to die for it to be a moderate failure. You can think it's wrong, I respect that. But when you hope for the deaths of civilians and soldiers merely to prove a point, arent you just as bad as you claim bush is? I always knew you were slightly different in your artsy little way, but this crosses the line. As much as something may be wrong, you should always wicsh for the best outcome. Also, you guys argue "why don't we go into other countries that pose more of a threat?" Doesn't that contradict what you just said,"I believe that it is wrong for us to invade another nation pre-emptively, overthrow their government (even if it is a bastard like Saddam), and ‘install’ one that suits our interests simply because we say that it’s a threat."I am saving this quote from you: "I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer." Tell that to the families that have sons and daughters over there.

CHUCK: Jay, i am sorry for adding more then simple yes/no answers. I will say for the 3rd time, YES the french theory is possible. Until there is more evidence I cannot say more then that. (now i'll stop, because evidently i am only allowed yes/no answers and then no other comments) MY ANSWER: I dont want disaster. i want to stabalize badly because i think if we let iraq go it will turn into the old afghanistan times 10 for terrorists. (again, i will refrain from any other comment on why the terrorists are there, because any additional comments make me irrational)

BOB: Well Jay, I like your spirit. Keep swingin away kiddo.About my email: I WANT TO SEE DISASTER!I knew that few people, if any in this roundtable, would agree/understand my point (REP or DEM). And for the love of God I don't want to agrue about the size and legitimacy of the coalition (its already laidout on the blog). (Also I am not one who agrues that we should get involved with Columbia, Rwanda and every other nation that has problems.)But please don't put words in my mouth:I DON'T "HOPE FOR DEATHS MERELY TO PROVE A POINT!"I DON'T HOPE FOR DEATHS!I DO HOPE THAT AMERICA WAKES UP AND REALIZES THAT THIS TYPE OF POLICY IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE AMERICA MORE VULNERABLE. BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.And I AM hoping for the best outcome (the best FEASIBLE outcome)(The best outcome, of course, is that we overthrow Saddam, find the weapons, the Iraqis rejoice, the country is stabilized, reconstruction gets underway, countries like France and Germany call us to apologize and we spread liberty and freedom to the Middle East. Unfortunately, the best outcome is a pipe-dream.) Instead, I will wish for the best FEASIBLE outcome. I will hope that the American people realize soon that pre-emptive invasions like Iraq aren't the way to make us safer, force our government to bring our soldiers home safely ASAP and elect politicians who don't fear-monger us or put our soldiers in harms way to neutralize non-existent threats.

JAY: this reply seems considerably different than "I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer." What constitutes a moderate disaster? I would assume a moderate disaster equates to more deaths. sorry for the constant e-mails. i feel the need to respond every time i am singled out.

SAMMY: Sorry guys I have been really busy, and haven't checked my mail. I must say you guys have been busy. Well it seems their is one mailing I want to comment on. And that is Jays.No I don't want to see disaster, but on the other hand aren't we seeing that right now. I haven't checked the latest death and injury counts , but when the first man died for Bush's war that was a disaster for me. Bush has failed, and the more death and more money that man spends is just another nail in the coffin for Bush. I don't want anymore of it. But, if Bush is going to stead fast and keep his corse, then the only good thing that can come of it is to say "I told you so!!!!"

BEN: bob, i am glad you cleared it up you dont want deaths in iraq.......i dont think anyone on this list does, no matter what they think.....now there are some fringe folks out there that do, but no one here.as far as watching the debate.....i think kerry is going to try and say bush is the "real flip flopper" true or not, it wont wash, because the fact that kerry is a flip flopper is ingrained in peoples mind. should be fun to watch, and i know the comments will be many from every one here

CHUCK: i think the debates are going to lack substance. since there is no direct questions from candidate to candidate, i think each guy will have there scripted answers memorized, and it will go smoothly. i bet the big discussion after will be something dumb like kerry is 'too tan' or bush looked at his watch. neither guy is going to say anything surprising (i hope i am jinx that, and there is yelling and arguing and all that good stuff, but doubt it)

KYLE: My dream question for tonight's debate: President Bush, you opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission, but then changed your opinion. Why would you oppose a commission seeking to investigate the most catastrophic attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor?

ZELIN: Regarding tonight's content, I agree with Chuck. The debates are so scripted and regulated that I feel we won't hear anything knew, or breathtaking. However, that is the opinion of a bunch of politically spirited, smart kids like ourselves. I think this will be the first time lots of Americans truly see the candidates on stage and get a view of their characteristics. That is why I worry about Kerry.

BOB: STILL WAITING?!
On tuesday I asked a very simple question (what will happen in the Iraqi Election). It was even multiple choice!!! Since then I have gotten exactly 30 emails (10 just from Jay) and ONLY Keeler has responded. Jay, you always claim that no one is answering your questions, are you planning on answering mine?!? (And that goes for all of you other, too. Also Jay, after I wrote, “I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer." You replied, “Tell that to the families that have sons and daughters over there.” In regards to the families of those fallen soldiers...the one who has explainning to do is your buddy Bush, not me. He is the one that needs to tell those families why they sacraficed their son or daughter neutalizing some non-existent WMDs.
The precise reason that I want an unsuccessful occupation (that leads to the withdrawl of U.S. troops) is to end this type of American blood-shed ASAP and to change our foreign policy so that it never happens again.

KYLE: Bob, Good news on your question. There aren't going to be elections in Iraq anytime soon. Does this look like a place ready for an election? www.aljazeera.net

JAY: you can't possibly justify what you said. “I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer." bullshit all you want. i have forwarded this remark to everyone on my contact list and you should see the reactions. apparently you're the devil. once all my questions are answered i'll take a good week or two to respond to your survey. hey, i'm still waiting too (on many unanswered questions)
do you unerstand that a moderate disaster equates to more "American blood-shed?" do you understand that what constitutes a disaster is lost lives? i understand that you feel our occupation there is wrong, but your "moderate disaster" remark completely contraducts yourself. you don't want "American blood-shed," but you will tolerate it if it means we'll leave iraq.

CHUCK: i dont want to say it aloud to everyon(out of fear of jay outing me to hundreds, like he supposedly did to you), but i totally understand your point. i dont agree, and hope we quickly succeed or quickly withdraw because i cant take all this innocent death. but i get your point, and its never going to sound good, but its logically it makes sense. maybe its weak of me to not say it to everyone, but i just dont feel like jay having this thing on me that he feels is some trump card.

JAY: i was at the bar last night talking w/ zelin and i realized something. one thing i always liked about kerry was his plan to give tax incentives to businesses to keep them in the u.s. (prevent them from outsourcing to other countries). however, as i argued for it i realized it could be a horrible thing. this would hinder globalization, hinder free competition, and affect millions of lives throughout the world. do you think the families in other countries that rely on th income they recieve from u.s. businesses will be happy? do you think it will result in much more hate for the u.s.? (this is where i expect bob to throw in his view that big business exploits labor in other countries; however it's called supply and demand. they want us there. families wouldn't survive if it wasn't for big businesses over there. it's not like slavery. if they don't want to work, they don't have to. i would love them to pay more, but that's not how supply and demand works. direct your stupid argument to economics)

CHUCK: Its really sad. 34 children killed. well, on the upside, at least these kids dont have to live a life w/out any parents, like the thousands of children who had there innocent civilian parents killed in this war.....because the kids those living/parentless children are definitely going to hold a lot of hostility towards americans and grow up into full blown adult terrorists. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6378394 (Jay, i want to give my 2 cents on the economic argument, when i get a little time)

SAMMY: Bob, Regarding your question about the Iraqi elections, their will only be one outcome and that is Saddam placed back into power. Ha! Seriously, I would have to pick C, D, E, & F. The scandel of american government butting in will result in mass protest, which in turn will only produce few voters, such as rich and wealthy oil tycoons. And the U.S. will demand a recount when the popular vote differs from the electoral college. Most likely the U.S troops will remain to try to keep the peace and control over the land, although they don't have that now.

JAY: why don't you describe the life in iraq prior to the war? i'll do it for you if you want

ZELIN: Jay, you know, you are beginning to sound quite a bit like your boy Bush. Living in some fantasy world and trying to convince yourself and the rest of your peers, (In Bush's case, America) that Iraq is going fine and things are getting better. Why are you so reluctant to admit that Iraq is a disaster, elections are going to be a sham, and something else needs to be done. Really, take a look at what is going on, the reports that are coming in, and try and make an unbiased analysis of how things are going. Sure, we can only know so much and the newspapers and such only describe part of what is going on, but really Jay, just admit that Iraq is a mess and there is only more bloodshed on the horizon.

KYLE: Dear Friends, Share your reaction to the Presidential Debate in our comments at the Chief Source during or after the debate at our special post debate discussion page:http://chiefsource.blogspot.com/2004/09/post-debate-discussion.html#comments

CHUCK: certainly, life before war: there were very oppressive leaders (mostly husseins). they oppressed women and suppressed dissent. they tourched people, often for fun. they lived in constant fear of their dictator, who back in the 80's killed a bunch of his own iraqi's. it was a horrible place to live.
AND there were NOT car bombings killing 40 children. there were NOT 15,000 that were going to die b/w 2002-2004. there was a minimal amount of terrorists, and it was definitely not a breeding ground for daily death, and future terrorism.
Jay, you love to talk about how bad iraq/sadaam was. what has he done since the first gulf war? all he did was give the UN a hard time. and i find it really funny that
his disobeying the UN is used to show his danger. WE disobey, and mock, the UN. So what is? What? The threat? Okay. I dont agree, but I know your point. But you also like to remind us of his horrible oppression. what has he done in the last 10 years that makes him any worse then dozens of other oppressive nations? I need to know. Everyone needs to know.

DAN: To answer your question, Bob, I think that there will be an increase in terrorism amongst the Iraqi people. This is do to the obvious fact that they (the Iraqi insurgents) don't want to be liberated and want go back to the Saddam regime, where it is o.k. to car bomb your own people - or behead innocent reporters and construction workers - or skin bodies and drag them through the streets like trophies. These militants will do anything to stop progression from happening, but just like in Sammara where 109 insurgents were killed, we will not back down. We SHOULD NOT, and WILL NOT pull troops out (like you want)...as long as "W" is at the helm. As for the elections, they will occur, and on time, and the Iraqi people WILL be better off because of it.

BOB: Jay, are you kidding? Can you really not understand such a simple concept? Let me spell it out for you. And please listen this time!...
(And then hopefully you can recontact your mystery friends and clear this up. I would hate for Jenn Landis and the Greek basketball league to be talking about me.)
(1) The world hates us because of our lopsided, inconsistent, hypocritical, inhumane foreign policy.
(2) That hatred is the root cause of terrorism
(3) This Iraqi experiment in imperialism-in-the-name-of-defense is our worst offense yet.
(4) A moderate failure in Iraq would open peoples’ eyes and change the course of the war on terror before it is too late.
And YES, that does involve a spike in American casulaties in the next few months, but it is alot better than a steady trickle of casualties that lasts for the next 20 years as we spread liberty by force to every corner of the globe with our red-white-and-blue war machine (not to mention the big bang when the terrorist finally succed in sneaking a nuke onto American soil because we fought the War on Terror ass backwards.)
JAY...DO...YOU...UNDERSTAND?
Now that we have that out of the way....
Well, I just finished watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and I must say Keeler you did the right thing by refusing to watch this film. Your conservative contributions are vital to balancing this roundtable and I wouldn’t want you converting on me.
After seeing this film, I got to thinking. Especially about my comments about ‘hoping for disaster’ Had I gone too far? Had I lost site of the big picture? Was Jay right? Well, here is the conclusions that I’ve come to thus far: My overall statement stands. That is: The only way to make America safer is by changing our approach to the War on Terror.
It’s interesting cause Bush has said over and over again that “WE need to be right 100% of the time while the Terrorists only need to be right once.” That is exactly the point. How can you win a fight like this? It’s like one of those games in Chucky Cheese with the little gofers popping out of the holes. We’re smackin away, smackin, smackin, smackin. We’re hittin some, missin some but the collateral damage of every smack is speeding up the game. As long as the U.S. is meddling in the region they’re never gonna stop popping. Our exhaustion, our failure is inevitable. A lot of people seem to think that its only a matter of time before we these terrorists tire…just keep smackin! Smack harder! Smack here! Smack there! Look at what’s going on in Isreal they’ve been smackin now for 50 years!! The only chance to win the war on terror, is to defuse the hatred that gets kids to sign up to be suicide bombers in the first place. And I believe that this hatred is a direct result of our lopsided, inconsistent, hypocritical, inhumane foreign policy. This experiment in imperialism-in-the-name-of-defense must be stopped.
However Jay, after a lot of thinking about it, I have devised a new BEST OUTCOME that I am now rooting for 100%: Maybe just maybe, Kerry can get in office and lead the American people in another direction.
If not…it is only a matter of time before the terrorists hit the jackpot.

#3: Kerry's Record? > French Connection?

THREAD BEGAN: September 17th, 2004
After JAY brought Senator Kerry's recent voting record to the table...

JAY
I was hoping to get a response to my last e-mail. The Kerry voting record e-mail. What does your silence mean? It draws a strong inference that you have nothing to say. I picture all you democrats/liberals w/ your jaw dropped w/ a little drool dripping from your mouth. If that's the case, how can you vote for a guy that can't fulfill his responsibilities or fulfill his duties as a citizen of the United States? "It is our duty to vote and educate ourselves on political issues" (Bob). He never voted on issues as a senator and he jumps around on issues like it's his job. This guy was on the Bush bandwagon when the decisions were being made and now he claims things were handled poorly. Responses please. Chuck, where you at? I just finished reading an article on MSNBC (FOX published a similar article as well) which addressed the WMD issue. I am going to cut and paste the gist of the story, add some commentary, and then post a question I'd like you all to respond to. Article: Report: Iraq had no WMD, only intentions U.S. weapons inspector says regime had small R&D program In a 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons. Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons. It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay’s October findings. He found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges. Comments: If this report is correct, do you think Iraq was a threat? Is it enough that he was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons? I think so. I wouldn't call it a preemptive strike if this report is accurate. Would we have to wait until he actually completed his stock pile of WMD's or until he used them? If it is coined a "preemptive strike" then the United States government acts in a preemptive manner on a daily basis prosecuting criminals. It's called conspiracy to commit a crime. Would you call conspiracy to commit a crime a preemptive strike on criminals? I wouldn't. I see a strong analogy in Iraq. I have plenty more to add, but I'll wait until I hear some of your responses. That's if you have the balls. Still waiting for the Kerry voting record response, which I know I won't get b/c you got nothing byatches.

CHUCK
Jay, I think i sent an email addressing Kerry's Senate Record: I assume you would like to discuss Kerry's 'liberal' record from then 1980's. And to speak of his record would draw a contrast to Bush. Here is the biggest contrast I have: WHILE KERRY WAS VOTING IN THE SENATE, BUSH WAS A DRUG ABUSING ALCOHOLIC. Maybe Kerry wanted to raise taxes or cut military spending. BUT HE WAS SERVING HIS COUNTRY!!!! AGAIN!!!! Bush was abusing drugs and alcohol, and trading Sammy Sosa. So whatever Kerry voted, his past shows a greater past then Bush. Disagree? Regarding the WMD/is Iraq a threat email, I dont have much to add: IRAQ WAS NOT A THREAT. There is no point in arguing such. Yes, iraq didnt like us, but they had no weapons, and no plans, and terrorist ties larger then every other middle east nation. Disagree?

BEN
jay - i would give Kerry a break on not voting - it happens to everyone who runs for President. they cant be 2 places at once. bush wasnt really running texas when he was running for President. kerry will be back voting in the senate in a couple of months. there has been a reason for the silence on this issue from our distinguished panel. no one knows. Kerry deep down is aginst the war - but he cant / wont come out and say it. He wanted to vote against it when the time came, i believe, but he didnt want to do the politically unpopular thing. He knew he was going to run for President, so he couldnt be seen voting against the war - even though he voted against the 1991 war. fine. thats how it works. every politican does something like that - bush included. kerry then votes against the 87 billion final bill for troop funding (yes i know he voted for other versions) but when push came to shove, he voted against the 87 billion because Howard Dean did - and he was desparate to catch up to him. thats a tough vote to overcome - tough to explain to the avergae person you dont want to spend money on body armor for the US Troops you sent into war. he keeps changing his positions - it is actually incredible. if he from day 1 had said i am against this war and stayed with that, he would have gotten alot more respect - i think from both sides. i follow things pretty close, and i seriously dont know where he stands on this issue then he says a couple of weeks ago, he would have voted for the war still - knowing evrything he knows now - then says a week later it is "the wrong war at the wrong time." he would be a hell of a lot better off if he just picked a side and stuck with it.

KYLE
Jay,I appreciate your imagery as you paint the picture of us Liberals reacting with a prolonged jaw drop and a puddle of drool to your question about whether Iraq was a threat and why John Kerry voted the way he did. My reaction was more of a yawn to this tired argument. The analogy I like to use with the war in Iraq is the following: Jay tells Kyle that he wants to build a house. Kyle tells Jay to go ahead and build the house. Jay builds the house. The house that Jay builds is a shitty house that is really expensive. Rather than taking responsibility for a poor design, bad construction, and an inability to control costs Jay says, "Kyle, you gave me the authority to build the house and now you are against it because it turned out to be a piece of shit? First you were for the house and now you are against it. You flip-flopper." Bush told the Congress that he wanted to go to war. Congress, including John Kerry, told Bush to go ahead and go to war. Bush went to war. The war that Bush has been executing has been shitty and really expensive. Rather than taking responsibility for poor planning, bad execution, and an inability to control costs Bush says, "Kerry, you gave me the authority to go to war and now you are against how I used that authority. First you were for the war and now you are against it. You flip-flopper" Iraq is not about John Kerry voting to go to war. Jay built a shitty house. Bush is overseeing a shitty war. It is about how the war has been run poorly by President Bush and not John Kerry's voting record. I have plenty more to add, but I'll wait until I hear some of your responses. That's if you have the balls.

SAMMY
Is it just me or does Bush seem like a kid with a credit card. His spending has gone long overlooked and is getting quite out of hand. Yes, he has a war that is taking up a lot of spending. Although, even before the war he was spending like crazy. Remember in 2001 when we had a surplus of money. He chose to take that money and give it back to the people. A noble thing to do, except when their is a national debt that still is getting out of hand. And to think he was the one that gave us this surplus, coming into office after Clinton. Makes one think, but not to get on that subject. Bush's spending in the past years has grown way out of hand. Since Clinton, Domestic discretionary spending has increased 25% according to the White House's own budget reports. Although, Bush states " If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of Pres. Clinton, discretionary spending was up 5%, and mine has steadily declined over the years." This is a blatant lie, not the first by our beloved president. Actually discretionary is up 31%. But, Bush could have been confused. Imagine That!! If he meant domestic discretionary, which is SS, Medicare, Pentagon, Education, etc. that is only up 25%. The facts are when Clinton left spending was at 1.86 trillion, now it is at 2.31 trillion. I know much of this is due to the terrorism factor, which no one can deny. But when does it stop. This past year was the nations worst deficit year ever. $374 billion!! This year it is expected to hit over 500 billion!! It's hard to believe that every company Bush started went bankrupt. On a side note. To say Kerry is a flip-flopper is not just. Even Keeler seems to be giving Kerry a break. But has anyone thought about Bush being a flip-flopper, or maybe just a push over. It seems to me when the pressure is put on Bush he will change his stance easily. Some examples of this are when he opposed federalizing airport security workers and then changed his mind later. He also resisted extending unemployment benefits then reversed his opinion when poverty levels hit an all new high under his presidency. Though decision. Should have paid more attention to jobs at home then exporting them to other countries. He also was against prescription drug benefits under Medicare and now he favors this. And he also came out against a new Cabinet agency to direct Homeland Security and then proposed his own huge new cabinet to direct homeland security. Kerry is a flip flopper? Should have thought of yourself Bush. And to comment on Chuck's email. Kudos! Love It.

BEN
i didnt say Kerry wasnt a flip-flopper, i just said he cant be expected to vote while running for President..........but i did say both Bush and Kerry both change positions, but Kerry has done so more

JAY
Alright, I'm going to try and reply (where necessary) to the last 6 e-mails I recieved. John: You state "when the pressure is put on Bush he will change his stance easily." Commenting that bush changes his stance quite often. Chuck's e-mail stated ", that is the problem with Bush, he never changes his mind." That is text book contradiction, isn't it? Reminds me how the democrats are running their campaign, all over the place. What gets me about John's quote is "pressure" and "change stance easily." Don't you think there is extraordinary pressure on Bush right now concerning the war in Iraq. What is Bush's response, "Stay the course." Now I agree w/ Chuck here. Staying the course is not quite doing it. We need to intensify our stance by sending in more troops and working on coalition building. Of course that is easy to say. To do is a different story. It's not like Bush isn't or hasn't attempted to add to our coalition. Bush may have changed his mind on other issues as president, but that's what a president does. He implements, with aid of his personnel, the best plan and if it appears to be failing he remedies the situation. To do otherwise is simply stupid. Chuck, you heavily rely on the fact that Kerry was so active in the 80's while bush was boozing it up. I concede the fact that Kerry's distant past is more impressive than Bush's, but should that be our focus? Should we rely on his record in the 80's. I believe pegged pants and Aqua Net had a good record in the 80's and look what happened to them. I think it's more important to focus on the more recent history which reveals a shitty record. His voting record sucks. Keeler says we should cut him a break since Kerry knew he was going to run for president. I think that's bullshit. He has a duty as a senator just as we have a duty as citizens to vote and he failed. If Kerry knew he was running for president he should have impressed us by taking strong stances on those issues and voted (but he didn't). That kind of reminds me of his strong stances now. He's like a clock; flip flop flip flop flip flop. Chuck then states, "Kerry would not have gone to war after the weapons inspectors said there was no WMD, and when there was absolutely no world support aside from UK . Kerry would have listened to military experts and sent the necessary 300,000 troops needed to win the peace. This is another crock of shit. You can't say what you would have done. You say what you actually have done. Kerry voted for the war. Then he voted against the reconstruction issue. If Kerry gets away w/ it then let me try; I would have dove in the deep end, I would have turned and walked away when those OSU fuckers approached, I would have peed before I passed out. See, it doesn't work. Would have and did are different. Chuck, did you read my last e-mails explaining the Inspectors report? You don't think there were plans? If there were plans, does that constitute a threat large enough to invade?

CHUCK
Jay, You asked me to talk about Kerry's record. I did. I explained its superiority, on one level. Now you are going to claim his record sucks, because of 2 votes on Iraq. That is absurd. You want to talk about his senate record, but then boil down 20 years into 2 votes. The rest of his record is what it is. He has some loyal and bold democratic stances (i.e., opposes the death penalty, wants greater gun control, wants to increase health benefits, etc). So basically, you dont want to talk about Kerry's senate record. You want to talk about the 2 votes on the Iraq war. Fine, but just know that 2 votes that on their face seem inconsistent do not define a 20 year senate record. (especially in the face of sammartano properly pointing out many of president bushs inconsistencies) THEN YOU REALLY LOSE ME, JAY. Refering to Kerry's handling of the war, You Proclaim:You can't say what you would have done I wish I saved all these emails. THE ONLY REASON I SAID WHAT KERRY WOULD HAVE DONE WAS BECAUSE YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME "WHAT WOULD KERRY HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY". So I answered. I assume that you just forgot because these emails go on forever, but I was simply answering to one of you desperate pleas: "What would Kerry have done differently?" And what Kerry would have done differently is exactly what I said. Finally, I did read your email of the weapons report. PLANS? Maybe. I dont care. We went to war because of WMD's....and imminent threat. PLANS are not what we went to war. IRAN IS BUILDING. N KOREA HAS. Again, we have some other countries to attack, i guess. Of course plans are not enough. If you are so ready to go to war, you better get all of you friends and go down with them to the recruiter and sign up, because we have to go to Iran and N Korea. Maybe those fucking idiot Bush daughters could join the military. They are the perfect age, and we need help. Instead of hosting drinking party's throughout NYC, maybe they could serve the nation for a just cause.....plus if they dont slow down on the drinking, they could end up like their alcoholic dad.

BOB
NO MORE SUGAR COATING
Jay, you've been askin and askin...what do I have to say about Kerry's voting record? As Chuck pointed out, 2 Iraq votes don’t make up a 20 year voting record. But the Republicans have a point...what the fuck was this guy doing voting for the war if he thought it was abad idea. Let me start by addressing the 2 Iraq votes. You might be surprised by the response: I think Kerry's vote to authorize force in Iraq is simply unforgivable! I know that it will drive a stake in Chuck's big heart, but it is my honest-to-God opinion. Let me explain: I remember back in October of 2002, when Bush asked Congress to give him an unconstitutional*, blank-check to kick terrorist ass... *The Constitution is very clear: Only Congress has the right ot declare war. This right can't be given or signed over or lent for the weekend to anybody. Period. And I don't want to argue about semantics. Some people say, "This isn’t a war, this is a 'conflict'" Bull honky. I don't care if you call it an intervention a conflict or a field day...sending 130,000 troops to invade another country and overthrow a government is something that our forefathers would have put in the war catagory. What happened? In a major victory for the White House, the Senate voted 77-23 in favor of the resolution! CNN summarizes the resolution as follows, •"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." • The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution. In other words...Long live King George!! And where were the DEMS: In the Senate, 29 voted for the measure and 21 were against. (All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.) So the majority of the Party was right there in the war march behind Bush. Not everybody went along quietly though... One ballsy DEM: Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote. Also, Dennis Kucinich, from good-old Ohio stood up and protested. Dean also spoke out at the time and wasn’t affraid to call a spade a spade. Then the war turned to shit and suddenly every Democrate sounded like a Dean-Machine. We (myself included) were so worried about losing to Bush again that we overlooked this pathetic war vote and chose our guy based solely on 'ELECT-ABILITY' We abaondon the only candidate (besides Kucinich) who stood up against the war when it was unpopular. And why?...Cause Dean made a scene at a pep-rally, like Jay doing a tuck-under when the rest of the party was still on their 3rd beer. Now 'Mr Electable' is behind in the polls and that damn war vote looks like it might be the death of him. I am deeply disappointed in the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Bush is an idiot. The guy was born with ten silver spoons in his mouth. He surfed through life like a Tight-End through an Ivy League School. Throw in some DUIs and 'alleged' cocaine use. No wonder Nugent likes the guy so much! We chose this life-long loser as our President (kind of)! And what did he do, he screwed up again! (I think that the official party line is that he made great, stead-fast decisions based on poor intelligence) Its not just the war though. Bush hit an all time new low when he changed his re-election campaign strategy to: exploit the poor souls who died in the towers to make swing voters teary-eyed. It honestly makes me sick. I am not happy about my options this November 2nd. But the choice is clear: Bush needs to go.

JAY
Since you guys seem to be taking what I said out of context AGAIN, I had to cut and paste this. I was never referring to his Iraq votes. HE VOTED ON THOSE. I was referring to this: What a leader? [Voting history for Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts attatched] Good analogy, and I'm not being sarcastic. However, what would Kerry do to remedy the situation. Let me guess what your rersponse will be. "He's going to build on the coalition, and send reinforcements." It's easy to say what he WILL do, but how is he going to do it? I havn't heard that yet. Do you think Bush is attempting to add to our coalition? A week ago Kerry's campaign was attempting to bash Bush stating he was going to wait until the election was over to deploy more troops. What's wrong with sending more troops? I'm unsure, but isn't that what Kerry plans to do.We both have strong stances and nobody is swaying. Until fresh arguments are made, I think I'm done for now. I'm sick of repeating myself as you probably are as well. My final decision will be made after the debates.

ZELIN
I think I may have just sent this like nine times Upon my return to the great swing state of Ohio, I have been very intrigued by the type of opinions people reveal regarding this election. Yes, living out in San Francisco was like one big liberal fest, enough to make Nugent take out an M16 and even myself, a little sick. So, I was excited to return to my great homeland, and discover what the heart of America thinks, the real Americans. Well, they are fucking idiots. I am going to site various examples and most likely sound elitist (some would say Democratic) to provide some examples of how our nation is brainwhashed. First: People who support Bush. I have found, through talking to people and examining Ford trucks, that most people who support Bush, come from two camps: 1) Rich people: They are fucking scared about Kerry openly rolling back the taxes, and shit who can blaim them. The good ol' Rich usually support republicans and I can't blaim them this time around 2) Ignorant people with absolutely no world view and understanding of the global universe. Now, I realize this is a little harsh and generalized, but I agree with this assumption. Most people who have never left our nation and do not think on a "global" basis, will support Bush on the drop of a dime. Similar to our own president's lack of international experience, most Americans believe that we are manifested to lead the world no matter who we piss off, and quit frankly could not give a shit what other nations think. And, I am sure many of you are reading this and think, rock & roll, let's kick everybody's ass, but, is that really a way to live in this world? One more thing, many people are quick to attack the liberal agenda without even understanding what is stands for. Viscione told me the other night that he hates Al Franken because he is to liberal. I quickly realized that he has never read any of his books or even listened to his arguments. Actually, most of his book is spent countering Right Wing bullshit and he doesn't make much of a case to advance the liberal agenda. Okay, now, so what is the liberal agenda we are all talking about. Well, here are few reasons to support Kerry and not just because he is not Bush: 1) Taxes: Why are the richest people in our country, getting the largest tax cuts? Sure, simple economics says, give the wealthiest people more money, and they will trickle it down into the rest of the country. But, doesn't seem to be working. Why don't all the rich fuckers give up a little bit of their millions and let the rest of the nation have a go. 2) IRAQ: Okay, Kerry has said one thing, then the next. But, this is also the Republicans way to shoot down anything that comes out of his mouth. A recent study was completed, showing that Bush has changed his position 23 times on Iraq, depending on what is going on in Fallujah or some fucking town, or how close we are to the election. 3) Social Issues and Human Rights: Wake up, conservative homophobes who are just trying to cover up their own sexuality. This fucking country is made up of lots of different types of people. Don't deny someone the right to have benefits, since they like it in the ass. Overall, this election will be close as hell and may different types of voters emerge. I really just find it amazing that a lying fuck like Bush, has been able to convince the nation that he is protecting us and we are better off with him and the rest of his white collar retards. Actually, I am quite impressed that the Republican party has been able to convince America that he is our man after his ridiculous four years in office. God Bless America, and god bless all you heartless ignorant pricks who support Bush.

CHUCK
Bob, I completely stand by your point. I basically agree w/ everything, but the fact is, is that Kerry, however spineless, had to vote for the war to be a viable candidate (in his opinion). And he was probably right. I was really upset he voted for the war, and never considered voting for him in the primaries. but now, I have come to grips with it all. Kerry is the only option. and i think a true anti-war candidate would be losing badly to Bush, anyways. That is a ridiculous point. He is running for president. Bob Dole did the same. Bush did the same in Texas. Bush is also spending most of his time campaigning now. Kerry has come back and voted for votes where he could be a deciding vote. Otherwise, he has been campaigning for president. Which is completely normal and acceptable Maybe if Bush didnt smear Kerry w/ so much misleading garbage, maybe he would not need to campaign so much and have more time. But when you have to defend the thousands of right-wing AM talk smear, the swift boat veterans, and openly misleading and juvenile ads, Kerry needs to be out there campaigning. Criticizing his failure to vote while campaigning doesnt make any sense. Great stuff Zelin.

BOB
Hey y'all I have a non-Iraq related question: I keep reading that: "The Trade Defecit is sky-rocketing" "The Budget Defecit is sky-rocketing" I took Econ in college and i understand the textbook definitions of these terms. What I don't understand is exactly why these big defecits are dangerous...what are the ramifications? Should we be worried or are these just doomsday scenarios? Somebody fill me in.... I would appreciate a response from anyone, but I am really looking forward to one from Nugent (seeing as how he's an Ivy League graduate) It will be a good learning opportunity for us state-school kids.

ZELIN
Everyone check out this link. Another great conspiracy theory, but it is interesting http://rpmayer.com/xpentagon.swf I did go to a state school, but think I can help a bit with Bob's previous question. The US is now borrowing money from other countries, the countries we trade with, to help pay off outstanding loans we have due to overzelous spending.We continue to borrow more money and it is compounded at an interest rate, so our debt continues to balloon. This massive debt is kind of being ingnored and will be left with us and our children.Many economists are worried/concerned how we are going to cover this massive debt that we have with other nations escpecially as countries look to make more purchases elshwere (China/India).That is my two cents. Please educate us all, Nugent.

CHUCK
The problem is, especially with rising interest rates, is that you are just paying off the debt. At this level of debt, about 20 cents of every tax dollar goes to paying the debt. That is a waste of money. (that could go to fund things education)Then there is a problem w/ so much debt that the banks start raising the interest on us. Then we could be paying up to 50 cents on the dollar. Okay, but here is my theory on the real possibility. The republicans want these huge deficits. Bush was the human to ever cut taxes during a war...in the history of civilization. Then they spend billions on iraq, millions on a scandalous medicare bill, and continue to give the enron types crazy corporate tax breaks and no oversight. So this all spells huge deficits. Here is what comes next: The Republicans will one day look around and say: "this spending is out of hand." That's when President Bush #3 (Jeb) says "we have to stop all this spending." Thats when they scare everyone into agreeing with them. Thats when they eliminate medicare. Thats when they eliminate Social Security. Thats when they roll back all environmental regulation. Thats when they eliminate child tax credits. Okay so you get my point. So thats my take. They can be bad ecomically, but not devastating. But my theory is that these Bushies are going to scare america into eliminating all federal programs.

ZELIN
Chuck, your theories are interesting, but I would hope that Jeb doesn't become the 3rd President. Although, his daughter Barbara might not be so bad. She is kind of hot.

BEN
i have to take up the recent emails that have described republicans or people that vote for bush as "fucking idiots" because i dont consider myself one. or the only reasons someone would be a republican....first there are a lot more issues than jobs and iraq. for instance, I agree with Bush and the republicans on gay marriage, judicial nominations, and abortion. getting conservative judges appointed is my #1 issue.....and my biggest fear is if kerry wins bush never gets a Supreme Court nominee. i dont think gay people should be married......thats just my opinion. i dont think anyone who disagrees is a "fucking idiot." when it comes to a vote, it fails in state after state. so i am not a minoirty (which is not to say i am right or wrong) its just a personal opinion. i know people who are pro-abortion....i disagree with them, but i dont hold it against them. bob, i was glad to see someone that supports kerry finally acknowledge his iraq vote problem. because it is one.....one he cant explain away. espically the 87 billion...after saying a week earlier that no senator with a consious could vote against it - but he did it. and i am glad to see you admit that you are voting for him just because you dont like bush, because thats honesty at least. no one liked kerry in the primaries, people were just under the false impression he was the "most electable". he still could win for sure, but he was not the most electable democrat. i dont think dean was either, though. having been in vietnam doesnt mean you should automatically be president. giving a convention speech that was like " i was born in the west wing of the hospital, i went to vietnam, now vote for me for president" wasnt good enough for some people. but bob, to say bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.....so what. thats not his fault. everyone on this mailing list is better off than the vast majority of americans, went to better schools than most people, and we shouldnt be ashamed of it - we should be thankful that we were so fourtante. by the way, of bush, cheney, kerry, and edwards, bush has the smallest current net worth. and bush exploited sept 11? i dont buy it - its a huge part of the election.....just last week kerry gave a speech with sept 11 widows behind him.....i dont care. that seems fine to me.....it is central in the campaign. zelin - yeah i would fit your "never left the country" group. i think in a pre-sept 11 world, you might be right. but now i think we have to do wahts best for us - no matter who is president. if kerry says we need to invade iran because.......i will support him and our country. the north korea problem started when clinton and co. trsuted them because they "promised." that didnt work out too well, as we all have found out. i do believe we are the greatest country and it is our duty to lead the world, like we did after WW2. if kerry actually thinks by him being elected france and germany are going to join a war that kerry himself said was the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place" he is the one living in a "fantasy land" not Bush. i dont see why people who disagree with you all or Kerry are automatically wrong. no one really knows.....but right now, i guess a majority of americans are morons because polls show things leaning bush, myself included bob nice blog....debates should be fun to watch

CHUCK
Keeler, you have your legitimate points in defense of bush. But most of americans dont agree with the things bush has done. thats why people are idiots.
1. They think tax cuts for the rich are wrong...especially in times of war....and think they failed to improve job creation
2. They want national health care.
3. A majority think Iraq was a mistake.
4. A majority are outraged by soaring deficits, college tuition, and energy dependence.
5. A majority want stem cell, and support abortion (but are opposed to gay marriage)
So those are all Bush points. So you might say, 'thats how bad Kerry is.' No.
I think the fact that a majority of americans disagree with everything bush has done, and STILL support him, shows they are fucking idiots. To vote for someone that opposes everything you want, would make you a fucking idiot.
Now, you have your arguments. and you are not an idiot, because you make informed decisions on your cause. but these other people, are fucking idiots.
I saw a new poll that where 50% said "someone else deserves to be president". Everyone knows bush is a failure. but these fucking idiots have bought into bush's scaring americans into following him, a bunch of lying vietnam veterans, and bush's own lying commericials

ZELIN
Hewitt, send me the link to the blog.
Ben, good to hear from you. First off, I guess I could apologize for the tone of my last email. I have just become a little frustrated with the conversations I have been having at home and am still not convinced of real reasons to keep W. in office. Believe me, I have been trying to listen and understand where the other side is coming from, and I just don't get it.
Regarding social issues, we simply have completely opposite viewpoints on this matter. I really do not see what is wrong with allowing homosexuals marriage, and why a woman should not have the right to choose. But, I respect your opinion and the millions of others who agree with you.
Regarding Iraq and a more "worldly-view". This topic is especially sensitive to me. Maybe it is because I have spent a significant amount of time outside the U.S. and have seen firsthand what real people (not terrorists) think about Bush and our nation's actions. You say that you would support our president no matter what. If he told us we needed to invade Iran, North Korea, Nugent's home arsenal, you would stand in line and salute. Okay, but back to Iraq. What about the grounds we invaded on? What about the fact there are no WMDs? What about the fact that there was no imminent threat that Bush convinced the American people of? Still supporting? Still saluting? I am not.
Yes, America does have a responsibility as the world superpower to solve world conflict and take action where action is needed. Each American voter has a WORLD responsibility much greater than a citizen of Italy, France, Russia, China. More specifically, the outcome of their vote has a much larger effect on the globe than anyone else. And, most voters don't realize that, or care when they vote. And, if we have an obligation to help out where help is needed and foster peace when necessary, then let's get on a plane right now and go to Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chechnya, the Philippines, Columbia.
Stand up and salute.
Having to much fun with this at the moment.
To back Chuck's points. Many of these voters who are voting for Bush, but don't support his policices or accomplishements, are voting for him for one reason. Yours and my favorite guy...Jesus. Last weeks SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/19/MNGK28REMK1.DTL) interviewed families the the far South (Canton, OH). One particular family was poor, the husband had lost his job, but they supported Bush because he is a man of God. These sentimens are even stronger in the South.
Now, call me crazy or one-sided, but that is fucking ridiculous. As great as Jesus may be, he is not solving the problem in Iraq or elminating our huge trade deficit.
Or, maybe I am just bitter since I am going to hell with the rest of the Hebrews anyways.

JAY
Chuck, I want the numbers on your "all americans want" propoganda. Where are you getting this from? I bet it's CBS.
In response to this "Each American voter has a WORLD responsibility much greater than a citizen of Italy, France, Russia, China." Why don't you respond to Kerry's absent votes. You know, the stats I e-mailed earlier. And if the excuse is "he's to busy campaigning", then I'm not voting b/c of coaching and exams. He's got a duty to vote right? Much greater than senators of Italy, France, Russia, China? What if he's president and he's bombarded w' issues, do we let him pass on certain things?
that jesus thing is just as stupid as me saying that the only reason people are voting for kerry is that they are gay, tree hugging college students whose views are skewed by their liberal, protesting college professors who instead of working in the real world hide behind our education system bitching at everything.

ZELIN
Jay, your analogies suck and have no relevance
I don't comparing a liberal educated American to some poor fat Southerner who has no idea what is going on with each candidate and the election. I am sure I will hear back from all the poor fat Southerners on this mailing list arguing my point, but just don't think you can compare Jesus lovin' good ol' boys to Akron law school students who go to a class, take down notes, and enter their teachers opinions on a blog.

BOB
Jay, You are really stuck on this "Kerry isn't voting right now" thing.
I thought Chuck already explained the situation quite clearly.
(Check the old posts)
It would be a great point if Kerry was say...sleeping or getting high instead of going to vote, but he's not. He is campaigning to beat George Bush in the coming Election. This is his highest duty to his party, the American people and the world.
Your analogy is way off. Coaching basketball is not quite the same level of national responsibility as accepting a parties nomination and campaigning to be the next President of the United States. (Although Dan Lockshin might argue otherwise)

JAY
i may have misunderstood what you were saying. i am not trying to compare anything. what it appears you are trying to say is that there is a stereotype of bush voters as being "poor fat southerners." i think that is unfair to say considering me and the other right wingers have college educations. my point was that if you are going to place a stereotype on the right, then i will place one on the left as being gay, tree hugging college students whose views are skewed by their liberal, protesting college professors who instead of working in the real world hide behind our education system bitching at everything. its's not true, but you attacked 1st. by the way, at least 75% of the screaming left wingers that won't shut up in my classes are gay. but who cares. my point is that the jesus thing was stupid. most of those poor fat southerners are probably dying defending this country or have kids dying defending this country while we are getting educations, debating, and protesting.
i'm not stuck on this issue. i will stop asking once someone responds intelligently instead of stating that bush drug thing. does campaigning for president trumps issues that affect the american public? you can't do both?

KYLE
Jay, In response to your criticism of Kerry's time spent campaining for the Presidency.The entire House of Represnetatives and 26 Senators are running for re-election this year and out of Washington. They are all doing the exact same thing. Your criticism of Kerry missing important business while he campaigns is more applicable to the leader of the free world than it is to a Senator.

ZELIN
Jay, stereotypes aside. I was trying to point out that there is a large population of voters in this nation who support Bush for his religious devotion and beliefs. They may not agree with some of his policies, but revel in the fact that he is a man of faith. I feel that he has been able to use his genuine devotion to Jesus, to swing voters who are in dire economic situations. Furthermore, lots of those poor southerners who are fighting have joined America's greatest welfare system and are in Iraq now. I do respect them and what they are doing, but I bet some of them are there since they couldn't get a job.
But, according to our stereotypes and the blog members, here is a summary of our winning team:
Kutucheif, Kozelka, Hewitt, Sammartano and myself are gay tree huggers with a good amount of education behind us.
Jay, Keeler, and Nugent are fat poor Southernners with a strong love of the almighty.
Viscione and Maney are bi-curious and live in the Midwest (pretty accurate)

JAY
the argument "everyone does it" doesn't seem to be a strong argument, but if that's all you have what are you going to do? i still believe a duty to vote trumps. when you are the leader of th u.s. you are bombarded with multiple issue. i guess you have to be talented at multitasking. are you saying he cant multitask?

MANEY
zelin u have it figured out. I now have it figured out too. Midwest is right. the reason I am bi curious simply because i now know u r gay and all these women u have slept with is simply a cover and i am now sure u r gay. u lived in sf hmmm???? always make gay jokes, heck u even talk gay. i am curious because i have always wanted to know if that statistic that 1 out of 3 of one's friends is gay. U fit the ticket perfect. hey look how left i am. I do not care that u r gay. I know secretly u wish me and Dan were too. I am so happy for you and I will always respect you!!!!! My gay friend..

JAY
Bob, remember when i used to argue that a possible reason for France's reluctance to join the coalition was b/c of the billions they had tied up in contracts w/ iraq and a war would be detrimental to their financial interests. Here's an article i just read, French Bank Targeted in Oil-for-Food Scam; Congressional investigators examining "a semitrailer truck load" of subpoenaed documents are trying to determine whether lax monitoring at a French bank that held more than $60 billion for the U.N. oil-for-food program (search) facilitated illicit business deals by the former Iraqi government, officials told The Associated Press. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133696,00.html.
Dont you think it's a little shady that France (and Russia) had large financial incentives not to go to war? What would you think if these allegations turn out to be true? I have a feeling that this oil-for-food scam may reveal possible reasons why the u.n. refused approval as well. As of now it's merely speculation, but we'll find out. Anybody have any input on this topic. To read more about it go here and click on the relevant links: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133484,00.html
Click here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5993610/ and go to the candidate comparisons on the issues. Once I get home I'll pick one and start rambling and then maybe we can bicker and bitch about something else; like homos getting married.

ZELIN
Jay, I agree with you (yeah, I said it) and believe that there were quite possibly strong financial incentives for France/Russia to keep out of the war. On the flipside, there quite possibly are strong financial incentives for the U.S. to go to war. That is something to consider as well as massive reconstruction contracts are divvied up.

JAY
if we have financial incentives by going to war, why does chuck place heavy emphasis on the cost of the war? don't give me that bullshit that chaney will gain b/c the contracts benefit that company he was/is involved w/. the idea of regime change in iraq did not originate w/ GW. in 1998 Bill Clinton signed an executive order that stated the US's official policy goal was regime change in iraq.
bob, you respond the "maney jokes" e-mail and not mine. mine was specifically addressed to you. what's up w/ that

BOB
Well Jay, I was getting around to responding, but I had to do some reading.
Listen, those news clippings were alegations, but for the sake of arguement lets assume that they are right on. Well, I think I said a long time ago that I recognized that all of the Security Council Members were looking out for their own interests when deciding on Iraq.
Their interests include things like oil contracts and things like the thousands of anti-war protesters in the streets as well. We will never know which interest played the bigger role in French and Russian policy, but the deafening public outcry in Europe definately wasn't triggered because some oil contracts were in jeopardy.
It always seems funny to me though, that you are so certain that France and Russia were only thinkin about the oil contracts, while the U.S. was only thinkin about world peace. It seems idealistic to me.
(For the record: I think the inverse is equally idealistic, too)

CHUCK
THAT FOOD-FOR-OIL INVESTIGATION HAS GONE NOWHERE. And relies on the same intelligence of CHALBI (misspelled name)....the biggest liar ever.
Its just a nice story to make people like you feel better.
(maybe some thing will become of it, but so far nothing....but here is a story where something has come: Abu Ghrab: Rumsfeld authorized ways around Geneva Convetions)
FINANCIAL COSTS: GW said the war would pay for itself. He actually had the gaul/stupidity to claim the war would cost $2 Billion. Its cost 100 times more. That, if nothing else, is just another great example of Bush's consistent failure.
Secondly, the only people profitting are corporations that evade paying a fair share in taxes. AND YES HALLIBURTON IS GAINING!!!! AND YES, CHENEY HAS STOCK OPTIONS IN HALLIBURTON!!!! THESE ARE FACTS

BOB
Well Jay, I was getting around to responding, but I had to do some reading.
Listen, those news clippings were alegations, but for the sake of arguement lets assume that they are right on. Well, I think I said a long time ago that I recognized that all of the Security Council Members were looking out for their own interests when deciding on Iraq.
Their interests include things like oil contracts and things like the thousands of anti-war protesters in the streets as well. We will never know which interest played the bigger role in French and Russian policy, but the deafening public outcry in Europe definately wasn't triggered because some oil contracts were in jeopardy.
It always seems funny to me though, that you are so certain that France and Russia were only thinkin about the oil contracts, while the U.S. was only thinkin about world peace. It seems idealistic to me.
(For the record: I think the inverse is equally idealistic, too)

JAY
chuck, you won't even consider the possibility. that's the problem when someone is too far on either position. their views are so biased and skewed you can't have an intelligent discussion. keep blaming and bitching, that gets things done.
chuck, read bob's response to "french connection". it's a good response. what you tend to do is skip around the question and start into a little bitch fest. it's funny
z, actually what you liberals will do by protesting is boost the morale of the oppostion which results in more dead americans. it's true. i know in vietnem the opposition's morale was boosted when all the libs were protesting. i agree w/ freedom of speech and being able to protest against the government, but what do you do about that. i'm not saying to curb your criticism b/c it's necessary, but what do you do?

CHUCK
Jay, I do consider all possibilities. I believe i said in my email about food-for-oil that it was possible but there is no evidence currently. and other horrible exploitations are likely involved by many nations.
But I am going to be extremely doubtful of a story that relies on Ahmad Chalabi's intelligence, which is where the food-for-oil comes from. This man has been completely discredited (of course this liar was the guy heavily relied on by the white house for WMD claims).
If there was anyone else that had info on this story, then it may have legs. But there is no one.
Its ridiculous to insult my ability to be rational simply because I refuse to dignify a Chalabi story. I gladly consider many arguments, and then make points against them (i.e., i will consider the idea of preemption being necessary, and know that there are arguments to both sides, but then i will make arguments that support my view.....pretty simple).
And just because i have enough sense to exploit the gapping hole in this 'french connection' does not make me blinded. it actually makes me more sensible.

JAY
chuck, i can dig it. just trying to light a little fire under your ass. i was just asking what would you think if the allegations were true.
another fun fact relating to the oil-for-food scandal. i read this,
"In meetings on Capitol Hill, Paul Volcker “rejected requests from members of Congress for access to review documents and to interview United Nations officials being scrutinized by his panel,” reports the New York Times.[7] Congressional sources have confirmed that the Volcker Commission refuses to grant access to internal reports on the Oil-for-Food program produced by the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services and is unwilling to share documentation that it holds in Baghdad. It also refuses to guarantee that it will release documents relating to the Oil-for-Food program even after it has filed its final report. This hostile approach seriously undermines the credibility of the Independent Inquiry Committee."
The Volcker Commission’s refusal to share documentation with congressional investigators demonstrates arrogance and disrespect for Congress and the American public that helps fund the Commission through the United Nations. What do you guys think about this? Is it possible that something fishy is going on (chuck)?

CHUCK
Is there something fishy? Possibly. But if refusing to submit documents/files is the standard then Bush stinks pretty bad for about every inquiry into this administration
jay, i just wanted to make clear one thing. very likely that the french, germans, russians all had corrupt reasons for not giving more contemplation to going to war. just like the US had corrupt reasons for going to war. the world (especially realted to oil) is too interrelated, corrupt and selfish for all of these nations to act in a secretly corrupt manner. That said, those nations were right and we were wrong. the french, germans, etc, said there was no imminent threat (of WMD which was the reason presented to these nations) and we said there was an imminent threat. We were wrong. So there was likely other reasons involved for all decisions made...but they were right.
(not wanting to open the whole 'threat' debate again. there may have been a some nuanced threat, but there is no question that was the 'imminent threat' that we were talking about at the time)

#2: Coalition of the Willing? > Stem Cell Research?

THREAD BEGAN: SEPTEMBER 9th, 2004
After BOB said that the Coalition of the Willing, "...is not even close to the level of International cooperation that Bush claimed that we had..."
Noting that:
Bush said the Coalition was 49 Nations strong!
15 Nations didn't send a single soldier!
39 Nations sent less than 10% of their military!
42 Nations sent less than 500 troops!

NUGENT
OK bobby, Of course it’s a paper tiger. Its only made up to appease the liberals. I’m not sure what the big problem with the Iraq war is anyhow. Is it a human rights issue, or is it that we’re pissing off France? Either way I would guess that the problem is a general concern for our relationship with the global community. Well I think you would agree that we are a white elephant of sorts- ill equipped to tip toe through the global scene. Our economic, social, and political system is such that we can not downgrade to the a moderate level. The price that comes with this size is an inevitable overstepping of our bounds. Whether its oil or humanitarian aid, the US is forced to play a role in others business. When this happens detractors come from all angles, and a diligent defense is absolutely necessary in preserving our state. This defense must come before the appeasement of other nations in a less demanding situation.You’re upset about the 1000th American death? These people are soldiers- their profession, their duty is to fight and die if the situations is such. Read “Russia at War” to put 1000 deaths into perspective, or take a look at the numbers associated with heart disease or traffic accidents.You comment on the UN. The UN is a weak organization. There is no legitimate power structure, No country will act subordinate to another, and for that reason the UN cannot be the determining factor for global politics. If there is anything our current political situations tell us, its that people have a huge range of moral and ethical beliefs. And with this range, power must be advocated in either direction in order for anything to be done. The UN has managed to side step this concept completely.All said, operation “Iraqi Freedom” may have freed Iraq, it may have weakened the UN, who gives a shit. What it really did, was tell the middle east and all other volatile regions of this world that we will not baulk on the demands for our own stability.I want you to know that there is a whole lot about this country that bothers me. However, the opportunity that is provided for scientific, technological, artistic, medical etc. advancement is certainly worth fighting for Ohio State grads arguing politics HAHAHAH - that’s the first problem.

BOB
Nugent, you asked:
“I’m not sure what the big problem with the Iraq war is anyhow. Is it a human rights issue, or is it that we’re pissing off France?”
NEITHER.
My problem is NOT that the UN didn’t approve this invasion! (although that certainly doesn’t help matters) I completely agree that this country needs to put its security above the appeasement of France and others. Once again, the Republicans have put words in our mouths.
THE BIG PROBLEM IS:
(1) Bush told the American people that Saddam was sitting on WMDs...----------He wasn’t!
(2) Bush and Cheney told the American people that Saddam had links to Al-Queida----------There is still ZERO evidence of this!
(According to the bi-partisan Sept 11th Commission).
(3) Bush said that there was a 49 Nation Coalition commited to fighting alongside us....----------Only 7 nations could muster 500 troops for the mission!
Call it exagerating, falsifying, making an understandable error, propaganda, relaying bad intelligence, or lying.
I don’t fucking care!!
Forget the UN!
Forget the poor Iraqis!
Forget France!
Nothing that Bush told the American people was the truth!!
America trusted him and invested 200 billion tax dollars and 1000 Americian lives (and it isn’t even close to over yet). Then found out that the justifications for the war were bogus.
THIS IS THE BIG PROBLEM!
By the way...
Does anyone remember the expression, "The buck stops here."
It means that a President must ultimately take responsibility for what happens on his watch. Bush blamed the intelligence agency for the bad intelligence and the soldiers at Abu-Grey for the bad behavior. Case closed.
This finger pointing does not fly with me!

NUGENT
Bobert,Kudos on the Truman reference. I agree that responsibility should be taken by the people of power in any organization, especially government.Also- nice use of font size and color.
-----------------end compliments-------------------------
Your argument reflects the weakness of your party. You apparently have no disagreement with the outcomes or effects of the War in Iraq. You only nitpick on the procedure for which it was carried out. Those who support this war don’t need one hundred and one concrete reasons to protect this country. Hussein was a menace. He disobeyed orders for inspection and was deliberately opposing a very reasonable set of standards imposed by the global community. I believe when these radical dictators break laws, especially those aimed at controlling WMD’s, they need to be dealt with. Thank goodness someone (my boy Dubya) had the balls to take care of business.Now unfortunately there are enough movie stars, college students and gays to make up a Democratic party; and for that reason, all of this half-assed intelligence was submitted as viable reasoning for our invasion.Of course all of these left wing politicians would support the war then double back and question the intelligence. Next time we’ll sit down and make sure everything is perfectly aligned to please you liberals, that should give the threat plenty of time to prepare.Lastly Ill say that Saddam had a year plus to cover up his illegal activity. Im not saying the accusations of WMD’s and Al Queida are right, but you certainly cant know they are wrong. I for one, would rather not find out the hard way. You should all take a minute and thank the Republicans for protecting your sorry assesas for me putting words into your mouth.... Im only trying to help you see the error of your ways. You’ll thank me when you grow out of this Democratic funk

DAN
All, Go to this website...
www.marklarose.com/alwaysremember.htm


MANEY
ok all we might as well stop talking now, nugent has spoken! enough said! is anyone going to disagree? I wouldn't or else he will eat u! Plus he has an ivy league degree!!!!! Here is an idea, let's change the issue, let's talk whether or not one should pull out or wear a condom? This obviously is a bigger issue than wmd, right?

CHUCK
Nugent actually does a great job of articulating the bigger picture justification. Fine. I dont agree, but that is a fine explanation of war supporters ability to sleep at night. We get it, Sadaam was bad, and anyone that didnt want to take him down is a pussy.
But something is being missed: IRAQ IS A FUCKING DISASTER. We are losing control. More deaths last month then a year ago. Yesterday there was heavy fighting in Baghdad. That was the one place we actually seemed to have control over. All accounts say we are conceding huge parts of other fringe areas to radical militants. THIS THING IS ONLY GETTING WORSE.
So if you support the war, shouldnt you be really mad at Bush for this deplorable execution of our occupation. And what is his answer: Stay the course. Its pathetic. Bush has failed everyone in his Iraq policy. Obviously those that only wanted war based on WMD (w/ a broader coalition) were failed. AND those that support the war were failed because the vulnerable occupying military has to sit in Iraq as a constant target, without the proper training, equipment, etc.
BUSH HAS FAILED EVERYONE IN IRAQ (except the contractors).
So if you really hate liberals so much, vote for Buchanan.

MANEY
Seriously, let's change the issue! Same points back and fourth. I have heard both sides from everyone. K great. No one is changing their minds. Let's talk about out sourcing, or the ladies, who got action this weekend? As for me nothing. Nugent, I know ur stock must be rising, you look sexy in your football picture. Lefties, hugging trees does not count.

ZELIN
Viscione, are you fucking serious. I love the fade out of Barabara Streisand. She is quit a threat to our great nation. Cañ~t wait to come home on wed and kick your ass.

BEN
well buchanan aint running, but if i did vote for him, would all you libs vote nader? i thought not. nader is against the war unconditonally. i dont know where kerry stands, and im not just saying that because he is a "flip-flopper" i just really dont know. i think he wants to be against it - but he wont come out and say it like dean would. he might as well at this point, i actully think it would help him. if he just came out and said it, instead of playing word games and all that.......
maney sorry no luck this weekend with the ladies, me either......0 for 2 on friday night.
interestingly enough, i havent recieved 1 email about those CBS Bush Natl Guard "documents." i think its pretty clear theyre fake, but it is absoultely remarkable that rather and co. contiue to walk the plank for kerry. no surrpise, since rather has hated the bush family for years now. if this indeed comes out that CBS knew it was questionable and ran it anyways, its the nail in the coffin for kerry, because every baseless charge from here on out (well, even if its true) republicans can just point to this fiasco and say "just like the CBS Story."

KYLE
Dear Bush Cheney Campaign,
My friends and I have an email forum where we discuss a variety of topics and recently have been writing about September 11th due to the recent passing of the third anniversery. Our good friend Daniel Viscione sent us a link to a website presentation that served as a reminder, all be it a shamefully partisan one, of the acts of terror that struck our nation. The basic theme was that we should never forget 9/11. I completely agree.Yesterday Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday on NBC'c Meet the Press that there is no direct connection between the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Iraqi regime (you may want to let Vice-President Cheney know about this). My question for the Bush/Cheney Campaign is: Why are we spending so much of our resources which are supposed to be for "the war on terrorism" in Iraq when the people who did this to us are still free and making movies? Have you forgotten about 9/11?
Several members of this group are swing voters in the critical state of Ohio. Please reply to our whole group when clarifying this important issue. Thank you in advance for your reply and check out my Republican friend's website www.keelerreport.blogspot.com. He thinks you'll win, I hope you lose.

BOB
Nugent, I enjoyed your response immensely!
I love your ‘take no shit’, ‘straight shootin’ approach to politics. Also I think the Republican team will benefit greatly from a big sac of adrenaline, like yourself.
-------end compliments-------
You made a good point in your last email, so I shall stop ‘nitpicking on procedures’ and return to the big picture. I’ll even write my response in good-old American swagger (since you Republicans all seem to respond so well to it.)
This Iraq War ain’t makin’ America no safer!
(Three mighty good reasons)
(1) We can’t pulverize them real terrorists with our boys spread thin like this in Iraq. Bin Ladin (the man responsible for September 11th) is still out there laughin it up! Afganistan is short on resources and Iran is buildin’ WMDs (for real). America is under attack and now ain’t the time to send 130,000 of our boys on some cock-a-maimy mission to some country that simply ain’t no immenint threat.
(2) Them cold-blooded terrorists are dyin’ with every passin day (thank the good lord) but they’z recruitin, too. I agree we need to smash ‘em all back into the sand, but we gots to be careful. If we ruffle the feathers of average folk in the region too much, (no international legitimacy, Abu-Ghraib scandal, lies about them weapons) their support and numbers is just gonna grow!
(3) I don’t like being lied to by some high flyin’ politician. Good intentions or not. And neither does nobody else. Now I hate France, just as much as the next guy, but we need allies in this fight. The next time we got good intelligence on some stinkin tyrant the whole world gonna say that we’z cryin wolf again. And after that hanky-panky we pulled, not allowin those nations to bid for reconstruction contracts, we’ll be lucky if they don’t just leave us to clean up this Iraq mess all by our lonesome. Gonna cost a lot of hard earned tax dollars, I reckon.
Listen, I’m all for defendin’ this, the greatest nation on the planet. And god knows I’m all about kicking some terrorist ass! But Bush ain’t makin’ us no safer. We done lost the hearts and minds of average Iraqi folk, our allies are getting thin (just when we could use a hand), Bin Laden is havin’ a field day, the insurgency is growin’ and Iraq is a damn pigsty.
My friend Mervin says that sooner or later we gonna pound them terrorists into oblivion and Iraq’ll be free, just like us. Maybe so. But the way we went about this…lyin’ bout them weapons and terrorist links, torturin' those prisoners, I got a bad feelin in my gut. But I'm prayin...Im prayin that the good lord can forgive our trespasses…and our votes.
And another thing….
Nugent made the comment that, “Now unfortunately there are enough movie stars, college students and gays to make up a Democratic party.” Since we have lowered the bar, I’d like to diagram your proud party, as I see it. You see there are only 3 or 4 kinds of Republicans in my eyes:
The top 8% of the Party is comprised of:
(1) The Elitists
---Well educated, strong understanding of the Market
---Great wardrobes
---Completely indifferent or oblivious to the suffering of others
---Secretly loath Blacks, Jews, Latinos, Women, Foreigners, Gays, etc..
---Like golf
(2) Second Generation Elite
---Born into the Party
---Never left the lap of luxury
---Claim to have lots of black friends
The Other 92% of the party:
(3) The Exploited Church Folk
---Good people, with big hearts
---Have been told that Jesus votes Republican
---Afraid to ask questions
(4) Uneducated Rural America
---Vote based on accent
---Put guns above all else
---Super Homophobes
The survival of your party relies on the expolitation of Jesus and those who died on Sept 11th, fearmongering and hiding behind the flag. More Americans voted for a Democrat in the last three Presidential Elections.
Your good-old-fashion party is the party of intolerance, the party of elitism and the party of the past.

MANEY
WOW, Bob where did you get those numbers? I love it. I have a feeling those are Bob numbers though. So let's talk about what your party is made up of: 100% bitch. Your party likes to pretend they are for the little person and all for liberal ideas. Yes, John Kerry, he is surely one that paints the pic. of living the hard life of the avg. American. I mean he has it pretty tough being married to what is her name? Oh yea Heinz. Rough life I am sure. Surely he represents the non elitist does he plays golf too? Further more, Dems. are made up of people who can't make up their mind and simply say what is ever convenient for that specific time and place. Finally bob where would you put Abe Lincoln? Was, yea he was a Republican, and I think, yea, he helped free the slaves. Wow! he must fall in category 4. Not sure though. So where does Keeler fall into this mix? Or J, Dan,Nugent. I know where I fall. You left out a category 5. Be a republican to simply be against Bob. Keeler, also keep at it.

NUGENT
You’re a funny guy Bob. You must have a lot of time on your hands. Since you mentioned it several times, I want to make it clear that I don’t much care for religion. It’s a crutch for weak minded people and is probably the number one hangup for human progress. Second, I’m not a Republican (anti abortion, anti stem cell, pro religion, bla bla bla) its just happens to be the best alternative to our liberal decay.A democrat promoting Buchanan, such a sly politician you are Chuck.“deplorable execution of our occupation” who taught you these words? Quick thought to both of you. You each raise good points about the difficulties faced in Iraq, but that is all you do. Do you have any solutions to offer? If by some chance Kerry gets in the White House he’ll have to deal with it. The thing is we all know what will happen- Kerry will back off, he just doesn’t want to say it. That’s not my style, that’s not America’s style, and that’s not Bush’s styleMilitary history 101 *es muy importante* We are a technologically and numerically superior force. Through persistence we will win (this isn’t Braveheart with the spears). There are exceptions, but Al-Queida, Iraqi insurgents, etc are so far inferior that even their best tactical decisions versus our worst would never mean defeat. They know this, so what do they do? ..... Commit a few well placed attacks and let CNN and the LA Times do the rest. Political turmoil has been the undoing of every unrivaled empire in modern human history. And these terrorists our aiming at that goal. This should be obvious, yet here you are attacking policy. Nothing last forever. Someday the threat will be big enough that all your bickering is going to cost us. Liberalism is this countries greatest enemy and will eventually be its undoing.

DAN
Bobby,
Excuse my absence from participation. Reason being partly because I started a new job, and partly because you have been speaking a lot of hot garbage. As of late, your arguments have been weak and unfulfilling in our roundtable. I truly believe you have put little thought into what you are writing. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that you are just playing devil’s advocate just to keep an argument going….Although, it is better than not coining in at all.
I too would have a weak argument myself If I didn’t site an example, though it pains me to bring it up again….
Your argument:
“Bush said that there was a 49 Nation Coalition committed to fighting alongside us----------Only 7 nations could muster 500 troops for the mission!
…of the 49 Nations in the Coalition, only 10 sent at least 10% of their military.”
My argument:
I would never figure you to be so narrow minded. True, these countries, for example, El Salvador, Latvia, Mongolia, and Dominican Republic gave such small numbers in troops, but Bob, look at whom you have mentioned. You were astounded by the fact that Latvia gave “a whopping 120 soldiers.” I fail to see your reasoning behind this. There were more people going to Revere H.S. when we graduated than in today’s entire Latvian Military. To give up such a number should be looked at as a sacrifice, not criticized because of comparison. Especially in today’s world where national security is probably the top priority of every single nation. Terrorists don’t just attack the US and Iraq. I am sure every country on the coalition list is now looked down upon by a lot of the Middle East. Every soldier sent away is one less protecting his or her country…BUT IT MUST BE DONE!
Do you not think that these 49 countries are putting forth other forms of aid-i.e. weapons, textiles, money, food, medicine, etc. The size of troop sent to war is not the way to judge a countries involvement.
And by the way, your breakdown of Republicans was just plain stupid.
On a lighter note, I too would like to say, it is good to here from you, Nugent. Not only because I agree with some of your ideas and opinions, but also, because no one has heard from you in a while.
I would like to capitalize on is when you wrote: “These people are soldiers- their profession, their duty is to fight and die if the situations are such.”
---I completely agree. Our soldiers have the luxury of going into the military if they so choose. Nobody forces our soldiers into their profession, unlike some of the countries we are fighting against, and even some of the countries we are fight with They have a clear understanding of the ultimate sacrifice when they sign up for their tour.
Save the whales!
PS- To Zelin and others who agree with his response to my 9/11 forward... I don't remember the fade out of Streisand, but now that you mention it, it sounds funny to me. Yes, I realize that this e-mail was originally sent out toward the conservative side of society, but the underlying message is all the same. This e-mail was sent with nothing but good intentions. Although, since there was an attack toward me I must defend my ground. Obviously, Streisand was shown like all of the other democratic assholes who spoke against what has happened since 9/11. For that, she should be shown. My only regret is having to look at how ugly she is and that I am reminded how bad her acting is as well as her music. FUCK STREISAND, AND HER FUCKING COUNTERPARTS, MICHAEL MOORE, JANINE GARAFELO, AND CHARLES RENGAL, AND JOHN KERRY!!!

CHUCK
For some reason people act like its wrong that Kerry/Heinz are rich. That's what I like. They are fucking loaded, and dont mind giving back to the less fortunate, in an effort to make a better society. Bush is rich, and just wants to cut his own (and buddies) taxes.
Rich democrats are not hipocrites, they are role models. They are not selfish. They have $5 milliion, and say 'go ahead and raise my taxes because we need to eliminate this debt and secure social programs which benefit the future of this nation. That is nobel.
Bush and his buddies just want more money. And dont care about providing for the elderly or newborns. That's the opposite of nobel.
And no more about Iraq, until everyone can admit its going in the shitter. Maybe it was a good idea (i disagree), but either way, the wheels are falling off. There will be civil war in a year. We are losing serious control.
I feel bad for those that think the war was a good idea, because Bush failed to send enough troops, and now your vision for a peaceful iraq has will never come to evolve.
1. Part of the point is that there are no immediate solutions. That is a testament to how badly Bush has fucked this thing up. (this may have been a winable war and a just cause but the horrific execution has failed the spirit of any 'democratic iraq')
2. Like it or not, there is a larger problem with Iraq: No one else likes us. Like it or not, that is important. I dont think Germany/France will send troops to iraq, but its possible. Or its possible they will train iraqi's outside of iraq. Or its possible they will send troops to the Sudan, instead of us, when we decide in the near future to do so. There is no world leader that will step to the plate for Bush....we know this. Will they for Kerry.....its unclear and slightly less then probable. But that is a better chance then Bush has of garnering world support.
3. IT IS LIKE BRAVEHEART. That's the problem. High tech shit doesnt matter. We're fighting those willing to die. We're fighting hidden car bombs. We're fighting in religious shrines.
4. If we followed you idea of persistence, we would still be in Vietnam.
5. I dont know the solution. I think this foreign policy of bush is a disaster. BUT even if he is doing a decent job.....his domestic policy has been even worse. We all suffer (including the really wealthy) in the long run with these soaring deficits and shrinking middle class. So there is no way voting for Bush can be justified (especially with all this nutty religious stuff....do you realize how far we are falling behind in stem cell research to other nations....europe is going to beat us to the next economic jackpot, because bush wants to make a bunch of losers from alabama happy....its just not worth it)

JAY
In response to "this is how bad bush fucked things up." What would Kerry have done? If I'm not mistaken, Kerry voted for the war as well (and Kerry doesn't vote). The only thing that would have differed if Kerry was in office is the reconstruction of Iraq. I don't even have to explain. I know you liberals know that. What is your response? Don't tell me what Kerry would do now, tell me what he would have done when shit was hitting the fan. I don't understand how Kerry can say things were handled poorly when he was supporting the decisions when they were being made. Responses? I am surprised Kerry even voted. Look at his voting record. It's pathetic. Bob, you always tell me it's our responsibility as a citizen to vote. Does a senator share the same responsibility? Doesn't a senator have a significantly larger voice than me? How can you support someone who doensn't fulfill his responsibilities as a senator? Hopefully this guy can speak up if he becomes president. Just for shit and giggles I want one of you liberals to give me the stats on Kerry's voting record. I know it, I just want to hear you say it. And I want some sort of rebuttle. I know it'll be hard, but mamma says you can do anything you put your mind to. I don't think she was refering to this though. If you need the web cite, I'll be glad to give it to you.
Nuge, you're anti stem cell. I really havn't researched the topic yet, but I think it's going to be the topic for my law thesis. I havn't picked a side yet so try and pursuade me. If anyone else has some input on this topic I'd love to hear it. It could help me w/ my paper and maybe avoid these repetitive arguments about iraq.

BOB
You got my goose!
Nugent, you took a really childish blow at the Democratic Party:
"Unfortunately there are enough movie stars, college students and gays to make up a Democratic Party"
What did I do?...I got all red-faced and jumped into defensive mode, reacting with an equally childish reply. I am wallowing in my regret.
Let me try to re-establish my more moderate side:
10 Big Reasons I LOVE the Republican Platform
1. I love free trade
2. I believe in the ideal of less federal government
3. I have no pity for the welfare recipeints
4. I dont think government should regulate industries such as transportation, postal etc..
5. I prefer that the power be with the states
6. I do not support paternalistic laws
7. I love Capatilism and embrace 'big-business'
8. I support the 2nd Amendment
9. I respect politicians that don't waver
10. They aren't worried about being politically correct all the time
And there is more....I agree with a ton of the criticism that I hear about the DEMs. I am nervous as hell about Kerry (personally, I was a Dean guy). I still don't get why the fuck the guy voted to give Bush the War Crown if he didn't support the war! I never fucking would have! If you want me to defent him, you are talkin to the wrong guy!
The bottom line is that I don't have a boner for either party, but I can't handle another 4 years of Bush foreign policy. I simply believe that this strategy of smashing anti-Americanism will backfire.
PS And Nugent you said that:
"We are a technologically and numerically superior force.
Through persistence we will win..."
I think our good, old friend, Ho Chi Mihn, said it best when he said:
"You will kill 10 of our men and we will kill one of yours. In the end, it is you who will tire of this." Isn't that exactly what happened?!

NUGENT
good timing on your nice guy, modest rebuttals.You both shoot down my comment of persistence with the Vietnam parallel. And your right to do so, but I see a larger problem growing from this similarity. Both wars have occurred after the 1960's liberation bananza. We now live in an era where a large, morally diverse crowd regulates our social/political world. This has created a very indecisive system. And what is stemming from this, is a roadmap to victory for our enemies. All they need to do is survive and the strength of our liberal movements will halt the war machine. In addition all the new concerns with rules of engagement and civilian welfare means the enemy not only survives but comes out relatively unscathed. Basically, if we tuck tale and run here... We are reaffirming our inability to commit to winning a war. This is why I speak of persistence. Having bush run around like a cowboy for four more years isn’t a bad thing. We can always patch up with Germany later. Losing the ability to strike fear into those who wish us harm would be costly.Not all conflict is decided in 6 months with 100 casualties. We shouldn't sacrifice our patience because its an election year

BOB
Jay: As far as stem-cell research goes I think it's not much different from abortion or euthenasia. The Church folk think its bad cause we shouldn't play God blah, blah, blah....these are the same people who stoned Galileo and shunned Da Vinci. They hate science nerds cause they provide real answers to the questions that their dusty religious books used to.
The majority of stem cell research that is being proposed is from fertility treatment or aborted fetuses. These guys were gonna end up in the garbage any which way. We're not talking about fertilizing eggs just to be used for research. Some people argue that using the aborted fetuses is somehow condoning abortion, well maybe. Personally I don't have a problem with abortion so the whole thing seems ridiculous to me. Others suggest that we use adult stem cells found in bone marrow, I believe. It isn't half as flexible though and requires donars and has some other hangups.
If anyone has a non-God agruement for resticting stem cell research I'd love to hear it.
Chuck: You mentioned Kerry being all about givin money to the poor and sick. You seem to trust the guy. What are your thoughts about his vote to give Bush the War go-ahead? How do you think that Kerry will respond to this in the debates?
Dan: As much as I regret my vicious, childish, knee-jerk reaction to Nugent's descripition of the Democratic Party (which, by the way you didn't denounce as you did mine), I am glad that it got you motivated to jump back in the mix. Welcome back, I though we had lost you to married life (you know picking out wallpaper borders and such).
I get your point about the Coalition. The little guys are making a big sacrifice and there are other types of help besides sending soldiers. Good point. But my agruement was simply that the amount on support we’ve got from this coalition isn’t living up to the picture that Bush painted us...that’s all.
Maney: When I watched the Republican Convention I was shocked at the Lincoln references...even Arnold dropped his name. What a dirty trick. Apparently it worked though, cause Abe was the first guy that you mentioned in your rebuttal.
American political parties have changed alot in the last 140 years. Everythihng that the Republican Party stands for is exactly what Lincoln fought against in 1865. Lincoln was a progressive, a liberal, he believed in a strong federal government, the rights of minority citizens over economic gain or state law, he fought against the conservative, traditionalist, rural southern mentality that we now call the Republican Party.
Despite the fact that they are both Republicans, Lincoln and Bush are complete opposites. The fact that the Republican Party is making this comparison (and that it works) it truly pathetic.
Nugent: You said that nowadays:
"The strength of our liberal movements will halt the war machine."
And you honestly meant this as a bad thing!?!
Stopping the war machine does sound like such a pussy thing to do when you think about it. Did Dale Kyle join the roundtable or what?
That comment is truly scary, Nug.

CHUCK
Bob, You broke my heart with your confession to liking states rights and other dirty things. But thats okay, we have to unite against bush now, and then squabble over the details later.
I do trust Kerry. Unlike many senators that voted for the war, Kerry made a very detailed speech of what he thought Bush should do with his vote giving bush the authority. I wish he didnt vote for it, but he was very clear with what he expected: let the inspectors work, determine if there was suspected WMD, form a coalition, use invasion as a LAST RESORT. Bush did none of the above.
And how will Kerry do in the debates on this point. Horrible. He does not articulate a very complex position at all. That is invariably his problem. Everyday people dont have the time or energy to explore the complexity of Kerry's opinion. Main Example: Kerry DID vote for the $87 before he voted against it. This is common in senate speak. He disagreed on how it should be paid for, so he voted for one proposal which would have paid for the $87 billion now, and then voted against the final proposal which forces our children to pay for the war. Well, bush beats him over the head with this complexity, just like Cheney bashes kerry for proposed defense cuts....the very same ones Cheney proposed. But There is no way to explain that. Especially in the face of GW's 'i never wobble' rhetoric. (by the way, that is the problem with Bush, he never changes his mind....he actually thinks 'staying the course' in iraq will work.) Kerry is complex, and at his worst, confusing. but this country is going down the drain in foreign affairs and our domestic economy and someone has to stop this course. I truly believe that Kerry is a smart guy and has a great vision. is it coming out in this election? no. but his record is a nice blend of social liberal and reasoned economic policies.....and every other nation in the world likes him more then bush. so that'll do for now.

KYLE
Gents, I thought it might be helpful to look at what President Bush has said on stem cell research. Prior to 9/11 this was one of the big issues confronting the Bush administration. Bush has given one speech in the past 4 years to outline his stance and it was delivered August 9, 2001 at the place where he spent quite a bit of his presidency before 9/11, his ranch in Texas.
Currently the Bush administration allows for stem cell research in the following way: "Stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising." - President BushThe controversy over stem cell research is obviously not over saving ambilical cords or placenta, it is over stem cells from embryos.
Presdient Bush went on to say:
"My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures."
"I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated."
If you read that last sentence, the President is arguing that because there is no gaurantee that stem cell research will cure major diseases, then we shouldn't buy into the false hope. Laura Bush has made a similar argument on the campaign trail this year. As Jon and Bob have alluded to: Science isn't certain. It is about discovering the unknown.
Finally, I love the way the President shapes debates. Because he has a "respect for human life in America", he opposes embryotic stem cell research. The reason I support embryotic stem cell research is because if a family member of mine contracts a disease that could be treated with knowledge acquired through stem cell research I WANT THEM TO LIVE. I'm pro-life when it comes to stem cell research because I want people who are alive to keep living and not die from a disease that we may be able to cure because our President won't allow the research because he has "deeply held beliefs" (religion).
Jay - the full tect of the President's remarks is available here for your reference and paper: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html