I don't believe it

[Shelby07]

#1.)
Got anything more up to date?

Do I really need anything else to point out who the "very gullible" were?

We all know what the republicans have proported about why we entered Iraq. It's in the news every day. They believed that Saddam had WMD's. The democrats are saying that they didn't believe there were WMD's in Iraq, and even though they voted to give Bush the authority to use force, they "really didn't think he'd use it." Yet they voted for it. Now, if Bush is so stupid, how stupid were they to be duped by an *idiot?* Doesn't say much for them. Do I want to vote those people into office? No, not really. The flavor of the day is to bash Bush because our team isn't winning the miss congeniality contest, and the democrats have latched onto this with allegations that the only reason they thought there were WMD's in Iraq is because "Bush lied." Yet every single one of those quotes were stated with certainty that the there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and many of those quotes were made years before Bush won the Presidency. Now, either those folks are lying themselves or they were stupid enough to be fooled by a "bumbling idiot." Take your pick. It has to be one or the other. It leads me to ask the questions I do. Do I vote for those who are either 1) lying when they call Bush a liar or 2)stupid enough to be mislead when they had all, if not more, information than Bush as many of them were on the very committes and commissions that were gathering the information. As I said, it has to be one or the other. There ain't no gray area in my gray matter.

Both parties were behind Bush when we went in. And the United Nations were in agreement that force was justified. Until I see some real evidence that the democrats were truly duped and how it was accomplished, I'm not going to simply assume that the democrats are telling the truth now. I am NOT going to let them get away with it, and I am certainly not going to vote them into power, especially when all they can say is "It's time for a change" but they can't tell us what the change will be. The bottom line is that EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMD's, even going back to before Bush took office. Now, in an effort to win the game, the democrats are back-peddling at breakneck speed, and I don't trust them. In my view, they are the ones who are lying.

[jaewing]

"neocons" "neopukes" "chickenhawk" ????

DVM . . . why don't you try to have an intelligent debate without name calling. It makes you look 12 years old. If you have to resort to calling names then you have lost the argument.

[Kenyth]

"neocons" "neopukes" "chickenhawk" ????

DVM . . . why don't you try to have an intelligent debate without name calling. It makes you look 12 years old. If you have to resort to calling names then you have lost the argument.

Thank you. Intelligent discourse needs to be well structured and compelling. Points should be made with either some direct evidence, or a reasonably reliable source. You are also completely entitled to express your opinion, but you should make sure and specify it is your opinion. You can accompany it with a description of the logical thought process that leads you to believe it as being true. Constant name calling and unsubstantiated statements presented as "God's Truth" do nothing but detract from your argument. It sounds like the kind of emotional speak used to incite a riot.

[Shelby07]

I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating.

I may not like Barry's style of debate, but I think he can bring good points to the table. If I didn't think he had some intelligence I wouldn't be participating.

I don't believe that Barry has ever been disrespectful to me personally and I hope I have not been disrespectful to him. Our styles are different, but we both have differing opinions that have been formed in varying ways. Barry lives in NY, I live in Colorado and sometimes it's difficult for us to understand why our views are not shared by everyone. But views and opinions need to be questioned constantly. Although Barry is sometimes overly passionate about his beliefs, I think that's ok. My goal is to gather facts and information that I may not have seen before, and I'm not going to let his passion get in the way of anything he can enlighten me on. I think it is fruitless to discuss issues with people who agree with me.

I am also disappointed by many things that this administration is doing, I do believe, however, that at this point in time the current administration is what we need to carry out their primary responsibility of protecting us. I believe that the destruction of the WTC could have been avoided if past administrations held a firmer hand and didn't worry so much about public opinion and polls. Barry disagrees, and I can understand why. The outcome has been less than stellar. But I think our biggest disagreement is that he is willing to make a change for change's sake and I am not.

So Barry, aside from style, I want to tell you that I AM interested in your point of view. Tell me what you think and let me tell you what I think, and maybe we can both learn something. And if it turns out that I am wrong in some of my beliefs, all the better.

[bigpoppapuff]

barry DOES NOT live in NY...he lives in california.....carry on....

[Shelby07]

barry DOES NOT live in NY...he lives in california.....carry on....

SEE!! I'm learning stuff already! This is great!

[SmokinDVM]

Do I really need anything else to point out who the "very gullible" were?

We all know what the republicans have proported about why we entered Iraq. It's in the news every day. They believed that Saddam had WMD's. The democrats are saying that they didn't believe there were WMD's in Iraq, and even though they voted to give Bush the authority to use force, they "really didn't think he'd use it." Yet they voted for it. Now, if Bush is so stupid, how stupid were they to be duped by an *idiot?* Doesn't say much for them. Do I want to vote those people into office? No, not really. The flavor of the day is to bash Bush because our team isn't winning the miss congeniality contest, and the democrats have latched onto this with allegations that the only reason they thought there were WMD's in Iraq is because "Bush lied." Yet every single one of those quotes were stated with certainty that the there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and many of those quotes were made years before Bush won the Presidency. Now, either those folks are lying themselves or they were stupid enough to be fooled by a "bumbling idiot." Take your pick. It has to be one or the other. It leads me to ask the questions I do. Do I vote for those who are either 1) lying when they call Bush a liar or 2)stupid enough to be mislead when they had all, if not more, information than Bush as many of them were on the very committes and commissions that were gathering the information. As I said, it has to be one or the other. There ain't no gray area in my gray matter.

Both parties were behind Bush when we went in. And the United Nations were in agreement that force was justified. Until I see some real evidence that the democrats were truly duped and how it was accomplished, I'm not going to simply assume that the democrats are telling the truth now. I am NOT going to let them get away with it, and I am certainly not going to vote them into power, especially when all they can say is "It's time for a change" but they can't tell us what the change will be. The bottom line is that EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMD's, even going back to before Bush took office. Now, in an effort to win the game, the democrats are back-peddling at breakneck speed, and I don't trust them. In my view, they are the ones who are lying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

Just a few links, and really just the tip of the iceberg.


The rest of you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't care either way.

[jaewing]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

Just a few links, and really just the tip of the iceberg.


The rest of you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't care either way.

There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.

When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.

I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.

My .02

[bigpoppapuff]

he thinks he's God...^^^^



i'm not believing him...

[cigar no baka]

There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.

When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.

I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.

My .02

You're wasting your breath, he's not going to listen, just act like a child and call names.

[SmokinDVM]

There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.

When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.

I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.

My .02

Actually, it was a "I don't give a shit if you read it" attitude. BTW, anyone that believes there were any real wmd's in Iraq isn't capable of intelligent anything.

As far as religion and politics go, the reason the neopukes have courted the religious right whack-jobs, and vice versa, is both groups have proven to be incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy. Just ask cnb.

Credibility and intelligence being diminished? On a bb?
Now you're just being silly.

[Shelby07]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

Just a few links, and really just the tip of the iceberg.


The rest of you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't care either way.

The articles you refered to are common knowledge. I have to say that stories riddled with phrases like "one page reports", "unnamed informants" and any story involving Rove or Wilson make me raise an eyebrow. There have been so many stories, allegations and spin associated with these types of stories that one is basically left with a "pick whatever version you like" scenario. No conclusions other than supposition. These kinds of articles are exactly what I am talking about when I say I have to filter out spin and bias.

The first article does nothing to explain why the democrats backpeddled from their original assessment that we needed to stop Saddam, nor does it reference any "lies" told by Bush for the purpose of gaining support to enter Iraq. It does support the fact that pre-war intelligence was wrong, not fabricated.

Looking at the title of the web site in your second example, I would immediately be suspect of their agenda. After reading the article I would categorize it as spin. And after browsing other articles on the web site it is clear to me that all of their articles are biased. They even go so far in one of their articles as to make an argument that Hezbolla is really not trying to kill Jews. Their supporting evidence seems to be the background shots on BBC reports.

The third link references lots of spin from the Karl Rove case. Hearings and preceedings produced conclusions spun to whatever side of the argument one favors.

And as for the author of the 4th reference...

http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=656


I have not seen much in the way of the printed or spoken word where I could not say it had been taken out of context or spun into meaning something other than its original meaning. Political spin doctors get paid lots of money to do just that, and they have no consequences for misrepresenting the truth.

I see nothing in those references that cannot be attributed to spin or bias depending on what side you are on.

Edit:

I base most of my opinion on the things that I remember, since I am very skeptical of the news media, be it MSNBC or FOX. I do watch them both and see very different slants in their stories and commentaries. But what I remember is everyone jumping on the bandwagon when we first went into Iraq. There was no uproar or dissention from politicians or even the news media. Battle lines were drawn during the election campaigns when both parties were maneuvering for votes. I will admit that I don't have the answers as the news slants everything, but I do remember very clearly how it all played out. I can believe that our intelligence may have been wrong, but I just can't see how Bush was able to dupe every single member of the democratic party the way they are all claiming, except for Lieberman.

Question about Lieberman's failed bid. Do you think that if the events that happened today had occured a few days earlier it would have made a difference in Tuesday's primary election?

[SmokinDVM]

Your link, a response by Guillermo Christenson, is interesting.
I only have one question...who the hell is Guillermo Christenson?

Paul Pillar is a known entity. His position, and expertise, is well known and heavily documented. I never heard of the other guy.

I suppose if you are willing to believe every article, by any person, in response to things they may or may not know about, well, I can see how all this confuses you.

This is along the same lines as the Retired Generals who served in Iraq, who came out against how rummy was handeling the whole thing. Fox produced their usual "foxperts" (people who are presented as experts on fox, who actually have no direct knowledge of what they speak), who said that those Generals who had actually had their boots on the ground in Iraq, were just disgruntled workers, and the fox-faithful ate it up.
Now we all know that those Generals know more of what was really going on than some idiot talking heads on fox. But, the more those "foxperts" and the neocons repeated the White House talking points, the more the sheeple believed that they were right.

[Shelby07]

Your link, a response by Guillermo Christenson, is interesting.
I only have one question...who the hell is Guillermo Christenson?

Paul Pillar is a known entity. His position, and expertise, is well known and heavily documented. I never heard of the other guy.

I suppose if you are willing to believe every article, by any person, in response to things they may or may not know about, well, I can see how all this confuses you.

This is along the same lines as the Retired Generals who served in Iraq, who came out against how rummy was handeling the whole thing. Fox produced their usual "foxperts" (people who are presented as experts on fox, who actually have no direct knowledge of what they speak), who said that those Generals who had actually had their boots on the ground in Iraq, were just disgruntled workers, and the fox-faithful ate it up.
Now we all know that those Generals know more of what was really going on than some idiot talking heads on fox. But, the more those "foxperts" and the neocons repeated the White House talking points, the more the sheeple believed that they were right.

OK. Bad example. I'll give you that. My point, not very well made, was that Pillar has his critics. He has openly criticized Bush and his policies since the beginning of the administration. It is fairly well known that he resents the fact that Bush and the rest of the intelligence community in this country, and indeed around the world, didn't agree with his assessment. My biggest problem with Pillar is that he believes the way to resolve disagreements with terrorists is to negotiate,. While I would love to believe that, I just can't. I don't believe that negotiations would have any lasting effect. I truly believe that the people we are fighting have no other agenda than to disrupt our society and kill as many of us as they can. They have nothing other than their religious beliefs to fight for and martyrdom, for them, is an honor, not a tragedy. The attempt in NY to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, and the plot that was unfolding to blow up 9 or 10 aircraft over the Atlantic supports that. And, of course, the attack on the WTC was completely unprovoked.

I am not a war monger. I would love to see this situation go away tomorrow and have our troops come home. Who wouldn't? But a quick withdrawl, in my opinion, would show our enemies that we can be beaten into submission, and would show our allies that we don't have the conviction to stay until the job is done. That, in my opinion, would be disasterous for the future security of our country. I believe the hate these people have for us is going to be around for a long, long time and we will have to continue to fight it far into the future.

One big reason that I don't feel comfortable with democratic leadership is their lack of consistency and conviction. The democratic party, in my opinion, create policy by bending to the poll of the day. They change their position quite frequently, depending on what is popular. Although this may seem like a good idea on the surface, the truth is that our government is a commonwealth, not a democracy. as I am sure you know. In a commonwealth, the people's responsibility is to vote for representatives to make the decisions and set policy that's best for the country, not to listen to the poll of the day and react. As you know, polls change weekly and I don't believe that changing our direction on a regular basis is the way that the country should be run.

Let me ask these questions, which might help me understand more where the democrats are coming from. What would the democrat's ideal resolution in Iraq be? What do they think the results would be if we pulled out of Iraq in the next 6 months or so? What is their plan for dealing with the threat from Iran and Korea? Going forward, what would they do to keep us safe from future attacks? Would their policy be proactive or reactive? Perhaps if I could get answers to those questions I could feel more comfortable with a democratic leadership, but honestly, just hearing that it's time for a change without knowing what that change would be leaves me cold.

[SmokinDVM]

OK. Bad example. I'll give you that. My point, not very well made, was that Pillar has his critics. He has openly criticized Bush and his policies since the beginning of the administration. It is fairly well known that he resents the fact that Bush and the rest of the intelligence community in this country, and indeed around the world, didn't agree with his assessment. My biggest problem with Pillar is that he believes the way to resolve disagreements with terrorists is to negotiate,. While I would love to believe that, I just can't. I don't believe that negotiations would have any lasting effect. I truly believe that the people we are fighting have no other agenda than to disrupt our society and kill as many of us as they can. They have nothing other than their religious beliefs to fight for and martyrdom, for them, is an honor, not a tragedy. The attempt in NY to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, and the plot that was unfolding to blow up 9 or 10 aircraft over the Atlantic supports that. And, of course, the attack on the WTC was completely unprovoked.

I am not a war monger. I would love to see this situation go away tomorrow and have our troops come home. Who wouldn't? But a quick withdrawl, in my opinion, would show our enemies that we can be beaten into submission, and would show our allies that we don't have the conviction to stay until the job is done. That, in my opinion, would be disasterous for the future security of our country. I believe the hate these people have for us is going to be around for a long, long time and we will have to continue to fight it far into the future.

One big reason that I don't feel comfortable with democratic leadership is their lack of consistency and conviction. The democratic party, in my opinion, create policy by bending to the poll of the day. They change their position quite frequently, depending on what is popular. Although this may seem like a good idea on the surface, the truth is that our government is a commonwealth, not a democracy. as I am sure you know. In a commonwealth, the people's responsibility is to vote for representatives to make the decisions and set policy that's best for the country, not to listen to the poll of the day and react. As you know, polls change weekly and I don't believe that changing our direction on a regular basis is the way that the country should be run.

Let me ask these questions, which might help me understand more where the democrats are coming from. What would the democrat's ideal resolution in Iraq be? What do they think the results would be if we pulled out of Iraq in the next 6 months or so? What is their plan for dealing with the threat from Iran and Korea? Going forward, what would they do to keep us safe from future attacks? Would their policy be proactive or reactive? Perhaps if I could get answers to those questions I could feel more comfortable with a democratic leadership, but honestly, just hearing that it's time for a change without knowing what that change would be leaves me cold.

Everybody has their critics. And actually many did agree with his assessments, they were just not allowed to voice their opinion.
A standard misconception about the Iraq war is that it really has anything to do with fighting terrorism. Our continued presence in the Middle East, as an occupying force, only serves to create more terrorists. The more time we spend wasting the lives of our Men, and our money, the fewer resources we have to work against the real terrorists.

The Democrats are, at least, discussing plans on how to best get out of Iraq. The idiots in power now have no plan, staying the course is not a plan. They claim things aren't as bad as the news reports, but it is really much worse. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...223363,00.html
I would much rather have discussions about how to fix the problem, than to have them pretend a problem doesn't exist.

There have been several plans presented by Democrats as to how to best address your exact questions. I haven't had any problem finding them. I think if you have, you really don't want to. I think it's ridiculous to continue to support an obviously flawed and failed plan, simply because you haven't listened to the other plans.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12...51117iraq.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/n...2006_0620.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...073100743.html

This is the reason you all think the Democrats don't have a plan.

[Shelby07]

Everybody has their critics. And actually many did agree with his assessments, they were just not allowed to voice their opinion.
A standard misconception about the Iraq war is that it really has anything to do with fighting terrorism. Our continued presence in the Middle East, as an occupying force, only serves to create more terrorists. The more time we spend wasting the lives of our Men, and our money, the fewer resources we have to work against the real terrorists.

Are you saying that we should pull out of the middle east totally? If so, how do you propose that we work against the "real" terrorists? Our methods are revealed by the NY Times and the ACLU and the democrats want to take away the Patriot Act (except, of course, when it comes time to vote. Then it's not politically convenient for them to stand by their convictions.)

The Democrats are, at least, discussing plans on how to best get out of Iraq. The idiots in power now have no plan, staying the course is not a plan. They claim things aren't as bad as the news reports, but it is really much worse. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...223363,00.html
I would much rather have discussions about how to fix the problem, than to have them pretend a problem doesn't exist.

There have been several plans presented by Democrats as to how to best address your exact questions. I haven't had any problem finding them. I think if you have, you really don't want to. I think it's ridiculous to continue to support an obviously flawed and failed plan, simply because you haven't listened to the other plans.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12...51117iraq.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/n...2006_0620.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...073100743.html

This is the reason you all think the Democrats don't have a plan.

You have told me in your last couple of postings that I am not aware of the democratic "plan(s)" for exiting Iraq. You have said that all I have to do is look for them and I will see them, and have implied that once I see them it will be obvious to me how wonderful they are. In a sense, you have accused me of being a mindless zombie who listens to the FOX news network 24 hours a day and doesn't have the ability or the desire to think for myself. Did it occur to you that perhaps I had seen these "plans" and I don't think they are 1) better than what we are doing now or 2) viable? I am familiar with John Murtha's "plan" and also Kerry's "plan." You forgot to mention Al Gore, Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton and Bob Graham. I have seen their proposals. I don't think they are any better than the Republican plan, and, in fact, I believe them to be less productive. It is all rethoric and political posturing.

I have heard basically 3 plans from various democrats, and rather than point to their articles, I will tell you in my own words what I heard them say. One involves withdrawing from Iraq immediately, Another involves setting a date for withdrawal or troop redeployment concentrate on training the Iraqi's to defend themselves (basically Bush's plan with a deadline) and the third is to redeploy troops into other areas where terrorists are. Well, in my mind, immediate withdrawal of all of our troops from the middle east will simply empower the terrorists who have vowed on their God to kill us. Setting a time line for a withdrawal will cause the terrorists to lay low until we leave, then there will be a blood bath since the Iraqi military is not yet ready to defend themselves against terrorists. Of course, Joe Biden would like to leave a single brigade in Iraq to take care of the "hot spots" that arise here and there after we leave. Again, the enemy (and rest assured, they are our "enemy") would just lay low until we leave then make short work of the Iraqi forces as well as our "hung out" brigade. In the third plan, which seems to be the one repeated by most democrats, we should not bring our troops home, but instead redeploy them to wherever the terrorists are. Well, quite frankly, that would be just about every other country in the middle east except Israel. Do we invade southern Lebanon to wipe out the Hezbollas or invade Northern Pakistan where there are Al Queda strongholds? Do we send troops to Iran, jordon and Syria? And what about Korea. What about terrorist cells in Europe? Do we redeploy our troops there too? In my mind, the democratic "plans" are not viable.

I have asked why I should vote democratic. One reason I don't think I can is because they are not unified. The other reason is because I believe they are simply politicizing the situation. We are an impatient people. We watch too many movies and think the world can be saved in 90 minutes, and if it isn't there must be a flaw in the plan. Our enemies are extremely patient and will wait years before they launch devistating and horriffic attacks on us and our way of life. Three years? Five Years? A hundred years? They are patient and relentless, and anyone who can't see that had better get their head out of the sand. This is going to be a long war, and we can't afford to let our enemy outwait us. Terrorism isn't going to go away because we grow impatient and decide to simply drop it. Say what you will about Bush, and say what you will about me for what I am about to say, but we have not been attacked since 2001, and I believe it is because of the job the current administration is doing. Could they do better? Sure. Are they failing? No.

I used to work in computer and network security and the problem with it was as long as we were doing a great job everybody thought we were a waste of money. Does anyone remember the huge AT&T nationwide phone outage several years ago? As long as we were doing our job no one saw any problems, so they assumed they weren't there. They didn't know, nor did they care, how difficult it was to keep the networks from being attacked and how many attacks were kept out. It's one of those things where the best result is seeing nothing. But because they saw nothing, they decided to cut funding. Within 3 months the networks were hacked and the consequences were devistating. The war on terror is like that. We don't see any threats so we forget that they are there. Well, they are there, and they will continue to be there for a very long time. The democratic plans are not solutions, they are a necessary part of a political chess game being played against the current administration (it's called politics.) It's designed to exasperate the public and gain strength for the next election, not by improving their own stature but by lowering public opinion of their political opponent. And there is firm evidence that they lack conviction in their "plans" in that every time one comes up for a vote they can't even get a party line concensus. I watched John Murtha attack Bush for 3 months and become the point man for the democratic attack on Bush's handling of Iraq. He was so forceful, and all the democrats were behind him. When the Republicans finally forced a vote on this "plan" he had been ranting about, his own party gave him 6 votes. Of course they faulted the Republicans because the plan "wasn't ready." Huh? And when Kerry introduced his plan for redeployment, the democrats couldn't get a full party vote on that either. They couldn't even come to an agreement among themselves. This doesn't give me any warm fuzzy feelings that they have a very good plan.

I have spent time composing my posts so that my position can be made clear to you and you would have an opportunity to respond, not because I feel that my opinions are inferior to yours, but because I was truly interested in what you had to say. Instead you have given me the opportunity to read other people's words from left leaning publications and web sites, while at the same time accusing me of parroting FOX news. You can point me to links from the NY Times and Time magazine all day long, and I, in turn, can point you to the Wall Street Journal. That is not discussion. That is akin to parroting MSNBC vs FOX news. So if the answers to the questions in my previous posts are found in the links you gave me, then I have already heard them, considered them and respectfully disagree with them.

Something else I was taught in my years in Corporate America was how to negotiate with foreign cultures. One of the first things I learned was that I couldn't expect other cultures to think the same way I do. In order to put myself in their shoes I had to understand that I had never even seen their shoes, let alone been in them. They had not been "sensitized" to political correctness and they don't think or feel the same as we do. The American people are making a fatal mistake if they think terrorists will "talk" to us. Can you picture us negotiating with Bin Laden? Can you ever imagine a peaceful outcome to those "negotiations?" Could you ever see him and Hillary shaking hands in the rose garden? (Well, maybe you could.) We are dealing with a different culture that does not hold the same values as us. They don't think the same as us and they don't care about us. We treasure life. They use it as a weapon. This is a culture that has not changed since before Christianity and they have been at war for thousands of years. Do you think you can ever understand them? Do you think they will ever understand us? Perhaps the American people, in their high and mighty place in the world community, will give us all a chance to see this come November. I hope it doesn't happen, but it seems we have indeed forgotten and have moved on to other things.

[Shelby07]

It gets even more confusing when you realize that there isn't a consensus among democrats. We don't agree - which is why the party is having trouble winning elections lately. Clinton was a moderate. The liberals didn't agree with him and the far right hated him. Lieberman is a conservative dem. Look what happened to him this week. There doesn't seem to be a place in the Democrat party for us "common sense" folks anymore.

I think that the republican party is also moving in that direction. To be honest, it is getting harder and harder to see unity in our politicians no matter what party they belong to.

[Kenyth]

I think that the republican party is also moving in that direction. To be honest, it is getting harder and harder to see unity in our politicians no matter what party they belong to.

The problem is that "moderates" don't really serve the best interest's of the entities with money. The ability to please the power holders, and make the public buy it, is strictly the art of the politician. There are many agendas out there, and a lot of money available to push those agendas. A lot of money changes hands for favors done. It's to be expected.

Show me a modern president who came out of the oval office poorer than he went in, regardless of the economic situation. I'm guessing it will be tough.

[SmokinDVM]

Edit:

I base most of my opinion on the things that I remember, since I am very skeptical of the news media, be it MSNBC or FOX. I do watch them both and see very different slants in their stories and commentaries. But what I remember is everyone jumping on the bandwagon when we first went into Iraq. There was no uproar or dissention from politicians or even the news media. Battle lines were drawn during the election campaigns when both parties were maneuvering for votes. I will admit that I don't have the answers as the news slants everything, but I do remember very clearly how it all played out. I can believe that our intelligence may have been wrong, but I just can't see how Bush was able to dupe every single member of the democratic party the way they are all claiming, except for Lieberman.

Question about Lieberman's failed bid. Do you think that if the events that happened today had occured a few days earlier it would have made a difference in Tuesday's primary election?

Considering that the neocons had control of all the intelligence involving Iraq, and that the party leaders were publicly producing "evidence" of biolabs and such, that even they later admitted were stretches of their imagination, and proven to be bullshit, coupled with the anti-islamic fervor that was whipped up by the war-mongers, I can see how many were fooled into believing the bullshit.

I don't think recent events would have changed the outcome for Lieberman. He was seen as being to far away from the Democratic party thinking on too many critical issues. He lost because he ignored what his constituents wanted.

[WhiteWidow]

Didn't they find like 10,000 pounds of enriched Uranium over there? Was he going to make watches out of it or something?