Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?

[mcelrah]

Yup, no doubt about it, U.S. intel blew it. Tenet lost his soul as
an intel officer and became nothing more than a sycophant to the
policy dweebs. But the administration can be properly criticized for
cherry-picking the intel to support their preferred policy option.
That's the point of the Libby/Wilson/Plame/Niger imbroglio: here was
a factoid that turned out not to be credible - but they kept using it
in speeches anyway. Same thing with the canard that Saddam was in
cahoots with terrorists - nice story but there was no/no credible
evidence for it. Call it bloody-mindedness, mendacity, or lying -
the administration did not just follow the intel where it led, they
"cooked" it to serve their policy purposes and subverted the
interagency process to ramrod the war through without heeding
warnings that this would be no cakewalk. They squandered the U.S.'
good reputation in the world, refused to plan realistically for the
occupation and got us into the current quagmire which could have been
avoided by a more astute policy.
- Hugh

[Marco Zee]

here's the followup on Podhoretz's article in Commentary

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2 ... r_war.html

[Flying Lobster]

Well OKeeDokey--I follow the logic in the article's arguement.

So, using the "preponderance of intentions" yardstick--why on earth haven't we invaded North Korea and Iran--which existing evidence and intelligence and what ever other blah blah blah "proves" are far further along the path WMD development than Saddam EVER was?????

Stupid Clintinoid leftist non-believers want to know!

marcoBomboBlasto

[deveil]

hugh,
want some exercise?
i received this from a 'party' that i want to stay friends with, so i'm going to avoid engaging.
you excel at succinctly knocking this stuff down. i say this not to brown nose but because i personally benefit by being 'bucked up' by your expositions. gary

It takes a few minutes to read this...but it would be well if every American read it thoughtfully. (Brits too, plus French, Russians, Chinese, and many others)

Dear Friends,

I had no idea who General Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the General and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about!! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)

MG Vernon Chong, USAFR, forwarded:
This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine
(which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm)

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

[mcelrah]

I think there's diversity of opinion among critics of Bush. Some say
the war was wrong from the get-go. Others say Iraq might have been
worth doing had there been a commitment to do it right, i.e. line up
a full international consensus (something Shrub couldn't do like his
dad because he had squandered all his international goodwill in the
first months of his administration with short-sighted in-your-face
positions), and prepare realistically for an occupation, to include
numbers of troops and taxes to pay for the operation. Shrub and
company were so intent on ramming through the use of force by fair
means and foul that they forgot about planning and execution after
the military conflict phase. We are now in the killing zone of an
ambush, where the only way to survive is to go forward, but sometime
soon U.S. troops need to get out, because they are acting as much as
irritants feeding the insurgency, and serving as targets, as they are
contributing to security - if not more. Meanwhile, Iraq has replaced
Afghanistan as the base for al Qa'ida - in spite of 130,000 U.S.
troops in country - bigger, with more resources and better lines of
communication to the rest of the world. Will Iraq survive as a
unitary democratic state once we leave - or will it last about as
long as South Vietnam did? Not sure we got our money and 2000 lives
worth. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? - Hugh

[mcelrah]

Uh, I'm tired after a full weekend, so don't send me a lot of extra
work, OK? Look, I will stipulate that the mainstream Muslim
community has a problem in that for decades they have tacitly
condoned terrorism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The
fundamentalists are really bloody-minded, calling for bringing back
all the medieval stoning and cutting off of hands - which plays into
barbarous treatment of hostages etc. But it is a fundamental
principle of terrorism as a strategy (in Ireland or South America as
in the Middle East) to goad the dominant power into wholesale
reprisals which alienate the mainstream populace and generate support
for the terrorists' cause. At some level, the Muslim world may be at
war with us (chip on their shoulder about being marginalized after
the industrial revolution etc.) but we cannot fall into the trap of
going to war with 25% (if the doctor-general is right) of the world.
We have to work to disconnect the terrorists from the rest of the
Muslims (and things like the Amman bombings play into that). The
thing about the general's piece is that there was some truth but also
some howlers (400,000 Kurds gassed? how about 5,000 - isn't that bad
enough? Karen Hughes was confused about that too - another proof
that appointing people to important posts just because you know and
like them isn't the way to run a government). Sure the war on
terrorism is important. Doesn't look like its going so well; maybe
we should try fighting smarter not harder. Sure we should be united
- problem is, Bush cannot and will not unite us. Good night. - Hugh

[mcelrah]

The Iraqi declaration on status of its WMD, which we rejected out of
hand...turned out to be pretty accurate. Guess the limp-wristed
French and pervidious Germans weren't such wimps after all. Guess
Hans Blix, the chief UN inspector who couldn't find any WMD, wasn't
such an old fool either. But don't confuse me with facts... - Hugh

[Marco Zee]

Gary,

I can't believe you, of all people, posted General Chong's essay on this forum. I just read it and it's right on (except the # of ppl gased by Saddam).

He is basically saying what I have been arguing since the beginning. That Bush has had to lead the battle against these terrorists, as well as battle his near-sighted, politically-motivated, terrorist-appeasing liberal adversaries, who do not recognize the importance of winning this war.

Not unlike the Libs indirectly supporting and apologizing for Russian Communists during the cold war, the Libs now are indirectly supporting the Islamo-terrorists now, not that they will see it in this way...they are too busy bashing and impuning Bush, which is far more important to them politically.

Gary, I can understand why you asked Hugh for help on this one.....too many "simple truths" in the essay to flippantly dismiss. I hope you didn't lose too much sleep over this one.

Marco

[deveil]

Gary,

I can't believe you, of all people, posted General Chong's essay on this forum. I just read it and it's right on (except the # of ppl gased by Saddam).

He is basically saying what I have been arguing since the beginning. That Bush has had to lead the battle against these terrorists, as well as battle his near-sighted, politically-motivated, terrorist-appeasing liberal adversaries, who do not recognize the importance of winning this war.

Not unlike the Libs indirectly supporting and apologizing for Russian Communists during the cold war, the Libs now are indirectly supporting the Islamo-terrorists now, not that they will see it in this way...they are too busy bashing and impuning Bush, which is far more important to them politically.

Gary, I can understand why you asked Hugh for help on this one.....too many "simple truths" in the essay to flippantly dismiss. I hope you didn't lose too much sleep over this one.

Marco

Marco,
well, as i'd remarked before, this 'stuff' really does make me weary - and i'm basically a lazy sort.
and sometimes the most dangerous propoganda is that which 'appears' reasonable at first glance, but contains subtle misdirection.
i'd also said that there are those who are far better at addressing these arguments, especially those that aren't " nice, easy softballs, right up the middle ".
besides, you were slacking off for a while there and i didn't want our best pitcher to get rusty!

I can't believe you, of all people...Marco

you're just going to have to read a bit more closely.

there's a lot that i don't say ... but that i'm really saying

and

there's a lot that i say ... that i'm not really saying.

('just thought i'd throw in some of the bizarre in case sparky was missing it )

gary

[mcelrah]

Can't win the war by unsavory means 'cause it's a war for hearts and
minds. Look, I'm no pacifist, but the brute force method only works
in specific situations - like kicking down the door and ousting
Saddam in a short intense conventional military operation. Now,
through an arrogant and pigheaded refusal to plan realistically for
the morning after the military victory, we are in a slow, diffuse war
of attrition where our soldiers' lack of local cultural knowledge and
the fact that they are viewed as foreign invaders - puts them at an
impossible disadvantage. Being known as the bullying nation that
runs a secret gulag and condones abuse of detainees does not help.
The nazis tried being the most ruthless ones on the block, but it
didn't work in the long run. Public rejection and humiliation of
Bush and Cheney is probably the best way to separate the nation from
their immoral and shortsighted policies. - Hugh

[deveil]

Gary, I can't believe you, of all people,
Marco

here's another one for you.
i've been heartened in hearing any number of politicians and others standing up to, taking on, whatever the mess we have going on but...
i keep hearing kerry all over the place and all i seem to hear is "I", "I", "I" - and i find myself getting REALLY ticked off at him.
i'm mostly a democrat because i'm mostly not a republican, but i'm just not of the constitution where i can allow some one person or one group to claim my allegiance and have myself contort myself in support of them and have myself puke in doing so.
(i also can't clean up dog puke without puking myself.
i guess that implies one of the few consitencies about me !?)

[Marco Zee]

Listening to Kerry speak is a painful experience for me, probably not unlike Marc's response to Bush's speeches.

Kerry and the other "pro-war" Dems tried to have it both ways...vote for the war (so as to shed the dove image, so well deserved since Vietnam and the Gulf War), but keep the door open to "bail out" if things don't go well, which they are doing now by saying there were misled, and the execution and planning were faulty.

It's a phony, transparent political dance and the polls show that the Dems in Congress have a 25% job approval rating....much lower than Bush's....according to the latest Harris poll.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... ?mod=blogs

Bush is at 42% according to the latest Rasmussen poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Listening to Kerry speak is a painful experience for me, probably not unlike Marc's response to Bush's speeches.

Kerry and the other "pro-war" Dems tried to have it both ways...vote for the war (so as to shed the dove image, so well deserved since Vietnam and the Gulf War), but keep the door open to "bail out" if things don't go well, which they are doing now by saying there were misled, and the execution and planning were faulty.

It's a phony, transparent political dance and the polls show that the Dems in Congress have a 25% job approval rating....much lower than Bush's....according to the latest Harris poll.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... ?mod=blogs

Bush is at 42% according to the latest Rasmussen poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Marco

Well Marco, since you accuse us of being incapable of comprehending what we're reading--I should mention that following your cited link reveals the following:

Approval for the Republicans in Congress vastly exceeds that of the Democrats at a stunning 27%. The only real contest is to see whether or not Bush will finish as the all-time least liked president in modern history beating Tricky Dick.

And speaking of cherry-picking the data, notice the same WSJ-cited Harris poll reveals a 34% Bush approval rating, but for some strange reason you sought to choose a less-prestigous polling service's figure for Bushie. Golly gee, wonder why that is???

marcoFoolNoneOfThePeopleNoneOfTheTime

[deveil]

... have myself contort myself in support of them and have myself puke in doing so.

...barf...

come on, you KNOW you're a 'binge and purger' of the most indulgent nature!
hell, i can tell by even your writing that your esophagus is on the verge of collapsing!

[deveil]

...just saw some of the nonsense in todays congress on cnn..

it's time for someone to call for a march on washington.

i'm showing.

[deveil]

marco,
just so you know...
say anything you want...
you get a free pass from me..
markemX already has your measure... 'IT DON'T MEAN NOTHIN'

'IT DON'T MEAN NOTHIN'

'IT DON'T MEAN NOTHIN'

'IT DON'T MEAN NOTHIN'

'IT DON'T MEAN NOTHIN'

'IT DON'T MEAN NOTHIN'

'IT DON'T MEAN NOTHIN'
...

[Marco Zee]

Marc,

The Harris poll was conducted from 11/8-11/13.
Rasmussen gathers data on a daily basis , thru 11/18, so I included the most recent data in there, as the Harris poll was from 5 days ago.

The Rasmussen site claims the following:
<<Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.>>

Like I've said before, I don't put alot of credence in polls in general, but since Clinton and his followers LIVED on polls, i thought it might be informative to mention that the Dems in Congress have a worse standing than Bush. Sleep on it.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Marc,

The Harris poll was conducted from 11/8-11/13.
Rasmussen gathers data on a daily basis , thru 11/18, so I included the most recent data in there, as the Harris poll was from 5 days ago.

The Rasmussen site claims the following:
<<Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.>>

Like I've said before, I don't put alot of credence in polls in general, but since Clinton and his followers LIVED on polls, i thought it might be informative to mention that the Dems in Congress have a worse standing than Bush. Sleep on it.

Marco

Sorry marco--but you're still cherry-picking with the intent to deceive. The same poll that you get your Dem approval rating puts the Repub rating at the same dismal level (+/- 3% standard margin for error)-- a normal thinking person would take this to mean that the public is dissatisfied with Congress overall. That's an apples-to-apples comparison. The Rasmussen Bush poll is really no different, they merely make up the extra "approval points" by including the "adults that somewhat approve" of Bush's performance. Logic tells me that anyone who "somewhat approves" of Bush also "somewhat disapproves" of Bush. I'd be very interested to know of any major news or information service that uses Rasmussen over Harris or Gallop.

marcoSleptOnIt--TryAgain

[deveil]

listen, i may have already stepped over my self imposed 'line'.
i don't know.
the stuff that's been happening over the last two days...
i've lost any sense of humor
i woke up this morning and without having even listened to any news
i found myself just as worked up.
in an interview the other day, jimmy carter recommended taking a break from the news as a way to maintain a balanced outlook.
i'll just pull myself from the lineup.

i DO miss hang gliding.
i was always struck how standing at launch,
preparing to jump into the sky,
just blew the rest of the world away.

'hope everbody finds some good air out there.
even you, whacco/marco
you may be full of shit
but you could count on me as wirecrew

[mcelrah]

Just to be clear: There are more than two choices in politics - just
because I find little to agree with in the Republican party since it
was taken over by its Hizballah wing, doesn't mean I have become a
committed Democratic partisan. A friend who was a Congressional
staffer used to quote the Hippocratic oath to her member: "First, do
no harm." I believe the Republican leadership has been guilty of the
worst sort of quackery. Thankfully , responsible Republicans like
McCain and some northeastern representatives seem to be pulling the
nation back from ideologically driven folly. Hurray for the party of
prudence, responsibility, and good government. - Hugh

[deveil]

Hurray for the party of
prudence, responsibility, and good government. - Hugh

Uhmmm...? which one was that again...?
couldn't resist (music and dance restored my soul last night )

[Marco Zee]

as Marc said previously: Sorry marco--but you're still cherry-picking with the intent to deceive.>>

Marc,
I guess I cannot provide you with accurate information, along with the weblinks, without you thinking that I am "cherry-picking with the intent to deceive". No wonder you think Bush et al "deceived" if you think this constitutes deception. Good grief.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, Rasmussen has Bush up to 45% Job Approval as of 11/21. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
Just thought you'd want to know.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

as Marc said previously: Sorry marco--but you're still cherry-picking with the intent to deceive.>>

Marc,
I guess I cannot provide you with accurate information, along with the weblinks, without you thinking that I am "cherry-picking with the intent to deceive". No wonder you think Bush et al "deceived" if you think this constitutes deception. Good grief.


Marco

Well, there might be hope for ya yet!

[deveil]

marco,
i sat at the bar the other evening and 'argued' about this stuff for ~1/2 hour with a guy from your side of the tracks. we disagreed, almost absolutely, on everything. i bought him a beer.
if you ever find yourself down this way, look me up...i'll buy you a meal, as well as a beer. (you'd be safe...public place...well lit)
hopefully, we wouldn't make each other barf!

in all sincerity ,
gary
(still a 'risk-taker' i guess)
(this doesn't mean i won't trash talk you in the future )

[Marco Zee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00745.html

Excerpt: Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

Marco