Gop Convention

[Fly]

Oh Please...get off the high horse. I will venture to guess that many of our presidents have cheated, don't kid yourself. And I'd venture to say that most men would lie about it too (especially in the public eye) Research shows that 25% of married men and 15% of married women have cheated at least once....are you suggesting that they are only democrats? 🙄 Me don't think so!

 

[KCFlyer]

...In mine, I don't give a rat's a** about BJs, just about elected Presidents who do it and then lie about it under oath. Oh yeah, I forgot. The chief Federal law enforcement officer lying under oath before a Grand Jury doesn't matter as long as it's a Democrat. I hope none of your friends/relatives have to file a civil suit against a boorish schmuck like Clinton and then watch him lie and obstruct justice. Or maybe you wouldn't mind if your wife/daughter/sister had a boss who propositioned her. Perhaps behavior like that is a resume builder among Dems. To most however, it's just classless and sometimes criminal.

Hmmm. YOu know, If the dems really wanted to "get" Bush, they'd have him tell us the reasons we we're in Iraq...under oath, of course. I think it's been proven that he really did lie to the American public about Iraq. I'm all for putting him 'under oath' so we might bring a president to an impeachment trial about something that really DOES involve national security.

The righties were doing whatever they could to get Clinton. They struck gold because he told a lie about having sex while under oath. Monica Lewinsky didn't charge him with sexual harassment, just an "inquiry" from the "special prosecuter" (a die hard right winger by they way) about Troopergate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Vincent Fosters death, and Monicagate. Damn, when you think about it, the guy is even MORE admirable that he could get rid of our deficit and stimulate the US economy while defending himself from this witchhunt, all the while being able to get a blowjob. I think I just found a new hero. Which "crime" do you think is worse?

And let's assume that you had a spat with your wife, and in the course of the following days, your secretary gave you a BJ. Then the company put you "under oath" and asked you if you did anything with this woman (she didn't file any complaints against you, but your superiors were trying to nab you for taking pens home - which they couldn't prove). As you look out into the spectators in the gallery and lo and behold, there's your wife looking at you with an "I'm gonna pull a Lorena Bobbet on you" look in her eye. What's your answer?

 

[AgMedallion]

Yea, Al Qaeda's gonna party, like they care who is president.The whole war on terror will just stop. Get real. And as for the "French/German/U.N. approval" and "flip-flopping" bull, why does your party feel it needs to scare you with that unfounded crap. Can't your boy Bushy run on his own merits? Guess not. Seems the best he can do is distort the record of a great American.

First off, it's not my party and "Bushy" isn't my "boy". I'm independent and supported McCain in '00...he's still who I prefer. Who's the "great American" you refer to? Couldn't be Kerry. He's the guy who marched with Hanoi Jane and claimed that many/most GI's in 'Nam committed atrocities, including himself. Just because he served in Nam for 4 months doesn't make him a "Great American". I'd reserve that title for John McCain, who has more character in his finger nail than Kerry in his entire body.

If you think Al Qaeda doesn't care who wins the November election, you're delusional. They certainly cared about the Spanish election and Spain was only a bit player in Iraq and the war on terror. Re the French/German/U.N. approval statement, Kerry has indicated on numerous occasions that he the U.S. shouldn't take any actions in our war on terrorists without their approval. Since all 3 were profiting greatly in the oil for food program, i.e. scandal, in Iraq, in the form of bribes and kickbacks, I don't think getting their approval is a wise policy.

You ought to read Zell Miller's book, "A National Party No More" and you'll better understand why so many, like myself, are totally turned off by the Democrats. That's despite the fact that I personally support some of their policies (e.g. pro-choice and pro gun control). But when they produce amoral/immoral scumbags like Clinton for public office, then idolize and defend them, that's when I take my vote elsewhere.

 

[KCFlyer]

First off, it's not my party and "Bushy" isn't my "boy". I'm independent and supported McCain in '00...he's still who I prefer. Who's the "great American" you refer to? Couldn't be Kerry. He's the guy who marched with Hanoi Jane and claimed that many/most GI's in 'Nam committed atrocities, including himself. Just because he served in Nam for 4 months doesn't make him a "Great American". I'd reserve that title for John McCain, who has more character in his finger nail than Kerry in his entire body.

Won't you be in a quandry if McCain ends up on the Democrat ticket.

 

[AgMedallion]

Won't you be in a quandry if McCain ends up on the Democrat ticket.

Since he has stated on numerous occasions that your scenario is an impossibility (because he's not interested), I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen if I were you. McCain has character up the ying-yang and I take him at his word (something you couldn't ever do with BJ Bill).

 

[sentrido]

First off, it's not my party and "Bushy" isn't my "boy". I'm independent and supported McCain in '00...he's still who I prefer.

Yea, your posts are so "independent". Thats why Bushy get a pass but the Dems are pure evil?
For the record I Liked McCain too. I even preferd him to Gore. Its a damn shame what Bush and Rove did to him in South Carolina. Maybe you could give us a little rant about that, bash the republicans a little and prove your "independent".

Who's the "great American" you refer to? Couldn't be Kerry. He's the guy who marched with Hanoi Jane and claimed that many/most GI's in 'Nam committed atrocities, including himself. Just because he served in Nam for 4 months doesn't make him a "Great American". I'd reserve that title for John McCain, who has more character in his finger nail than Kerry in his entire body.

Kerry didnt march with Hanoi Jane. He was at some peace rallies witch Jane attended. Ill just call her Jane here becasue she hadnt gone to Hanoi yet. Kerry has never supported what she did.Wonder how you got the immpression he did?As for your "'Nam atrocities" rant, I would like to direct you to this link
http://pages.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/kerryst.htm Its pretty self explanatory. I think actually reading what Kerry said will give you a better idea than the bull you got from the Bushy/Rove spin machine.If you hate BJ's so much, then why dont you get off Hannity's tip?

John McCain is a great American ( well Bush and Rove dont think so, but i do)
And so is John Kerry. At least John McCain thinks so, but that probably not good enough for you.

As for Kerry's 4 months in combat.How can you criticize a rich kid who volunteered to be shot at? You may not agree with someones politics, But how the hell can you justify your opinion that this person is not a great American? Please try.

If you think Al Qaeda doesn't care who wins the November election, you're delusional. They certainly cared about the Spanish election and Spain was only a bit player in Iraq and the war on terror.

Spain is a whole different animal.
First of all, 80% percent of the population were against the war in Iraq, which is not the case in the US.Most people here agree with the war, If not with how it was handled.
Second of all, the spanish government LIED about who committed the bombing cause they were afraid of loosing.Maybe if they hadnt they would still be in power.Then again if WMD's had been found, or maybe an actual link between Iraq and Al Qaeda had been made, the war there might be more popular with the spanish.
Finnaly, Kerry Isnt going to leave Iraq either.

If there is an attack in America before the election, The American poeple will rally around Bush and he will definetly get reelected.Look what happened after 911?

Re the French/German/U.N. approval statement, Kerry has indicated on numerous occasions that he the U.S. shouldn't take any actions in our war on terrorists without their approval. Since all 3 were profiting greatly in the oil for food program, i.e. scandal, in Iraq, in the form of bribes and kickbacks, I don't think getting their approval is a wise policy.

Kerry has never said this, or supported the point of view that we need anybodies permission to do anything. I think youve had too much Hannity Cream.
As for the Cash flow comming out of Iraq, Guess who had the biggest stake before the war? Halliburton? Yup. I wonder why they had to do it thru a camen Island subsiduary. Maybe you can tell me why they felt the need to do that.

I personaly dont care about what France,Germany, and the UN want. Im not against the war case they were, and I dont even know why they were. It doesnt matter. There was no evedence. If its that big an issue, you show the American people what youve got. the truth is all they had was the word of Ahmed Chalabi.Hows his credibilty now? They had nothing.They were telling the inspectors where to look, but there was nothing there.For whatever reason, they wanted this war so bad they ignored all evedence that didnt support thier case.They misled the American people.

You ought to read Zell Miller's book, "A National Party No More" and you'll better understand why so many, like myself, are totally turned off by the Democrats. That's despite the fact that I personally support some of their policies (e.g. pro-choice and pro gun control). But when they produce amoral/immoral scumbags like Clinton for public office, then idolize and defend them, that's when I take my vote elsewhere.

I havent read any of his books, but I get enough of him when he visits with Hannity.
Hey whatever floats your boat. Doesnt mean you have to become a shill for the republican party.Tell you what, give us a nice rant on Bush and the repubicans and ill apolgize for calling you Ignorant and tearing you a new one.


You should really consider separating your views on certain issues from the politics of politics. Is a politician, who isnt even running for office, getting a BJ a good reason to vote for a pro-life, pro-rich, anti-gun-control, anti-civil-rights, anti-John McCain candidate? I applogize for assuming you gonna vote for Bush if your not.

 

[NWA/AMT]

But when they produce amoral/immoral scumbags like Clinton for public office, then idolize and defend them, that's when I take my vote elsewhere.

Unlike Reagan, who lied under oath about secretly selling weapons to a sworn enemy of the U.S. as part of a deal to trade with terrorists to release hostages and fund an illegal war in Nicaragua? Does anyone really think a Lieutenant Colonel had the authority to do that?

Maybe he should have lied to the American people like Georgie, lying in an attempt to get them to support a war which does nothing to advance our war on terrorism and is actually serving to improve Al Qaeda recruiting? Then lying about lying in the first place as if nobody would bother to record what he said the first time?

Perhaps if Clinton had answered every question with "I don't recall" like Ronnie or simply pretended that it had all never happened like Georgie then the NeoCons would deify him as well. As far as 'amoral/immoral scumbags' go, Clinton couldn't hold a candle to either of them.

 

[AgMedallion]

Oh Please...get off the high horse. I will venture to guess that many of our presidents have cheated, don't kid yourself. And I'd venture to say that most men would lie about it too (especially in the public eye) Research shows that 25% of married men and 15% of married women have cheated at least once....are you suggesting that they are only democrats? 🙄 Me don't think so!

Who cares if they cheated? I sure as hell don't. That's their spouse's problem, not mine. Ike did it with his driver, JFK (and, it seems, virtually all Kennedy's) with who knows how many, etc. I do care about lying under oath, selling pardons, obstructing justice and RAPE. If you don't think he did that, fine. I had an extremely low opinion of Clinton before that revelation and it surprised me when it came out. I didn't know he was that much of a scumbag, but, after hearing Juanita Broaddrick on NBC, I was convinced. If you think that a man's character means so little that you're willing to have a rapist as President, fine. We simply have different standards in terms of what kind of imperfections we're willing to have in our public leaders and we'll just never agree on that. Bad enough that he's that depraved, but when you have the leaders of his party willing to support and defend him, they're clearly more interested in their party's welfare, not the country's. At least Nixon had the decency to quit. Clinton has no conscience, no sense of shame. Anything goes if he can get away with it.

 

[AgMedallion]

Yea, your posts are so "independent". Thats why Bushy get a pass but the Dems are pure evil?
For the record I Liked McCain too. I even preferd him to Gore. Its a damn shame what Bush and Rove did to him in South Carolina. Maybe you could give us a little rant about that, bash the republicans a little and prove your "independent".
Kerry didnt march with Hanoi Jane. He was at some peace rallies witch Jane attended. Ill just call her Jane here becasue she hadnt gone to Hanoi yet. Kerry has never supported what she did.Wonder how you got the immpression he did?As for your "'Nam atrocities" rant, I would like to direct you to this link
http://pages.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/kerryst.htm Its pretty self explanatory. I think actually reading what Kerry said will give you a better idea than the bull you got from the Bushy/Rove spin machine.If you hate BJ's so much, then why dont you get off Hannity's tip?

John McCain is a great American ( well Bush and Rove dont think so, but i do)
And so is John Kerry. At least John McCain thinks so, but that probably not good enough for you.
As for Kerry's 4 months in combat.How can you criticize a rich kid who volunteered to be shot at? You may not agree with someones politics, But how the hell can you justify your opinion that this person is not a great American? Please try.


Spain is a whole different animal.
First of all, 80% percent of the population were against the war in Iraq, which is not the case in the US.Most people here agree with the war, If not with how it was handled.
Second of all, the spanish government LIED about who committed the bombing cause they were afraid of loosing.Maybe if they hadnt they would still be in power.Then again if WMD's had been found, or maybe an actual link between Iraq and Al Qaeda had been made, the war there might be more popular with the spanish.
Finnaly, Kerry Isnt going to leave Iraq either.

If there is an attack in America before the election, The American poeple will rally around Bush and he will definetly get reelected.Look what happened after 911?



Kerry has never said this, or supported the point of view that we need anybodies permission to do anything. I think youve had too much Hannity Cream.
As for the Cash flow comming out of Iraq, Guess who had the biggest stake before the war? Halliburton? Yup. I wonder why they had to do it thru a camen Island subsiduary. Maybe you can tell me why they felt the need to do that.

I personaly dont care about what France,Germany, and the UN want. Im not against the war case they were, and I dont even know why they were. It doesnt matter. There was no evedence. If its that big an issue, you show the American people what youve got. the truth is all they had was the word of Ahmed Chalabi.Hows his credibilty now? They had nothing.They were telling the inspectors where to look, but there was nothing there.For whatever reason, they wanted this war so bad they ignored all evedence that didnt support thier case.They misled the American people.




I havent read any of his books, but I get enough of him when he visits with Hannity.
Hey whatever floats your boat. Doesnt mean you have to become a shill for the republican party.Tell you what, give us a nice rant on Bush and the repubicans and ill apolgize for calling you Ignorant and tearing you a new one.


You should really consider separating your views on certain issues from the politics of politics. Is a politician, who isnt even running for office, getting a BJ a good reason to vote for a pro-life, pro-rich, anti-gun-control, anti-civil-rights, anti-John McCain candidate? I applogize for assuming you gonna vote for Bush if your not.

Giving "Bushy" a pass? What's he guilty of? Relying on CIA intelligence and repeating the same things Dems said in the late 90s about what Saddam had re WMD? There obviously were/are WMD supplies. He didn't kill thousands of his own citizens (Kurds) with bug spray. Something happened to the stuff he had. Destroyed/hidden/sent to Syria/whatever. The only part of the Iraq war I support is getting rid of Saddam. The part about transforming Iraq into some kind of democracy (Bush's mantra) is IMHO, pure BS. Very nice in theory, but given the track record of Arab and Muslim (exc Turkey) states, extremely unlikely. I think they'll continue to blow themselves and others up...that's what they're good at. Any culture which believes (or at least the sizable number of extremists and extremist supporters among them do) that they'll go to heaven to fornicate with 76 virgins if they murder innocents, is not one you can really reason with. We should just try to control their ability to kill Americans in this country. Unlike many Dems, I don't think we need to wait for thousands of American to die before we can take action. Bush's preemption policies are just fine with me and the main reason I support him. The religious tone and/or justification with some of his policies are a turnoff, but he's basically a good person with an excellent sense of right and wrong. Not as much hesitation and hand-wringing as with some of the Dems who look at 50 sides of every issue and sometimes can't see the forest for the trees. You know the ones who I'm talking about. After 9/11 they look in the mirror and ask what we did to deserve this, what changes we can make so the terrorists (or the French/German/U.N.) won't be mad at us. Bush looks at the situation and tells it like it is. The terrorists are evil madmen and we'll do what we have to to defend ourselves and our way of life. We don't need anybody's permission to do that. I think McCain would have done the same. With Gore, who knows? Anybody strange enough to get up at a post-impeachment pep rally and call Clinton one of the greatest Presidents of all time, or claims to have invented the internet or says Love Story was based on he and Tipper, or makes the shrill statements he did the other day, isn't fit to be President.

Re Kerry, while I feel it was admirable for him to have signed up for military service and risked his life in Nam (compared with Clinton who signed up for the reserves and then pulled all kinds of crap to weasel his way out of it), I don't support the statements he made after his service about his fellow veterans and what they did. Btw, I didn't even go to the references you cited because I heard and saw what he said during his testimony at Congressional hearings and prefer to believe my own eyes and ears rather than Democrat "spin". Oh yeah, before you try to blast me for it, I am a veteran (Nam era active-duty non-reserve Army service, but didn't get sent to Nam, plus my son is in the military.)

Re Spain, Al Qaeda wanted to send a message that if you support the Americans, we're gonna bomb you. They did it to the Spanish and they buckled. It wasn't the BS their government gave them. They just figured, if we don't get rid of our leaders, the terrorists will bomb us more. That won't work here, but I fear the terrorists will try. There'll be some hand-wringing liberals who'll figure we better do what Al Qaeda wants so they'll stop killing us. However, they would have voted for Kerry anyway. But the undecided middle, even some conservatives who don't care for Bush's spending habits and immigration policies re Mexico, will make damned sure they vote for Bush. With the exception of Joe Leiberman, the Dems aren't real strong when it comes to national security. Or at least that's the perception, which is all that really matters.

Despite what you said, Kerry has said many times that we should get U.N., French and German cooperation before we act, at least in Iraq. He must still believe that, unless he's flip flopped (maybe he voted for it before he voted against it 😀 ). I never said he supported what Jane Fonda said, but when you appear at rallies for a cause and she's in the picture with you supporting the same cause, you get tarred with the same brush. Re "Great American" for Kerry, I'm more demanding than you. I would never use that same label to describe both he and McCain because they're worlds apart in what they went through (and what they said after their military service) . I'm not going to hold it aginst Bush for bashing McCain during the primaries because that's politics. I still prefer McCain, but accept Bush and definitely prefer him to Kerry or any Democrat (except perhaps Zell Miller, but he's not an option).

Re Halliburton, if you think they're making out like bandits, buy their stock. Oh yeah, I forgot. It's only been between 20 and 32 the past year (29.55 now), so apparently the Democrat's claims re their profits aren't recognized by Wall Street. Or are all their vast profits going into some secret hoard unknown to Wall Street and the SEC?

I'm not voting for Bush because of a true scumbag like Clinton. But the fact that people like Gore and Kerry supported/defended/idolized Clinton does influence my vote. They put their party before their country. I can't expect ANY politician to reflect my views 100%, so Bush's pro-life anti-gun control don't bother me all that much. I mainly like his strong support of national security, and pro-Israel/anti-terrorism views. The hand-wringing liberals and anti-Semitic bigots like Sen Hollings (D-SC) or Rep Moran (D-VA) (who aren't even chastised by the Democratic Party, which is supposedly against discrimination and bigotry, but I guess that doesn't include hating Jews) can KMA.

 

[KCFlyer]

Re Spain, Al Qaeda wanted to send a message that if you support the Americans, we're gonna bomb you. They did it to the Spanish and they buckled. It wasn't the BS their government gave them. They just figured, if we don't get rid of our leaders, the terrorists will bomb us more. That won't work here, but I fear the terrorists will try.

And here I thought the purpose du jour of this world was to "get rid of terrorist". IMHO, the Spanish just saw the despite the valiant battle, it didn't rid them from the terrorist threat. And considering that we most likely will have an "orange level" alert issued by Homeland Security over July 4 and in the cities hosting the conventions, It would appear that our efforts of the past year hasn't ridded us of this threat on our shores.

But the fact that people like Gore and Kerry supported/defended/idolized Clinton does influence my vote.

Wow, that sounds rather "Muslimesque"...You know "The friend of my enemy is my enemy and the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

 

[Fly]

The scariest thing about Bush is that, IMHO, he honestly believes that his way is the only way. I think he really is trying to do what he thinks is best for our country, unfortunately, he doesn't give a hoot what we want. If we vote a person into office, they should represent the will of the people. He doesn't do that, he represents the will of his daddy. I think he's like having a loaded gun in a preschool. 🙁

 

[AgMedallion]

And here I thought the purpose du jour of this world was to "get rid of terrorist". IMHO, the Spanish just saw the despite the valiant battle, it didn't rid them from the terrorist threat. And considering that we most likely will have an "orange level" alert issued by Homeland Security over July 4 and in the cities hosting the conventions, It would appear that our efforts of the past year hasn't ridded us of this threat on our shores.

You start manufacturing the white flags and see who buys 'em and waves 'em. Good thing the majority of Americans weren't like you on Dec 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor.

 

[KCFlyer]

You start manufacturing the white flags and see who buys 'em and waves 'em. Good thing the majority of Americans weren't like you on Dec 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor.

No...they weren't, and many of us that hold our stance wouldn't have either. See, back in 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and the United States attacked Japan. After 9/11, it was discovered that the bulk of the terrorist groups were in Afghanistan. So we attacked. I was behind that.

But...we apparently couldn't get Bin Laden, so we attacked Iraq under ALL kinds of bogus reasons...finally settling on "Saddam is an evil person who gasses his own people". That gave everybody the "warm fuzzies" about the war. Because they weren't real sure about the WMD threat, or that Saddam was a key link to Al Queida. After the mission was "accomplished" a year ago (as proclaimed by our president...I didn't hear him say at that time that the ships mission was accomplished...only that the mission was accomplished), and a year later we find ourselves neck deep in a mess that we made, the administration is falling back on the "fighting terrorists" reason. And from what I've seen, the terrorist movement isn't just still alive, it's thriving like never before. Or was the "liberal media" just putting out stories about Tom Ridge and the FBI stating that the believe a terrorist action is planned in the US over the fourth of July? Ya gotta love that liberal media...they didn't miss a beat in covering "Monicagate", and they report that we are under a threat of terroist attacks on our shores...they even went so far as to put Tom Ridge on the screen and speak the words for them.

I think that folks back in 1941 might have questioned our leaders judgment if we invaded Cambodia after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and justify it with "Cambodia is harboring Japanese military training". They didn't question because we went after the people who attacked us. So...we deposed Saddam and we are trying our damndest to "fight terrorism" in Iraq, when far more terrorist groups are being funded by our "friends" over in Saudi Arabia. To paraphrase our fearless leader (who never saw a base in Alabama, much less combat) looking under a sofa "There must a terrorist around here somewhere".

 

[KCFlyer]

Another interesting thing is a Time Magazine interview with Jacques Chirac back in February 2003. Here's an excerpt:

TIME: Why do you think fallout from a war would be so much graver than Tony Blair and George Bush seem to?

Chirac: I simply don't analyze the situation as they do. Among the negative fallout would be inevitably a strong reaction from Arab and Islamic public opinion. It may not be justified, and it may be, but it's a fact. A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little bin Ladens. Muslims and Christians have a lot to say to one another, but war isn't going to facilitate that dialogue. I'm against the clash of civilizations; that plays into the hands of extremists. There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right to be disturbed by this situation, and it's right in having decided Iraq should be disarmed. The inspections began, and naturally it is a long and difficult job. We have to give the inspectors time to do it. And probably—and this is France's view—we have to reinforce their capacities, especially those of aerial surveillance. For the moment, nothing allows us to say inspections don't work.

Dang....this guy makes Miss Cleo look like a piker. The whole article can be read here

 

[AgMedallion]

Another interesting thing is a Time Magazine interview with Jacques Chirac back in February 2003. Here's an excerpt:



Dang....this guy makes Miss Cleo look like a piker. The whole article can be read here

The U.N.'s resolutions (17?) were ignored by Saddam for many years while corrupt European politicians were profiting from kickbacks and bribes under the Oil for Food Program, which Saddam used to build more palaces (but which liberals/Bush-bashers/Blame America Firsters/etc had no problem with...they just complained mightily how the poor Iraqis were being starved by the embargo, but never quite seemed to question how the palaces were being built). No inspection can find hidden or transferred weapons if the owners don't want them found and the inspection facade would have gone on for years with no results. I honestly don't know where the WMD are/were. They obviously existed...that's been documented. So they had to have been either 1)destroyed; 2)hidden; or 3)transferred. That's the logic of the situation and can't really be argued with, unless you want to believe they were somehow all used up. I don't think we should believe anything the French say re Iraq because they had a vested interest in the status quo because of bribes and kickbacks and a general animosity towards anything which detracts from their delusions of grandeur. Perhaps you forget that they were the ones who designed/built the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by an Israeli air raid shortly before it would have become operational. The Russians have huge unpaid debts from selling arms to Saddam. The Germans (Schroeder) used an anti-American, anti-war spiel to win re-election.

I would like to point out one shortcoming of Bush's which drives me nuts. His constant reference to our Saudi "friends". With "friends" like that, you don't need enemies. They have funded much of the terror we are faced with today with their support of the Wahabi nutcases. But that's the only real complaint I have about him. For all I know, he's simply trying to ensure a continued supply of oil and has no choice but to butter the bastards up. After BJ Bill, GWB is a breath of fresh air...just about anybody is preferable to Slick Willie as far as I'm concerned.

I get the impression that you seem to think that different Islamic extremists in different countries/geographic areas are somehow separate, i.e. the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, fedayeen and Al Qaeda in Iraq, Hamas/Hezbollah in Palestine, etc. But in reality, they're all variations on the same theme, i.e. kill/blow up/decapitate Americans, Israelis or anyone who supports them or even, in the case of Israel, supports their right to even exist. Or any westerners who are somehow ruining the Islamic paradise in Saudi Arabia by their mere presence. They and their supporters/benefactors/enablers all need to be killed/executed/imprisoned for life or somehow made ineffective. You can't negotiate with them or be concerned with their needs or desires. This is where I consider George Bush to be vastly superior to Clinton/Kerry/you-name-the-liberal and why I'll vote for him again this November. If Kerry wins, I'll simply buy some puts on various stock indices so at least I won't be burned too badly when the poop hits the fan.