Friday, November 12, 2004

Sorry Everybody!

I'm not really going to feel a whole lot better about the election until we finally boot G.W. out of office (looking toward 2008 already). Maybe I can just take a nap for the next four years...a really long nap. But, these websites do give me some hope. 49% of America is apologizing in advance for whatever atrocities Bush commits over the next four years. Check out the photo galleries at www.sorryeverybody.com. Apparently, some of the world forgives us.

175 Comments:

At 3:51 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

LOL...my picture is there too and I voted for Bush. Look for the sign being held with the middle finger up at the top. Well one of them anyway...

 
At 4:02 PM, Blogger Jeffrey said...

W rules. The democrats needed a lesson in civility. "Oh my god, Bush will make rape legal" (Cameran Diaz) "Oh my God, I hope Bush doesn't get elected again" (Osama, paraphrased). Good luck with your site; may W lower your taxes and protect your friends and family.

 
At 4:13 PM, Blogger Pravin said...

and by "your taxes" do you mean the 1% that makes over $300K. Which is a problem cause I sure don't.

 
At 4:53 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

That's another thing that didn't stick. I know a lot of you are single and all that, but I have 3 kids AND I'm a student. School funding is the highest it's ever been, I go for free, AND I get $4,000 back for taxes for earned income credit while I don't pay anything in. I guess I must be rich. I feel guilty about the money as it is... whose is it? I know it wasn't mine. Now I can go buy buckets of KFC, more beer, that ever-needed quarter bag a week for the next 2 months and then cry that I can't afford healthcare. Oh wait, that would make me a democrat.

 
At 4:59 PM, Blogger Hank Gehron said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 6:32 PM, Blogger sheepsbrain said...

Somehow, I really don't believe you CleverCynic.

 
At 6:52 PM, Blogger YoctoYotta said...

You are owed nothing and owe everything. Politics have everything to do with lots of stuff, but not your situation. Owe up and enjoy life.

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger Mildly Dangerous said...

Interesting. That site is worthless? Yes.
------------------------------------------
www.mildlydangerous.com

 
At 7:14 PM, Blogger Danimal said...

Well, Lydia, you slept through the last four years, may as well sleep through the next four. In fact, sleep right on through the next election, please.

 
At 8:13 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Sheepsbrain, I know I was harsh but it is precisely true. If you don't believe that the situation is possible then I forgive your vote. However, the Pell Grant is $2,025 under Bush and it was $1,595 under Clinton. I would know, I did my first two years in the 90's and just finished my last two. In addition to that the COE or cost of education is figured right now to be roughly $13,500 per year, which means I am entitled to the difference in a subsidized Stafford Federal loan in which the government pays the interest for 10 years and it's my choice to take it/all/some. In either case the Pell grant covers the tuition with almost $500 left over for books. So, Free. THEN, since I have 3 children, Bush doubled the child tax credit. So under Clinton I worked for roughly $30,000 a year and got about $700 back until the tech pop near '98. Now I don't work, have plenty for bills and I get back well over $4,000. And, despite my charges against democrats, I myself purchased a 53" HDTV with the excess since the interest was so ridiculously low compared to a credit card.


I assure you that this is the truth. Bush's tax cuts have been good for MOST people. My brother is 25 and single, and he doesn't get much at all, so I know a lot of you people really believed that bit about the rich and all that.

 
At 10:15 PM, Blogger Heather said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:38 AM, Blogger TheWatcher said...

It's the most amazing thing. All these people who claim to be intelligent. Not a one of them ever says... "Oh, I was wrong, Democracy chooses Bush over Kerry". Nope. Why is it only "Democracy" when Democrats win, and a "failure of Democracy" when Republicans win?

What kind of arrogant and foolish condescension is that?

I, for one, am firmly on the right politically, because I grew up. I got past the idea of emotion-based politics. Because I have the intellectual heft to choose the PROPER thing, over the promise of handouts or freebies. I can endure the gut-wrench pain of knowing the losses to families, imagining the almost unendurable idea of facing death in a land so far from home and so foreign and comfortless, because I have the intellectual grip to know that is the better course for our country.

I can "just say no" to politicians promising to "fix" my health care, housing, education, and a gazillion other things, because I KNOW that anything they do in that regard is worse than doing nothing.

So quit your foolish moaning and being indulgent in your emotional fits. You're wrong about politics, you're wrong about a whole bunch of stuff. Get a grip, challenge your assumptions. Tackle these things intellectually intead of emotionally, and once you do, you'll find you can be happy and not have your life and outlook trashed simply because of a political loss. Besides, you won, you just don't know it yet.

 
At 12:48 AM, Blogger ruthjanine said...

No need to aplogise to us here in Australia. The majority of us were watching closely and praying hard Bush got in again! I think you underestimate how much Bush is wanted, and especially how much Kerry WAS NOT wanted by many. No need to go to sleep till 2008, instead look into it a bit more a appreciate what you have.

 
At 12:58 AM, Blogger sheepsbrain said...

CleverCynic, don't assume that everyone votes for Bush or for Kerry or is involved in the sad politics of the US. I'm not an American. I HAVE been watching from the sidelines of your elections and shaking my head in disbelief. Not at the stupidity of Americans at choosing Bush or Kerry, but at the sheer stupidity of the entire political situation in the USA. When I watched the debates and in the end saw those two multi-millionaires shake hands on public television, I could not believe my eyes that the entire American public watched this and did not start a revolution right then and there! Democracy!? What kind of democracy do you have with two parties made of robber-baron millionaires who give the US voter the shaft every chance they get while all the time telling them that they are loving it. That's what I coulddn't believe personally. Yessir. Don't make your silly assumptions about me.

And as for your personal story, CleverCynic (which is what this thing start with), I just dont buy it. The whole tall tale smells of outright lie. Right out of the handbook of some political think tank. No thanks. Peddle the B.S. elsewhere.

 
At 10:31 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

(sigh) Well I am sorry that you feel that way, but at least reflect on the fact that if everything the liberals said was actually true, no one would have voted for Bush. I don't know what about my story is unbelievable to you but it's relatively easy to confirm.
http://www.fafsa.ed.gov
http://www.mapping-your-future.org/paying/ffelp.htm

Republicans are not libertarians or anarchists. We prize social programs just as highly, only those that are constructive and allow people to invest in their futures. If people are not aware of this then it explains a LOT, especially within the country.
Get your asses back in school, ESPECIALLY if you cannot afford IT!

 
At 10:41 AM, Blogger The Captain said...

It's too bad the Democratic Party can't see that the election was determined by the normal people of this county and not the Liberals who live in the high populated metropoitan areas. This was very easily shown by the maps posted all over the media. It is amazing to me that they are trying to figure out wrong doings instead of looking to themselves for the answer. Most Americans do not want to cater to the special interest groups like the media does to sell news. Us normal people, who were able to study history before all the political correctness change what is written in the history books now, remember that this country had ideals and rules and people were responsible for what they did. The Democratic Party has lost sight of this fact.

 
At 1:46 PM, Blogger Shelly said...

Hi!! my name is Shelly Im only 16 but im very well educated on polotics covering bush and kerry.....i know if i were 18 i would have voted for bush and thats not just becuse my father did i have done the research on my own and sorted out truth from the slander that has been said about Bush.....my site is all about hearing peoples opinions about anything i hope you would visit my site and mybe we can email each other and have a friendly debate....im not here to change ur mind i just want to know what u think! hope to talk soon *~ANOTHER HOPELESS SOUL~*

 
At 2:01 PM, Blogger Francesca said...

Sad, but true. Plenty of Americans are not sorry: http://www.werenotsorry.com/TNPHOTOFRM.htm

 
At 5:55 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

That ROCKS! Thank you!

 
At 5:58 AM, Blogger Isabelle said...

Democrats: Get a post-election life; absorb the reality of having backed one of the phoniest politicians ever; get over it! (Although for trauma treatment maybe you can find a taxpayer-paid program -- of course you wouldn't want to pay for it yourself-- for PESS, "post-election stress syndrome.")

 
At 10:41 AM, Blogger Matt Comer said...

Let me make one thing straight, just because your a Bush supporter doesn't mean that you belong to the religous right. Believe me, I'm all for alleviating religion in politics and government. If Kerry supporters are so dumbfounded as to why he lost the election, this man didn't even have a platform. It seems to me that the Democratic party has become very fragmented and misguided. I just got so tired of hearing " I hate Bush." I'll argue that Bush has made some mistakes but in a time of war you can't expect to have decisive outcomes. Everyone is so worried about being politically correct and completely lost awareness of their own survival. The United States learned its lesson by being an isolationist during the beginning of this century. That's why we ended up with Hitler and the like. You cannot allow a build up of evil and tyranny. It's time to be proactive and preemptive.

 
At 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well well, must be another "speak your mind to the world" democrat. One thing I have noticed over the years are that democrats use their mouths more. We all have ONE mouth and TWO ears....you do the math.

 
At 12:26 PM, Blogger stfu said...

I forgive everyone who didn't vote for bush.

I can't quite fathom how anyone could have voted for bush. I watched all the media coverage CNN, NY times etc, and never before have I seen such alot of bullshit spouted. I don't think you realise how bad you broadcast media is, there is almost no content, no analysis, and certainly no attempt at objectivity.

How can anyone believe what that bush cares about anyone but himself. That wry little smile, that inarticulate stumble, this man is an empty vessel waiting to be filled, that is of course where that wicked little man, carl rove comes into play. Reminding me of the slimely car salesman.

Bush is a man drunk on his own power, he is as stupid as a brick, as dim as a post, yet he is elected with an increased majority. What were Americans seeing? Are you seeing something I'm not? Surely your country is judged by its president, isn't your president representative of the character of your people?

Thank god for people like michael moore...there is still hope yet...all I can say is that a country is judged by the way is treats its poorest, its dispossessed, and its disempowered.

hugz

luke

 
At 1:07 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Typically when you're right, you don't have to lie 59 times in an hour and a half to make your point. Continue to invoke Michael Moore's name and you will continue to dwell within angst every election.

 
At 4:10 AM, Blogger stella_maris said...

I personally think that the website is incredible. For us, people around the world who've been affected by Bush's so-called "mistakes" and "blunders" in one way or another, this is a wonderful reminder that (at least half of) America still stands for friendship, tolerance and cooperation among nations.

 
At 4:47 AM, Blogger Shawn said...

I thought I was going to feel awful when Bush was re-e;ected, but I just feel the same as usual. Maybe that's because I left America to teach in Korea.

 
At 6:18 AM, Blogger James said...

I only wish I had found this site a few weeks ago, as a Brit I am at the mercy of the 'special' media relationshsip between our countries and sites like this are a welcome antodote to the murdoch-media representations of the US that we normally have to put up with!

 
At 7:56 AM, Blogger YRU said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:02 AM, Blogger D. said...

These comments show a lack of knowledge about the state of affairs in the country today. Bush is not a strong leader. He did a terrible job on terrorism (just ask his former Terrorist Czar, Richard Clarke) and didn't even believe terrorism was a priority before 9/11. He admits as much in Bob Woodward,s book, "Plan of Attack" where he tells Woodward he wasn't focused on terrorism.

Everyone was telling him he needed to focus on Bin Laden before 9/11 and he did nothing. Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor told Condi Rice this in Jan. '01 before the transition. Hart-Rudman report said so a couple of years before 9/11. Bush ignored it. http://www.nssg.gov/Reports/NWC.pdf

Our society is ignorant of Bush's incompetency. Mostly because of the media, but also because of the Democrats ineptitude on these issues as well. This is probably the biggest reason why Bush is seen as a, "strong leader" b/c liberals haven't declared a big picture strategy to fight terrorism.

 
At 9:14 AM, Blogger YRU said...

The majority of American people will not apologize for electing a strong leader and we have a strong leader in George W. Bush. That "W" there, stands for winner. You are so far out of the American loop, you are associating yourself more closely with other country's and that is why you feel the need to apologize to them. That is a very telling sign right there and one reason why you and people of your ilk will not win the next presidential election either.

We keep America safe, by keeping America strong. All you sleepers out there need to wake up to this reality. We will not concede our power to the UN, or any other country out there that seeks to weaken our resolve. We will ally ourselves with countrys who have the same goals in mind and that is to make this world a safer, better place for all of us, not just some of us. If you can not understand this simple concept, then you will not have a voice with us and should therefore take your own advice and go back to sleep. Nothing for you to be awake for here. Good night.

I accidentally hit that trash icon, so am reposting. Curiousity did kill the cat ya know. :)

 
At 10:54 AM, Blogger stella_maris said...

"You are so far out of the American loop, you are associating yourself more closely with other country's and that is why you feel the need to apologize to them."

The things you're saying make it seem as if you're afraid of losing your identity. Do you think that by associating with other countries, America becomes less 'American'? Do you think that by being friends with someone from a different family, you're automatically losing ties with your own? That's just silly.

"We keep America safe, by keeping America strong."

On the contrary. Your military might, economic dominance and diplomatic arrogance makes you an easy and popular target.

"We will not concede our power to the UN, or any other country out there that seeks to weaken our resolve."

Isolationism! Well, well. Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, the Cold war! The good ole' days ...

"We will ally ourselves with countrys who have the same goals in mind and that is to make this world a safer, better place for all of us, not just some of us."

Oh yes. Associate only with those who agree with you. If they don't, drop some bombs on them, return home to your suburban paradise and pretend that everything is ok.

Which planet are you from, by the way?

 
At 2:07 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

People are getting mad and saying some very pompous things out of anger. It is obvious that we respect and value Europe, and this is why we invited them to help us with Iraq. They were a consistent source of support all the way through to the end, and in the end we still got a majority vote even though it was not unanimous. The jury is still out as to why some voted against us at this last moment, and why Saddam was still posturing himself as if he was in violation thus enduring the the sanctions. The most likely reason has to do with the Oil For Food program, and I would encourage Europeans to follow this as well as I am certain they do not want corruption in government any more than we do.

What we do not appreciate is parts of Europe, having turned us down and consequently making this harder for us, sitting in judgement and criticizing everything that goes wrong with the reduced help and firepower.

Personally I would like to see a lot more unity in condemning our common enemies instead of each other. We do not bomb countries that simply disagree with us. It is also intellectually dishonest to assume that this has put us in any dangerous position with Europe as they would have to agree with us on pre-emption to ever start anything, thus dispelling the reason they would retaliate in the first place.

There is no doubt that America did not take terrorist threats seriously, Bush's 8 months and Clinton's 8 years. We do not necessarily rally around Bush as a protector and for safety as much as he is getting us justice and showing them why you don't attack the U.S. If your argument is that he tends to go overboard, that doesn't upset me. Where your allegiance lies probably has a lot to do with your character. If someone kills a member of my family, I'm going to kill him and the guy next to him that laughed when he saw it. If you wouldn't do anything than don't, but I don't see the overwhelming argument against action. If you WANT to side with your country you can find reasons to do so, if you do not want to, you can find reasons not to, but don't pretend it's some objective conclusion. This war passes the 50% base test for patriotism very easily. You can't just take all the negatives of everything and characterize it completely as that. There is a duality to everything and every decision.

Europes world view is based on what is feasible to them and what they can and can't do. It is obviously less sacrifice for a millionaire to give to a charity than someone living paycheck to paycheck. Natural laws work out in a natural manner.

 
At 7:52 PM, Blogger D. said...

There is no doubt that America did not take terrorist threats seriously, Bush's 8 months and Clinton's 8 years.

This statement is wrong. That's the Bush administration passing the buck because of their incompetence. bush has blamed everything wrong in his administration on clinton. The facts are, (and you can verify this in Richard Clarke's book, "against all enemies" That Clinton did ALOT against terrorism

He took action to make sure were weren't bombed on New Year's eve '99, the so called millenium attacks were thwarted b/c Clinton with intel from the CIA told his cabinet to find out if there are terrorist planning attacks based on this info. They arrested a man crossing the boarder in Canada. Don't take my word for it read the book. pp. 210-215. Clarke was the terrorist czar under Clinton, Bush I and reagan. AND was a registered Republican. He obviously isn't a hater of America.

We do not necessarily rally around Bush as a protector and for safety as much as he is getting us justice.

IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US!!! Bush can't get us justice in Iraq since they have nothing to do with 9/11 or funding/training terrorists. of course you know this but refuse to accept it, just like the people who still think OJ Simpson is innocent.

This war passes the 50% base test for patriotism very easily.

I assume what you mean by this is that it's a righteous war, but tell me how it's righteous when all the reasons for going to war: WMD, links to Al Qaeda, welcoming our troops, paid for with oil, etc. have shown to be false. EVERY reason was proven false. This is a fact you haven't talked about. I understand you want to feel proud of your country. I understand you want revenge for 9/11. I only ask you to do so openly and honestly. Bush has tried to hide, cover up and trick the American people into supporting this war. Now there seems to be no end in site to a middle-east quagmire where the people are attacking us everyday and we're spending 1 Billion a day there losing more GI's to a bloody revolution.
This reminds me of the beginning of WWI where the German's believed they be victorious in 6 months. Instead, they lost, it lasted 6 years and led to the collapse of the German monarchy.

 
At 9:00 PM, Blogger DodgerGirl said...

CleverSynic, I'm with you! My parents make about $60,000 a year, and got substantial tax relief back. What I don't understand is why people believed John Kerry when he said the tax cuts were for people who made over $200,000. Just amazing. Why anyone would believe a word that man said is beyond me! And don't get me started on those people here who think Michael Moore has any valid points! I can't help but think that those people who voted for Kerry didn't think for themselves! They believed the leftist media. They voted for Kerry because they "hated Bush." What a reason! Anyway, glad to see people thinking straight around here! The only thing scary about the next four years is that when it is over, Bush will be gone and I would bet money we will be faced with Hillary running! What a nightmare.

 
At 6:01 AM, Blogger Charlie said...

Clinton did ALOT against terrorism.

I don't think so how many times were the twin towers attacked unsuccessfully before the terrorists succeeded, USS Cole blown up killing US sailors and western interests in Africa bombed out. No action from Clinton taken. Just how many warnings did he need to react. It is so easy and naive to blame Bush for 9/11 but it was inactivity of the Clinton years that brought about the tragedy of 9/11.
Remember these terrorists are also religious fanatics.

 
At 6:50 AM, Blogger D. said...

Just how many warnings did he need to react. It is so easy and naive to blame Bush for 9/11 but it was inactivity of the Clinton years that brought about the tragedy of 9/11.

You need to read the 9/11 report and Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies" Clarke was the terrorist czar under both clinton and bush and he said throughout his book the clinton was working on stopping terrorist and bush did nothing. It's not naive when you hear the terrorist czar, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviso and The CIA director Tenent all saying Bush didn't focus on terrorism. If you compare the two administrations there's no doubt Bush was at fault for 9/11. The democrats are just too wimpy to say it publiclly.

 
At 9:49 AM, Blogger Charlie said...

The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, vehemently disagrees with Richard Clarke. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer.
Clarke when asked on 60 minutes after the bombing of the USS Cole said “I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed. So many, many trained and indoctrinated al Qaeda terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier”.

Richard Clarke seems Bizarre to say the least his contradictory views leaves me non the wiser.
Condolezza Rice has said that he talks rubbish and I agree with her. Bush then destroyed the training camps in Afganhistan. Pity Clinton didn't.

 
At 9:57 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

D.

If it is your intent to point out that the Iraq war is not part of the greater war on terror, that's just fine. Iraq has been on the to-do list for at least a decade prior to the war on terror. It is a common misconception that Republicans believe they were tied in to 9-11, and for that I would understand liberal angst with respect to education on issues. It's just never been the case. The connection to the broader war on terror is just that he fits the post 9-11 definition of a terrorist or supporter of terrorism. The effect of 9-11 was to more aggressively pursue threats and this category, and Iraq had been in it for quite some time.

You guys are caught up in the motive end of this, did he connect it to the war on terror to do the right thing? Was he motivated by Oil to do the right thing? Don't forget the meat and potatoes, it was the RIGHT THING.

All of the ins and outs and details of this is tantamount to throwing folding chairs in the path of each other. It is long understood that the premises of our parties simply differ on these issues to begin with. Republicans are simply more hawkish on foreign policy and we believe in military efforts to promote democratic and free societies as a method of curing oppressive ills and yes, the TERRORISM that results from desperation combined with the simple quality of life of human beings.

That the democrats were in line with the republicans on the vote for this war should tell you that in addition to this, the overwhelming view of the day was that Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. thus trumping the philosophical differences of the parties. That it turned out that they did not in fact have the weapons is therefore only a reason that would reverse a democrats overall support of the war. I think this is what you are missing, however, even being a democrat you cannot ignore that the initial action was based on good intelligence, and we all collectively made that error. But again, it is only one of numerous reasons why this was a good thing.

Richard Clarke has a book, yes, which largely dispels the LINK between 9/11 and Iraq, so does Dick Morris who was Clinton advisor as well. Again I refer to the 50% base test. It is simply JUST as arguable to do it as it was against it, thus providing you with a CHOICE of siding with your country or NOT! We have chosen, and so must you.

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger D. said...

Clarke's book is bolstered by the 9/11 report. He openly says that Clinton needed to bomb the camps but that the politcal fallout from the Lewinsky affair were against him at the time. When Clinton bombed Kosovo the republicans howled "wag the dog" trying to wage a false war for political cover.
As far as what Rice said about Clarke book being rubbish, she's extremely suspect as a NSA. She constantly tried to cover her ass after the Presidential Daily Brief on Bin Laden memo was publicized, she tried to claim it was an historical document.
The Bush white house's policy has been a proven failure by the events of the past 4 years. The continously choose politics over sound policy.
Clinton did make a mistake by saying to hell with the political ramifications, bomb the camps. But Richard Clarke gives plenty of examples throughout his book of the impediments to doing this. The military not wanting to attempt risky attacks on bin laden for fear of political repercussions if things go wrong. Fear of bad intelligence etc.
The problem is the media and the Democrats refuse to stand up and say that some clinton's policies were working. It's a complete whitewash of the events of the entire 8 years before hand.

 
At 10:43 AM, Blogger D. said...

"The effect of 9-11 was to more aggressively pursue threats and this category, and Iraq had been in it for quite some time."

WHERE'S THE PROOF! no evidence that Iraq had any links to terrorism. 9/11 report says so. If there are no links to terrorism then what are we doin there?

The sad fact that the democrats voted for the war is that they lack a spine. Also, I believe they thought he'd deal w/ Iraq more like his father's administration.

"Republicans are simply more hawkish on foreign policy and we believe in military efforts..."

These guys are following an imaginary script of what it means to be a Republican but none of the Politicians running this war have been to war and most weren't even in the military. The Bush administration is only more hawkish with other people's lives are on the line. That's why it so easy for them to go to war cause they don't have to make any sacrifices.

"...even being a democrat you cannot ignore that the initial action was based on good intelligence,..."
This is so wrong it's laughable. Everyone knew BEFORE the war that the intelligence was false. Saddam didn't even control 2/3 of his country. The no-fly zones in the south and the kurdish area in the north. The Kurds practically ran there own country. Iraq wasn't even a threat to their neighbors which is why none of them, (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) supported the war. Bush even removed the U.N. weapon's inspectors after one month b/c he didn't want them impeding the start of the war.

As for being a good thing, the Iraq war hasn't improved security for the U.S. the Iraqi's despise the occupation and are fighting us there. There's little hope for stability in the country for the next 5-10 years while U.S. continues to struggle there.

This idea that you have to choose between supporting a bad policy or being a traitor is the most hypocritical idea of this war. We're in a democracy people have legitimate concerns about the major policy decisions of our lifetime and we must speak out about the horrible path this administration has taken. It seems Bush still hasn't learned the lesson of Vietnam which was not to stifle criticism but not to fight unnecessary wars in the first place. Simply trying to wrap the tragedy of 9/11 around it won't make it any better, only worse.

 
At 11:01 AM, Blogger YRU said...

OIL FOR FOOD is going to be the next major scandal. I can not believe none of the femocrats jumped on this issue yet, like they did on Watergate, which is nothing compared to this debacle.

I mean look at what happened here. Amercian tax dollars were sent to the UN for food for the children of Iraq. The head of the UN son diverted that money to himself, Saddam, France, Germany and Russia. Saddam kept around 21 billion all for himself, Chirac of France, Germany and Russia, all got a lot of that kickback money too and no food was bought with it. Saddam then took his portion of his ill gotten gains and set up about 265 dummy companies,(at last count) to hide his windfall. To date, they have not been able to locate Saddams portion of our stolen American tax dollars. Which as I stated before is around 21 billion, that is billion with a "B"! This money is now thought to be used by the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq to kill our American soldiers with. How ironic is that? That the American tax payer got stuck footing the bill for the terrorists to be outfitted with the latest in weapontry to kill our own soldiers with?

Now I know and understand why the UN, France, Germany and Russia did not support us Americans invading Iraq, under Saddam's rule. They knew if we invaded, their money train would stop and what they did would eventually come out, which it is now.

To add insult to injury the UN is now denying us the right to go over their records to prove where our taxpayers money went to, because we all know now, it definitely did not go to feed the children of Iraq. The UN has a lot of nerve to deny us access to this information, information that they should have rightfully handed over to the American people already.

Personally, I am tired of having the UN on our soil and having to pay American tax dollars for their underhanded deeds, immunity from our laws and their luxorious accomdations. It is about time another country footed their bill. I know! How about France, Germany or Russia, seeing as they all have extra money now? Our money, don't ever forget it!! Where are their apologies to us? I will not hold my breath for even one.

 
At 11:01 AM, Blogger YRU said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:02 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

It is a forgone conclusion that Saddam paid $25,000 to suicide bombers. You would be the first to dispute that. Again, DEFINITION, not link to the towers.

I think democrats voted for it to attempt to show the public that they DO have a spine for the upcoming election.

Imaginary script? Are you arguing that republicans don't exist? This is our platform, and we're here.

There are names that didn't serve. John Kerry and John McCain did. Their logic is just as valid. This doesn't have to just be about Bush. If you think he's an idiot then he's still only right by accident. Other people you trust use the same logic.

Not sending your own children even if that were true would be the same policy as why we don't let individual families negotiate with terrorists. Passion leads to bias and being taken advantage of. The only way to be objective about anything is to be somewhat removed from it. And the senate in fact is full of veterans by the simple fact that service is a compelling reason to vote for a candidate, as evidenced by Kerry's campaign and others disdain for a couple months of Bush's service.

I didn't mean to say "good" intelligence, my bad. I meant overwhelming and compelling evidence. The question as to why Saddam was putting up with the needless sanctions and posturing himself as being a threat to the region with weapons, and why the U.N. made it's first un-unanimous vote at the very end after a decade of strong support still needs to be answered, and is most likely answered by the Oil for Food investigation. Neither one of us should comment further on that until it is complete as it can only hurt both of us in being biased about what we WANT the outcome to be. However, there is nothing more likely to explain this.

Regime change in Iraq was not entirely a selfish endeavor. If it doesn't accomplish the single detail of making America safer then we are only left with the other 100 reasons. Try to think of other people. If it wasn't for the failed and dysfunctional U.N. we would be taking care of Sudan right now.

I'm not saying you are a traitor. I am saying you don't have to feel the way you do. It must be terrible. I don't fault you for wanting your party in power, we all do, but this is all wasted time. Look at the jobs report or something, I'm sure you want things to be good at heart somewhere deep down.

 
At 11:38 AM, Blogger Charlie said...

He openly says that Clinton needed to bomb the camps but that the politcal fallout from the Lewinsky affair were against him at the time.

I made the point in a previous post about Clinton and the Lewinsky affair, he took is eye off the ball because of this stupid act, he was more worried about being impeached than looking after the interests of America, if those planes that flew into the Pentagon and Twin Towers had nuclear devices on board, it does not bear thinking about.
Bush has taken the war to the terrorists and not let the terrorists bring it to America, he had no alternative really, the insurgents in Iraq have been sucked into Iraq who otherwise would have been planning even greater acts of terror on American soil.
During the Clinton era the madrasas in Pakistan were full of children learning the warped preaching of Imans nothing was done about it, now President Sharefe has put a stop to them, and for his trouble has been targeted and had a number of assasination attempts foiled.
Bushe’s more aggressive foreign policy is starting to work. However this is a long road and needs determination. We will not be beat.

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger Dan S. said...

Give me a break - there isn't going to be anything earthshaking that will change over the next four years. I don't know exactly what it is you fear, but relax - there's much less to fear than you think. You just have to stop listening to the leftist propaganda - just stop the "atrocities" bs, it's ridiculous.

For me, the good news is that we will at least be sure that we won't bail in the war on terror. Plus, our slide into the abyss of European-style socialist secularism will slow down just a bit, and my taxes aren't likely to get raised way up.

Otherwise, there's not much that will be changing, so chill!

 
At 1:20 PM, Blogger YRU said...

Et Tu, Dutchie?

Tolerance Has Its Limits
Kerry posted in English @ 6:05 am in General Freedom of Speech Freedom of the Press Freedom to Peaceably Assemble
Well, well, well.

Over in the Netherlands–the land the hippies tell their children about the way Christians teach of Heaven–the tolerance train has come to a screeching halt.

Long proud of their reputation for openness and liberalism, the Dutch have recently slammed up against the real world, where that sort of thing just opens you up to violent Jihad and the liberal spraying of bullets, homicidal rage, and Islamofascist violence.

It all started when Theo Van Gogh, Dutch film-maker and descendent of the legendary painter, Vincent, decided to make a movie about the role of women in Islam. It wasn’t, shall we say, complimentary, and the Jihadists got their feelings mightily bruised. As we know, they are not the kind of people to suffer offense with equanimity.

In this case, they suffered offense by sending one of their unofficial soldiers–a Moroccan murderer–to shoot, stab, and impale the film-maker, leaving on the impaling instrument a chatty little note in Arabic, apparently in case one had any question as to whether the killer had heard of Van Gogh’s movie. Moroccan Muslims are the largest ethnic minority group in the Netherlands, but now–after an explosion of anti-Muslim violence in the form of burning and vandalizing mosques–many are calling for a shut-down of the Netherlands’ “open door” immigration policy. (It should not be lost on you, dear reader, that the Dutch are going all hysterical and attacking mosques because one film-maker was killed, while Americans reacted to the wholesale slaughter of 3000 citizens by protecting Muslims and chasing terrorists, because–even though we aren’t “tolerant” and “diverse” and “liberal"–we know the difference between innocence and evil.)

Muslim extremists are threatening to kill government officials, and two have reportedly gone into hiding.

Welcome to the game, Dutch friends. You see, it doesn’t matter if you’re tolerant. If you say the wrong thing about the idols and icons and programs and pogroms of Islamofascism, they’ll still kill you. They didn’t care that Nick Berg’s daddy didn’t like the President–they still sawed off the son’s head. They didn’t care that Margaret Hassan was against the war in Iraq–they kidnapped her anyway. They didn’t care that the French weren’t willing to even entertain the notion of helping out in Iraq–when France said the Muslims couldn’t wear their headscarves–poof! A bomb showed up in the French railway system.

Although they hate the Israelis and Americans (by way of Israelis) more than anyone, and although the Muslim clerics end every service by calling down a curse on Israel and on the US, it’s not just us they hate. It’s everyone they define as “THEM.” And that means anyone who doesn’t agree with them. And even those who DO agree with them, who don’t agree with EVERYTHING.

They now suspect that Islamofascist Muslims have infiltrated the Dutch security service. Oops.

When the rest of the world realizes what the “cowboy” Bush already knows–that when evil knocks at your door, you answer with a gun in your hand–they probably won’t have one. And the UN doesn’t have one, either. If they want to be protected, they’re going to have to come to us.

Good thing we kept the cowboy in town–for us and for the whole civilized world.

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2004/11/16/et-tu-dutchie/#more-1243
------------------------------------------
I noticed that a large majority of the people accepting apologies from the 49% of losers in America were people from Holland. After reading this article that I got from pardonmyenglish.com, I felt it was appropriate that I should post this here too. The Dutch, the hypocrits. They should be apologizing to us.

 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger D. said...

"It is a forgone conclusion that Saddam paid $25,000 to suicide bombers."
This is one of the lamer excuses given for the war. Sadia Arabia and other countries also gave money to suicide bombers families and we didn't overthrow them. Of all the muslim countries that supported terrorists, Saddam was the least likely to do so. The war in Iraq has had little effect on terrorist planning, pursuing or carrying out attacks against the U.S. especially since the war has only enraged more people against our country.

"If it doesn't accomplish the single detail of making America safer then we are only left with the other 100 reasons."
The only reason that was valid was to make America safer. We shouldn't send soldiers to war for any other reason.

" I don't fault you for wanting your party in power, we all do, but this is all wasted time. "
This is greater then politics specifically when we have people trying to blow up the country w. nukes. If Bush was doing a good job on terrorism then we'd all be better off but he's made the country less safe by going to Iraq and that effects all of us. I'm stressing the negatives of Iraq b/c it needs to be dealt with openly and honestly. The war is no longer about fighting terrorism but about proving which party is more patriotic. I don't care if you think Republicans are more hawkish or not. I want a gov't that's going to do the job right and Bush has obviously not done that. It's not negative to say that , it's just facing reality.

"During the Clinton era the madrasas in Pakistan were full of children learning the warped preaching of Imans nothing was done about it, now President Sharefe has put a stop to them,"
Musharraf has not put a stop to muslim extremism in Pakistan. Pakistan still has Madrassas and they're also an exporter of WMD's to N. Korea

 
At 2:27 PM, Blogger Charlie said...

Musharraf has not put a stop to muslim extremism in Pakistan. Pakistan still has Madrassas and they're also an exporter of WMD's to N. Korea

Yes that’s true but Musharraf has started to reign in the more extreme Imans and the Islamic fundamentalists who are causing trouble in Indian Kashmere, that’s why he has had so many suicide attempts on his life. The Pakistan SIS were responsible for installing the Taliban in the first place and I would not trust them as far as I could throw them, but Musharraf has changed policy lets all hope he succeeds. I say again, the exporting of WMD’s happened on Clintons watch after America was taken in by Pakistani smarm and duplicity, sometimes you have to wave a big stick, and tell it like it is.
You just can not claim that Bush is a failure its a rash statement we all have to leave it to the historians, but I beleive he is right.

 
At 2:38 PM, Blogger Charlie said...

YRU
Et Tu, Dutchie?

Tolerance Has Its Limits
Kerry posted in English @ 6:05 am in General Freedom of Speech Freedom of the Press Freedom to Peaceably Assemble
Well, well, well.

Yes I agree with everything you said, I heard a Dutch MP say "We now realise that freedom of speech has to be fought for and not taken for granted" To bloody late you idiot, what price liberlism.

 
At 4:00 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

D.

It's obvious your problem really isn't with Bush, it is with us. If Bush had let go a decade of resolutions and Gulf war treaty breaches because of the dissent in the last vote that we ALSO WON, he would NOT have been re-elected. It is less about us not being educated on the issues and more that he WAS.

We want action NOW in Sudan. North Korea and Iran have now made the to-do list that Iraq sat on for almost 2 decades. There are no resolutions or treaty agreements with or against Saudi Arabia, and our reliance on them forces peace just as Globalization will be the historical de facto reason behind eventual world peace.

The Middle East IS going to run out of oil, likely within our life time. This is their ONLY export and method of wealth. Given their current level of desperation, their leadership caste barely keeping a thread of civility in the region through the power their current wealth affords them, it is going to dissappear, and the only thing that will be left is their fight for survival coupled with islamofascism that will approach figures of 100% if kept completely alone. It is part of the MUCH bigger picture to establish a presence there, a strategic location, and a valiant effort to establish democracy and free trade throughout the region before this happens. Regardless of how this goes, for the best or not, this will position us to dynamically deal with this when our children are no longer children. And it IS inevitable. So Yes, this is HUGE compared to politics, but the president cannot be completely honest and forthright about our "true" motives there because people like you demonstrate that you cannot handle it. I sincerely hope that Europe covers itself before then, they are considerably closer.

 
At 5:05 PM, Blogger D. said...

"You just can not claim that Bush is a failure its a rash statement we all have to leave it to the historians, but I beleive he is right."

You still haven't sited any facts to bolster this. His policies have failed and everyone knows this, even you. Musharraf is part of the SIS and is not changing his policies. I'm not defending Clinton here, but blaming Clinton does not bolster Bush. Clinton was bad but Bush is worse. You believe Bush is based on ideology. Not FACTS. The facts show Bush's polices have hurt the U.S. that's you and me and it's not a partisan issue.

"...If Bush had let go a decade of resolutions and Gulf war treaty breaches..."
This is a complete fallacy. Bush choose this course of action. He wanted to go to war. The situation did not dictate a war. In the first Gulf War, like it or not, H.W. Bush had a legitimate reason to attack Iraq. W's reason for invading was not based on FACTS it was based on his ideology that he wanted to take out Saddam. We all know the Neocons had publicly urged this in '98. The breach of resolutions were an excuse! As we speak, Israel is in violation of U.N. resolutions in regards to the settlements. No talk of that in this administration.

"It is part of the MUCH bigger picture to establish a presence there, a strategic location, and a valiant effort to establish democracy and free trade throughout the region"
There are several ways to establish these goals other then all-out war. Democratization of the middle east is an essential goal but we can't do it by fiat. Invading a county, writing their constitution and picking their form of gov't is the antithesis of Democracy. You might not feel this way but its obvious the Iraqis do.
It seems your basic point is we need to manipulate and control the middle east either through military and or economic might. Does this really constitute spreading democracy or just consolidating power? I have no allusion as to what Bush's true plan is, nor do I believe the Iraq's which is why they are fighting so fiercely.
It seems you don't really care if the Iraqi's have democracy at all, just as long as they're pliant to our will.

 
At 5:25 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

D.

I don't think any of us think that Liberal thought is a bad ideal unto itself. The problem is the practicality of it. Peace works when the whole world has decided simultaneously to adhere. Diplomacy and reason would be wonderful implements to this end if other countries were also diplomatic and reasonable. As it is, our very argument refutes the whole of it. You cannot even persuade your countrymen and we are on the same team. Liberalism is the luxury of an individual, not governments and policy makers. I am sure that every country feels this exact same way, but the U.S.A. will be the very LAST to completely disarm. There is a pecking order to the evil in this world, and I'm sure through our reactions we've caught a bit of the virus, but it will not be until we are the very worst of it that we need to reflect, and at that time it won't matter anyway because there will be no worse places to react to. We are not looking to annhialate anyone, only bring about change. If the Iraqi's want peace, they simply need to stop shooting at us. If we restored Saddam to power for our "mistake" he would be murdered within a day. These groups are not fighting us, we're simply in the way. They have been wanting power in that country forever and are making use of the disruption to make their move as they hated the secular state Saddam ran.

And do the math, there's less than 150,000 of us over there. There are 25million of them. 10% is 2.5 million, 1% is 250,000 thus outnumbering us 2 to 1. As it is there aren't even 25,000 of them fighting us. This is hardly a broad rejection of our liberating act.

There is an Iraqi's blog on this site:
http://iraqithoughts.blogspot.com/

You live in a good country with good people. Be proud of who you are.

So I don't take issue with your thoughts, I only wish for a world where it worked.

 
At 5:26 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5:58 PM, Blogger Russ said...

WANTED: Good home for frustrated American citizen. Is loyal, potty-trained on both ends, and not brainwashed by the extreme right or extreme left. Believes in God but doesn't force the issue. Sick of Bush politics and agenda. Have passport and will travel. Please send references.

 
At 6:01 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

I'd say a little more than a "twist", Russ. Perhaps the past tense of the word will do.

 
At 6:12 PM, Blogger D. said...

i don't know where you get the idea that only 25,000 people are fighting the occupation but all polls, political parties and organizations in Iraq have been against the U.S. policies there. Just b/c there are a few thousand people attacking our troops doesn't mean they're for the occupation.
As for liberal ideals, democracy is a liberal deal. I'm not an advocating complete disarmament. I'm an advocate of the Powell Doctrine: Only go to war when you have a clear mission, go in with overwhelming force and have an exit strategy.

 
At 6:31 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Of course there's always the bird that won't fly out of the cage when the door is open, and always that fish that rams its head into the glass in the tank to get away every time you drop food in, but these are humans. Why would we assume they wanted freedom? Very easily. For starters, the Iraqi's do not differ in any substantial way religiously or otherwise from the Afghans who treat us like rock stars. If that's too much speculation for you, then add to that that they themselves indicated this to us in the Gulf war. That WAS the plan for the peace, and quite a logical one in a rational world.

I would think that any indigenous people would be uncomfortable with an occupation and that is going to be reflected in the polls. There aren't any that state they want us to leave, they are just exhausted with the instability.

I don't think there are even 25,000. Fallujah was estimated to have between 2 and 5,000 at its peak, most of which not Iraqi's.

Conservatives adhere to traditional liberalism as it relates to the Enlightenment, and then there is Modern Liberalism. Conservatives have inherited the principals and the modern Liberals have inhereted the term. Who's philosophy is socialism?

Powell is a good and awesome man. He was the right man at the wrong time. And in any case, as with Kerry, neither was against the Iraq war, only their perceived management of it. I can assure you they were both just as surprised at the reaction. Powell moreso because he's been there and seen what it was supposed to be last time. I don't think Bush Sr. handled it properly at all.

Anyway blog away but I'm *probably* done for the evening.

 
At 8:37 PM, Blogger Russ said...

Hey cynic, you don't appear very clever. I agree with some of what you write, but to say there isn't anyone in Iraq that states they want us to leave and that they are just tired of the instability?

Really.... I want whatever it is you are smoking! You may call me twisted, but I'd say you are down right warped....

Rock on :)

 
At 8:44 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

LOL... neato

I never said there wasn't ANYONE. Obviously the "fascism fighters" want us gone. I was speaking to prevailing sentiment.

 
At 8:46 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Oh I see... ANY = Polls

 
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just thought it was interesting on the link you posted that the picture said half of America voted for Kerry. Seems to me that less than half, 4 million less, voted for Kerry, so it doesnt seem to quite add up.

 
At 11:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Petition for the full US congress to investigate the 2004 election and all allegations of vote fraud:

http://www.petitiononline.com/uselect/petition.html

 
At 1:59 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Sounds expensive... but aight

 
At 7:47 AM, Blogger Russ said...

Petition the 109th Republican controlled congress to investigate election 04' voter fraud where a Republican was put into office?

Somehow I don't see Karl Rove and Dick Cheney allowing that to happen.

 
At 7:50 AM, Blogger Janine said...

Stop the negative ....start being positive and proactive about getting America back on track. Writing congress? The Republicans are the majority. Think your solutions out more carefully.

 
At 1:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Jeffery of Starbucky wrote:
"'Oh my God, I hope Bush doesn't get elected again' (Osama, paraphrased)"

Based on what? bin Laden has never said anything of the sort.

Why would Osama not want Bush reelected? It's not like Bush has done anything to catch him. In fact, his policies have been a huge help to Al Qaeda's recruitment operations. A whole generation of Iraqis will grow up having seen American bombs and guns kill their friends and family; guess which side they'll take.

Not that Kerry's anti-terrorism policies would have been any more effective, but saying that Osama was scared of a Bush reelection is rediculous. If he really didn't want Bush back in office there's no way he would have released a video right before the election (he may be evil but he's not stupid - he knows what impact his tapes have in the west).

 
At 2:49 PM, Blogger Kyle L. Meade (R) said...

You are pathetic. Our president has done a great job dealing with terrorisn, I am proud to show the world that America still has traditional values. This election was a huge success for those with moral principals reguarding life and traditional marriage.

Keep doing your liberal agenda. But remember, there is a huge conservative blogger movement. We are the majority on here just as we are in numbers. Our philosophy is correct. If the liberals ever want to win another election, then they better come back to the party they have left.

Also, President Bush brought morals back to the oval office. President Bush doesn't "suck", like you all keep saying.

The only thing that sucked that was in the white house left with a stain on her blue dress. Thanks Bill Clinton.

Another thing. All I hear is about how "Bush lied". Well you know what? Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, they all had evidence supporting the claims of WMDs in Iraq. The president looked at the same evidence as everyone else.

Bill Clinton KNEW he was lieing. He had hard FACT he was staring the American people in the eyes lieing. Monica had "little billys" swimming on her dress.... So how about you liberals close your mouthes, you have no credibility.

Stop by my site...

 
At 3:21 PM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

Subject: John Glenn talks

JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand whyMilitary personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never servedthink of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn:"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. Iserved through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit byanti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line.

It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the dailyCash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day...to a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies –in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose -and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"



For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was anattorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he is a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

 
At 3:24 PM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

Election 2004 - National Pulse

It occurred to me as I watched one of the big 3 television broadcasting networks follow the election returns that many news media correspondents are completely out of touch with the pulse of the average American citizen.

Case in point:
Rudy Guliani was presented with a question by one of these correspondents something like this - "it just doesn't feel like we are/or should be a nation at war - when I go about my daily business on the streets of New York City, I never meet anyone remotely involved in the war effort - don't you believe that we (our country) would be better off today if we hadn't started the war in Iraq?".

Rudy responded in his usual calm and confident manner to set this "journalist" straight with the following points:

1. We (the US) did NOT start the war in Iraq - resolution after resolution was passed by the UN demanding that Iraq allow UN inspectors to disprove the intelligence reports accumulated by multiple countries on the UN panel. Saddam's refusal to comply with these resolutions left us with no choice but to go on the offensive in the wake of 9/11. Allowing Iraq to ignore UN resolutions (16 in all) without repercussion would have left the UN in a state of abandonment (if any rogue nation can ignore UN resolutions - what is the purpose of having a UN?). Make no mistake about it, Saddam started the war in Iraq - but we will finish it.

2. Our offensive against 9/11 is working - immediately after 9/11, No one would have bet that the leadership of this country could take any action to avoid additional terrorists attacks within our borders over the following 3 years - additional attacks at that point in our history seemed eminent. However, by taking the bold action of going on the offensive against all terrorist organizations seeking to bring harm to the United States (not just the terrorist who hit the Twin Towers), the leadership of this great nation has put all of the major terrorist organizations seeking to do us harm on the run (by taking the "War" to them). Bin Laden has been reduced to a perpetual game of "cat and mouse" that will ultimately end in his demise as the leader of the Taliban. Saddam Hussein's terror regime has been toppled. Other terrorists organizations who have drawn an endless supply of terrorized, poverty stricken youths from Iraq to perform their acts of terror (usually in the form of suicide missions) have crossed the border into Iraq out of necessity. -( if Iraq is successful in sharing the wealth and potential of their nation through the vehicle of a free and democratic form of government, where will these terror organizations find resource or refuge?)

Imagine, if you can, a free and democratic form of government in the heart of the middle east that shares its wealth and opportunities with all of its citizens. Imagine Iraqi citizens who begin to break away from the miserable bonds of terror and poverty - and begin to dream.

This cannot happen over night - we occupied Germany and Japan for several years following WWII. But we did not seek to occupy them forever, but rather, to assist them in forming their own free and democratic form of government. Today, no one refers to either Germany or Japan as an extension of the US government - but rather, as free and independent nations. Why can't we share the same dream for Iraq?

The stakes are high. Pulling out too early would be disastrous - possibly giving rise to an even more terror driven form of government. In honor of the service men and women who have already made the supreme sacrifice in this effort, we must invest the necessary resources to rebuild and secure a free and democratic Iraq. Ten to fifteen years down the road, the rewards for not only the average Iraqi citizen, but also, the safety/security of all nations will be priceless.

3. Although the volunteer soldiers in Iraq are disproportionately from states other than New York, New Yorkers should never forget the ties that bind this great nation together. Volunteer soldiers from the heart-land of this country have committed themselves to fight against the terrorists who sought to destroy the security of this great nation on 9/11 (most of these soldiers have never even had the privilege/opportunity to even visit New York City). Make no mistake, throughout the heart-land of this great nation we Know not only that we are at war, but also why we are at war, with whom, and what the stakes (are for the future of this great nation and for peace-loving nations around the globe).


From the results of this election, I'd say that Rudy is closer to the true "Pulse" than any of the commentators we all watch on the nightly news.

 
At 4:43 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

If the war in Iraq has only resulted in more terrorists, then it must also be true that their objective on 9/11 has only resulted in 50 MILLION more free people by the same logic. Sorry Osama, but I'll take that exhange rate all day long.

Do you think Osama's men are giving him this kind of hell like we do here? Oh good going Osama... 50 million more free people. That's just wonderful.

 
At 8:18 PM, Blogger Kate said...

girl, i dunno who's apologizing or who you talking to but there's nothing to apologize for about GW as president

 
At 1:33 PM, Blogger Amanda said...

I totally agree. In the next four years, Bush will definately screw up the country more than he already has... no questions asked. And I may be younger than some of these people posting, but I must be more educated than them if they have anything good to say about George W. Bush. If you would like to see another site for educated young people, visit http://smartkidsagainstbush.blogspot.com/

 
At 8:24 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Of course Amanda. After all, you all have contributed so much to the system and have so much to offer it that is yours to give. Your life experience obviously entitles you to set public policy and you've demonstrated excellent grasp of aggregate business behavior and international fiscal issues. And it is widely known and understood that your age group isn't media-impressionable and into the sensational.

Go on with your bad self!

 
At 8:28 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

LOL...

Smart
Kids
Against
Bush

SKAB! I like it, so fitting.

How about, Smart Kids Against Not Knowing?!

 
At 9:23 PM, Blogger From deep in enemy territory... said...

D. had stated the following:
"IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US!!! Bush can't get us justice in Iraq since they have nothing to do with 9/11 or funding/training terrorists."

I beg to differ. You may recall that an assassination plot to kill then President G.H.W. Bush was uncovered as he was visiting Kuwait after the first Gulf War. This had been proven that the order came from Saddam Hussein himself. This was a clear act of war of the first magnitude. Regardless of whether Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, this act alone invited our somewhat belated response.

Going back to the original post of this thread. How on earth could you be tired after sleeping since 1990? The DemocRATs have been asleep at the switch for way too long. It amuses me as to how they can express surprise that they lost this election. If they ever want to win back the White House or Congress, perhaps they should divest themselves of the fringe liberal lunatics that seem to find a welcome, comfortable home within the DemocRAT party. A clear majority has spoken loud and clear, the most liberal Senator in the Senate from Taxachusetts was NOT a very wise choice. One of the loudest Vietnam war protestors posing as a Vietnam war hero? Give me a break. I suppose if you had been taking a nap for the previous 4 years you could be forgiven for not seeing right through his deceit. Fortunately, most of us weren't asleep.

 
At 4:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CleverCynic:

How classy, how polite, how ... clever! Insulting and intimidating Amanda just because she's young and (dear me) has an opinion of her own! Leave her alone, will you? Don't you have anything better to do, you financial and foreign-policy expert? Honestly. Your posts speak volumes about your sad, sorry self.

 
At 5:15 AM, Blogger Charlie said...

Bill Clinton was joined by three fellow presidents for the dedication of his library, an event that hailed the 42nd president as a rare political talent with a gift for human connection and an unerring instinct for survival.
There is even a section on how to seduce internees "because you can". Then how to keep cigars in good condition preventing them from becoming moist and soggy, should be worth a visit.

 
At 5:49 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

I actually liked Clinton. Had he been a moderate Republican he wouldn't have been perfect but I'd have believed it. Only a democrat could reform welfare and not take heat.

 
At 5:51 AM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Oh and Anonymous... she contributed her opinion at the intellectual expense of 51% of the population. She's... how do you guys put it? ... Fair game?

 
At 7:11 AM, Blogger D. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7:38 AM, Blogger D. said...

"You may recall that an assassination plot to kill then President G.H.W. Bush was uncovered as he was visiting Kuwait after the first Gulf War. This had been proven that the order came from Saddam Hussein himself. This was a clear act of war of the first magnitude. Regardless of whether Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, this act alone invited our somewhat belated response."

WE DID RESPOND!! Clinton had the Iraq intelligence agency HQ. blown up. And we told them that if you ever attempt any terrorist activities against us again, we will overthrow your regime. Saddam never attempted anything again.
As the 9/11 commission said. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 attacks, or funding or training terrorists. The only weak link to terrorism you have was Saddam's giving money to families of suicide bombers. And Saudia Arabia (our ally) was doing the same thing!
Jesus,I feel like I'm talking to Helen Keller here...

 
At 9:10 AM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

Don't scream your hands off D.

Excuse moi, but an impoverished nation ruled by terror is fertile grounds for suicide "material".

When life suks, you can be easily compelled to blow yourself up in the name of god - especially when compelled by your elders and money is offered to your family.

Face it, Saddam's Iraq was a breeding ground for young suicide bombers.

Imagine an Iraq ruled by the people instead of a terror driven dictator. If/when that happens, Iraq will no longer be a breeding ground for suicide bombers.

I believe!

 
At 12:29 PM, Blogger D. said...

"Face it, Saddam's Iraq was a breeding ground for young suicide bombers."

no, it wasn't....This is the problem we have here. You have people making policies based on assumptions that are completely FALSE!
As i stated over and over again, 9/11 commission, the preeminent authority on the subject said Iraq was not a terrorist threat.
Second, there are no guarantees that a democratic Iraq will be a pro-USA, anti-terrorist nation. That's just another one of the administrations rosey scenarios, like, being greeted with flowers.

 
At 2:43 PM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

Ask the average citizen in Iraq if Saddam and his henchmen were a terrorist threat......get real.

 
At 7:09 PM, Blogger D. said...

They hate Saddam and they don't want our military there either. It's irrelevent whether the plan was good or bad now, what we need to do is change policies. I realize this is not going to happen with Bush as president, but no one, except for the necons, believe this strategy is feasible.
You can't bomb your way into a democratic society....i know what you're gonna say. Japan. Germany, WWII, etc. The difference there is there was a command structure. Hitler, once he was gone, the nazi's collapsed. The emperor of Japan, surrendered after Nagasaki, the troops stopped fighting. You don't have that in a guerilla war. The goal is to expel the occupiers. i.e. our G.I.'s. While we keep pouring more men and money into Iraq it weakens us, economically, (1billion a day) and demoralizes us (loss of our loved one/troops).
I'm glad you have everyone is supporting our troops but to win we need a smarter approach.

 
At 8:35 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Well we may have at least SOME common ground here. Iraq is a far less than ideal situation. This type of assymetric warfare is very difficult to work against. After all it did work for us in the Revolutionary war. However, I think that criticism is just an easy route. Being that we have the largest, best trained military the world has ever known, I don't know that I am sold that at this point in history it could possibly be done any better. While you simply don't offer any policy changes, I'm not sold that any would change anything. You can't just train Iraqi troops quicker. You can't just leave. You can't abandon democracy there either, I know at one point Kerry said it wouldn't necessarily have to be democratic, but he only said that once and moved away from that after testing it out on the public. We can't infiltrate and accrue intelligence, and the leaders abandon the fights before they even happen.

I think we're just going to have to hope these elections go well and that all three groups have majorities that acknowledge the outcome. Provided that happens, the rest is just going to take time and a very large Iraqi police force as it becomes feasible. I still think we're dealing with substantially less than a tenth of a percent there, but it's certainly enough to create chaos and affect public opinion which is their only real chance at winning. Considering the affect it has here, certainly it must be working in spades there.

 
At 10:02 PM, Blogger D. said...

The first step to change is admit that things have gone wrong and make changes. Bush refuses to do that. The problem we have now is not military strength, It's lack of credibility. No one in the Republican party will stand up to the president and say let's change this course of action, so it seems we're gonna keep goin down this road.
The best way to change policies was the election but since that's over, I'm afraid we're gonna slowly go down this vietnamization of Iraq. It seems to me that there's a lot of anxiety in the coutry right now. which is why the religious fundamentalists have become so vocalized. People are looking for answers to complex problems and our leaders are not providing them. Both Kerry and bush should be ashamed of themselves.

 
At 8:14 AM, Blogger Potfry said...

This obsession with what the rest of the world thinks is really nothing more than a latent manifestation of junior high school peer pressure. Suddenly, world opinion has become a legitimate barometer of what's right for the United States, or the world, for that matter? Does history have any bearing here? There was this rather large event in the 1940s called World War II. 40 Million Human Beings died. It was borne out of many of the same policies that you so readily espouse-- particularly unbridled idealism and appeasement as a efficient policy of containment.

Please. Your apologies to the rest of the world are amusing, but not more significant than that. When 50 years from now George Bush is seen as a signficant president who stuck to his policies and helped create a safer world, I wonder if any of you will step up and admit that you were against him. Or, like many of our aging 60s liberals, will you quietly grow tired of your misplaced passion, have a group shrug, and take a midlevel job at a Fortune 500 company?

 
At 8:15 AM, Blogger Potfry said...

This obsession with what the rest of the world thinks is really nothing more than a latent manifestation of junior high school peer pressure. Suddenly, world opinion has become a legitimate barometer of what's right for the United States, or the world, for that matter? Does history have any bearing here? There was this rather large event in the 1940s called World War II. 40 Million Human Beings died. It was borne out of many of the same policies that you so readily espouse-- particularly unbridled idealism and appeasement as a efficient policy of containment.

Please. Your apologies to the rest of the world are amusing, but not more significant than that. When 50 years from now George Bush is seen as a signficant president who stuck to his policies and helped create a safer world, I wonder if any of you will step up and admit that you were against him. Or, like many of our aging 60s liberals, will you quietly grow tired of your misplaced passion, have a group shrug, and take a midlevel job at a Fortune 500 company?

 
At 9:19 AM, Blogger D. said...

"It was borne out of many of the same policies that you so readily espouse-- particularly unbridled idealism and appeasement as a efficient policy of containment. "
Again, here's the conservative script! liberals are weak, conservatives are strong. If you'd use your mind instead of really on ideology you'd realize that the neocons are the unbridled idealist here.... Iraq war will lead to flowering democracy...etc. and appeasement?!? Clinton used the military to contain Saddam. You seem to forget the no-fly zones over 2/3 of Iraq; the bombing of Iraq's intelligence agency; You've misread history thinking that powerful military is the samething as strong policy.
conservatives who support this war have a limited understanding of what's going on. We are creating more terrorism not destroying it. You can call liberals weak all you want. These are the facts, look at any news of Iraq and it's staring you in the face. It's time to let your ideology go and start using your brains.

 
At 11:21 AM, Blogger stella_maris said...

"Suddenly, world opinion has become a legitimate barometer of what's right for the United States, or the world, for that matter?"

It sounds like you don't think that the US is a part of this world for some reason? Newsflash: you are, my friend. You Yanks, contrary to the nationalistic propaganda you've been indoctrinated by, are no better than other nations of the world. America is not the 'chosen' nation. If there's a god, I'm sure he cares as much about America as he does about the South Pole penguins.
I agree, however, that no-one should dictate an independent, self-governing state what kind of internal policies to pursue. If those policies affect the rest of the world, however (everything from the war in Iraq to the Kyoto Protocol to the International Court of Justice) it is imperative (and an issue of a common sense, really) that the world's voice is heard (and actually listened to), too.

 
At 3:11 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Time will tell if the world and the Iraqi's are better off for this. The Kyoto Accord is not one of our policies that affects you, this is an agreement they came up with that requires nominal sacrifice on their behalf and would be devastating if not impossible for us. The world also sees the US as being a nation of frenzied productivity, and emmissions are a product of that. This is also evidenced by our trade deficit, and one should see that it is because of this that the terrible socialized economies of Europe even have a chance at working, because of a HUGE buyer to the West. If we lose our economy, you all lose yours and the world ends up in another great depression. They have all gotten used to it but it could get even worse, we don't want any part of it. We would have to be insane to join the criminal court in a world that refuses to say anything bad about Saddam and accuses Bush of atrocities. Europe is the twilite zone. Happy trails.

 
At 4:01 PM, Blogger stella_maris said...

"We would have to be insane to join the criminal court in a world that refuses to say anything bad about Saddam and accuses Bush of atrocities."

What about the world that refuses to say anything bad about Israel and its breach of numerous UN Security Council resolutions? You're a part of it already. That's the "American world".

 
At 8:19 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

I had no idea that Israel and the USA's alliance was a Republican phenomena. Israel has an amusingly small piece of real estate completely surrounded by countries united in their demise. I'm surprised it doesn't offend your sensibilities more than it does me. If anyone ever needed the speculation of a nuke it's them. They are also a free democratic society and a good example to the region. Being that they are defending a piece of land means they don't need to be aggressors, and they are in no position to be looking to expand territory into surrounding regions. I'm surprised they're even on your radar. And last I heard most Jews vote democratic. Hardly seems worthwhile for you to alienate them. What have the muslims done by example government-wise or in the interest of bettering our country that they get so much preference?

 
At 10:34 PM, Blogger stella_maris said...

"I had no idea that Israel and the USA's alliance was a Republican phenomena."

Neither did I ... who said that?

"Israel has an amusingly small piece of real estate completely surrounded by countries united in their demise."

I wonder why that is ... ah, what about the small matter of their decision to claim the land for themselves in the 20th century after Arabs have been living there for hundreds of years! That explains it quite nicely, don't you think?

"I'm surprised it doesn't offend your sensibilities more than it does me."

Why should it? I don't prefer the Israelis to Palestinians or vice versa.

"They are also a free democratic society and a good example to the region."

You're surely joking ... you call a religious state a 'free democratic society'? Utterly ridiculous ...

"I'm surprised they're even on your radar. And last I heard most Jews vote democratic. Hardly seems worthwhile for you to alienate them."

What are you talking about? So in your view it's allright to pick on the Muslims but not on the Jews? Who cares who a majority of Jewish Americans votes for? We're talking about the state of Israel and its illegal and aggressive acts towards its neighbours and the Palestinians here!

"What have the muslims done by example government-wise or in the interest of bettering our country that they get so much preference?"

As I said earlier ... no preference. But why do you think Muslims should have any interest in bettering your country? What do they care? What have you done for them lately ... or ... ever, really?

 
At 10:52 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Israel is not one of my issues that I follow all that closely aside from the usual coverage. My attitude is probably even more neutral than you claim yours is, which leaves us with the oddness that you would even bring them up in the context you do. The Palestinians are clearly not in compliance with any world order rules. I can understand what drives them, though I think religious differences are silly in this milennium. Certainly they have resorted to violence since diplomatic efforts have failed. I suppose we can relate, though what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Jews have an equally valid argument that their disporia was also caused by the Muslims, so this 20th century thing is somewhat arbitrary as to who got what when.

 
At 4:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has any research been done on the reasons *why* people commit terrorist actions? I mean, i find it hard to believe that men and women wake up one morning and deside to kill other people. It seems to me that there are deeper issues here that are not being addressed. Why would a person blow him or herself up if there was a more effective way of changing things? Maybe i'm being idealistic, but there should be a better way of dealing with terrorism then killing them all.

Neither Bush nor Kerry seem (or have seemed) really interested in stopping terrorism at a base level. Bush especially seems not to care about understanding the traditions and culture of the people he is killing. Is it possible that a little understanding/respect of what these people want/need would go a long way towards peace?

 
At 6:34 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Anonymous! I applaud your introspective thoughts on the matter as part of the maturing process that leads to the Republican party! You are exactly right about dealing with the root of things. Right now many people see our foreign policy as simple acts of aggression. John Kerry meant to deal with the matter in the way you described by considering it a police action. This would mean find terrorists when they strike and killing them. Terrorists become terrorists because their existence is so oppressive and poor that desperation is the driving force behind their acts. They have little economic freedom or religious freedom, and certainly no freedom of thought or venues of real-world information. We KNOW that we cannot kill all the terrorists. Our approach is a very bold and visionary process if curing the sociological ills of the region. Establishing free and democratic societies in the Middle East that will starve the need for terrorism and help them find their way into the modern world that will help them for all time.

This is our approach to just about everything. Not just to make abortions illegal to limit them, but to tame the media venues that project the ideas of anonymous sex as fun and without consequence. Not to just put crack dealers in jail but to curb the influx of drugs to the U.S. and increase funding for education etc... we are engaged in all facets on all fronts that encourage long term responsible behavior and refuse to reward the opposite as we believe it nurtures that kind of activity. And as you become more and more in a position to contribute to society, you will become more practical about what you want government to sieze on behalf of those who will not take advantage of venues that better themselves. You will however still prize social programs for emergencies and genuine relief as it is needed within cognitive reasonable bounds.

OPEN ARMS!

 
At 8:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush sux and too bad he's not gone.....he aint gunna lower taxes for anyone but wealther citizens wut about the people who really do nee d the tax cuts like middle class n such.......but for anyone other than wealther citizens he anit doin Shit!....so i dont see why he got Re-elected ......

 
At 8:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush sux and too bad he's not gone.....he aint gunna lower taxes for anyone but wealther citizens wut about the people who really do nee d the tax cuts like middle class n such.......but for anyone other than wealther citizens he anit doin Shit!....so i dont see why he got Re-elected ......

 
At 8:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush sux and too bad he's not gone.....he aint gunna lower taxes for anyone but wealther citizens wut about the people who really do nee d the tax cuts like middle class n such.......but for anyone other than wealther citizens he anit doin Shit!....so i dont see why he got Re-elected ......

 
At 9:24 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

New anonymous dude: Refer to my first post in this blog. If you are single with no children and make from 16,000 to 28,000 a year then you will have seen the least difference of anyone. Anyone with children gets at least twice back due to that, plus earned income credit, plus additional relief from the marriage penalty. The iraq war is subject to opinion and philosophy, that the tax cut was only for the rich is just an outright and outrageous lie! The only way to even support that they got more is by numbers taken out of statistical and percentage context. And we're not talking about actors and basketball players anyway. Most of those who are wealthy are employers and investors each of which contribute to jobs and prosperity.

 
At 5:07 PM, Blogger D. said...

"John Kerry meant to deal with the matter in the way you described by considering it a police action. This would mean find terrorists when they strike and killing them."
Not true. This is Bush campaign rhetoric. Kerry's position was to fight the terrorist cells. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. take them out.
Bush's strategy is not really a strategy to deal with terrorism against the west but it's a specific ideology (one that's horribly wrong) of right-wing Israelis to take out Israel's enemies. Bush's administration has been co-opted and used by these people to forward Israel's agenda at the expense of the U.S. You've been hoodwinked and bamboozled by the Neocons into believing the Iraq was is about fighting terrorism. It's not; It's about fighting Israel's enemies.

"Terrorists become terrorists because their existence is so oppressive and poor that desperation is the driving force behind their acts. They have little economic freedom or religious freedom, and certainly no freedom of thought or venues of real-world information."

What terrorists are you talking about?!? Osama Bin Laden is/was rich. He second in command is/was a Pediatrician. (i forgot his name) The 19 hijackers on 9/11 were all college educated and came from middle-class families.

The terrorist are attacking us because they hate our foreign policy. They believe our policies are anti-Islamic and grossly unfair. Our treatment of the Palestinian territories is a prime example of what they believe is favoritism of jews over musilms. Israel gets billions of dollars in aid from us every year and that is used to continue supporting the building of settlements in Palestinian territory. When people feel their freedoms are attacked, especially religious freedoms, they will commit all sort of atrocities to protect their sense of identity.

 
At 8:18 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Of course Bin Laden and the other heads are rich. Oppression is a two-sided coin. They are not the "subjects". The people can't just decide to hate our foreign policy for religious reasons, I don't care how blessed the dirt is. Their governments are the one's we deal with. And anyway, its not like I enjoy rubbing it in your face but the Dutch certainly don't have unpopular foreign policies, and now it is more speculative as to whether Spain was hit at all due to involvement in Iraq.

You guys continue to fit Bush into a mold that makes sense to you people. We have our own platform, philosophies, and view of the world. The reason why Moore hit such a chord with you guys was because he filled the gaps of why in the world would we do this for humanitarian reasons. There MUST be something else, certainly no one is THAT selfless. But the truth is the same reason that it didn't make a dent in us: because 60 million other of us would have done the exact same thing for free. We don't see why a motive would be necessary at all. And he is the leader of our party sharing the same philosophies. So you're a bunch of mercenaries and wouldn't have done it for free or especially at a cost to us. All it means is that either Bush was like US and did it for free, or he was like YOU and found his proper incentive...I don't see how YOU could fault him either way. If he's lying, I assure you he's only doing it for your benefit, certainly not for ours.

And anyway I don't know why you glorify or strengthen Kerry's position anyway... its obvious you think he's just pandering to moderates and republicans anyway... you've made it clear as to what you think the root of it is so you couldn't possibly be for killing any of them but just ignoring our interests in the world. I don't think you even had a horse in the race. Really you guys should break off into the 16 or 17 parties you've got shoe-horned into one and just vote for what you believe in.

 
At 9:35 PM, Blogger kris said...

I'm an american who has been living overseas for about 3 years now. In the first election, i voted for Bush, i left the USA in Dec. 2001. Since that time i have started seeing Bush thru different eyes. From the perspective of the world, Bush is a monster. He takes lives for money, he strong-arms countries into submission, he is generally a very scary guy. While he may do some great things for the american people, it is coming at an enormous cost to people overseas. These people are paying with their lives and their family's lives. Bush doesn't seem to *really* care about the customs of a foreign people. He is mowing them over until they respect HIS customs.

 
At 10:10 PM, Blogger D. said...

Thank you Kris for pointing out that Bush's "freeing people" who don't seem to want the freedom we are providing. We live in a global society where are livelihood depends on manufacturing in China and India oil from the middle east produce from Latin America.
Invading a country, ovethrowing their dictator and setting up a gov't (no matter how well-meaning you are) is not democracy, it's colonialism; and we can see, by the way Iraqi's publicly condemn the occupation and attack us with road side bombs, that intentions don't always equal a good outcome. As some wise person once said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
As for the horse race comment, this war is deeper then who's president and what party affiliation I have. The fact is, no matter who's president our stated goals of creating a democratic ally in the middle-east have been severely damaged by this war. While you're worried about winning elections the rest of the world is thinking about how to put an end to the mess Bush got us in to.

No matter what you political philosophy is or your religious beliefs, everyone can see the war is going poorly. All the critics of going to war were right. If you invade, we will created more terrorists, less stability and make our policies the issue instead of Bin Laden. THAT'S THE FACTS!

 
At 10:40 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Well it is clear to me that we are very artfully going around in circles. You've stated your points and I've stated mine. You've taught me how I can despise my country if so inclined and I've shown you how you could get behind it if so inclined.

America is the 9 million pound purple gorilla in the room. It's like Godzilla trying to get from one end of Tokyo to another. I suppose we're bound to be in the spotlight and step on some toes. In the end its a zero-sum game, those advocating changes through inaction happening slowly over time, and others trying to prune it and shape it, but ultimately time works in light of both processes.

You know, everyday every country meets behind closed doors and probably to some extent plots against its people in some perceived fashion simply through compromise that disadvantages the ideal circumstances of a particular group... corruption is found everywhere. No one wants to talk about the Kurds, or Afghanistan, or aids donations, or why the U.N. won't go into Sudan and all the motives and financial crap that everyone subscribes too, its always the USA. Well I'm going to speak on her behalf. We are simply Europeans ourselves. We are simply geographically removed by choice, to approach things differently. WE have been wildly successful by all measures and continue to afford the world with a gameplan. Some of it is great, some not so great to some, but blatant categorization by a stack of negatives can only be a product of desire. And for that, I simply feel no need to pander to those that make this choice or sate them. Some Americans have lost what 4,000 immigrants a day knows, that America is a prosperous and wonderful place where our definition of poverty is absurd and 3 out of 5 children go to bed fat. I wouldn't change our system for anything, and it may very well be our system that keeps Europe in business with its socialistic and liberal approach to life as evidenced by the trade deficit. There is a huge buyer to the west, and we have to continually promise to keep our dollar strong so they don't cave in on themselves and reveal the errors of encouraging long-term lazy behavior and climbing unemployment and oppressive taxes. If they weren't like this, we would HAVE to value their opinion because they could each stand alone with real influence. Everyone should hope we never come to approximate that or we are all screwed.

 
At 7:55 AM, Blogger D. said...

Here we go with the right-wing script again! You can't defend the war so you changed the subject and start attacking liberals. "Liberals hate America, liberal appeasers etc..." These are just distractions by the right wing to avoid taking responsibility for your reckless abuse of the public trust.
You can't defend the policies which you know are wrong. You don't have a solution to correct the damage you've done, so you attack liberals and say we are the problem.
You can continue to think that liberals hate america but conservatives are the ones that have control of all 3 branches of the gov't and are running the war, which is not going according to their plan.
You can't blame liberals for going to war without a plan to win the peace;
You can't blame liberals for Iraqis killing our troops; and you can't blame liberals for the loss of morale our troops feel because their leaders let them down.
If you really wanted to support America, you would join us and condemn these wreckless policies. Unfortunately, you're ideologically stuck; making assumptions that don't fit reality.
"Liberals are anti-military; therefore, less military force is liberal thinking, therefore, it's weakness. I'm a conservative. therefore, I believe in military force, therefore I'm strong."
This is a stereotype; Not all liberals are anti-military, unilateral disarmerment types; not are conservatives support premptive wars or nation building. Smart people use their MINDS to determine which tools to use for each situation. Instead of a cookie-cutter formula that doesn't solve anything.

It seems the reason you're supporting this war policy so desperately, is because it's the only thing you have that represents U.S. strength for you. You're projecting your negative feelings you have on America on to liberals. Well I'm here to tell you that America is more then just a strong military and economy. America is an idea; A place where no matter where you come from or what you believe you can live in peace and harmony without threat from the gov't that you're liberties will be violated. A strong military doesn't give you that, If that was the case, the USSR would have been the most open society in the world. A strong economy doesn't guarantee liberty. China's economy is the fastest growing in the world and they don't have liberty to worship or speak publicly without gov't approval.
America is the greatest nation because we believe in individual liberty and the people governing the country. This is what is guaranteed in the constitution and what we strive to achieve everyday.

 
At 9:39 AM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

D. has made some good points on which we can all find common ground - the strength and beauty of the U.S. is in her people, not her military/economic might).

The ability to have unimpeded dialogue concering our difference of opinion is something we should all cherish.

Unlike some, I believe that the continued freedom we enjoy in this country is not, will not, and never has been - free.

Normally, I would agree that war is not the answer. However, in this instance terrorist around the globe have declared war against US and our way of life. For them, this war has been waging without retribution for decades.

9/11 changed things. We are no longer comfortable to sit back and push sanctions through the UN when a terrorist organization successfully implements an attack. What we have been forced to do/accept is that we are at war against terrorism - like it or not.

9/11 proved to us that we can no longer sit back and allow terrorist organizations to plot and scheme large scale attacks against us. Instead, we must take the offensive and keep them busy in their own back yard. Instead of sanctions or impromptu/strategic "bombings", we have declared a full-scale war on terrorism. We are a country at war - like it or not - and we have been for decades. The only difference today is that we have been forced to admit it and to take offensive action.

A war on terrorism is not conventional - which probably explains why it has taken us so long to react. Exit strategies are nebulous at best - our best offense is perseverance. Terrorist organizations have enjoyed a distinct advantage against us for decades - our lack of perseverance. All they have had to do is prolong the conflict long enough for the American public to become frustrated/dis-illusioned. Once outlasting our resolve, the political pressure has always led us back to burying our heads in the sand and pretending that terrorism will go away.

That approach has not and will never work. Today we must take the war to those organizations that would plot against us. This is a multi-pronged opponent.

Did Iraq attack us on 9/11? No.

Did Iraq support multiple terrorist organizations by offering resource/refuge? Yes.

Should we be at war with terrorism? Yes - we have no choice.

As Bush indicated after 9/11, we have declared war not against a particular country/culture/religion etc, but against any organization that supports terrorism in any way. Iraq was a prime candidate in this war on terrorism because of the power structure in place. Saddam ruled Iraq with terror and openly supported terrorist organizations. Iraq was truly a breeding ground for terrorism - if it were not so, why would so many "insurgents" be filing into Iraq to prevent free and democratic elections?

Many of these "insurgents" are not even Iraqi citizens. They are members of terrorists organizations who realize that democracy in Iraq would be a major blow to their respective organizations. They have crossed the border into Iraq to protect their breeding grounds.

Make no mistake; this is not a war that can be won without resolve. Putting down the rebellion in Fallujah is just the tip of the iceberg. Unless or until neighboring country's agree to work with Iraq to secure Iraq's borders, every insurrection that is defeated will be followed by yet another.

This is a war that cannot be won in the short-term without collaboration/assistance from neighboring countries. The success of democracy in Iraq will depend equally upon the American resolve, the Iraqi citizens resolve, and the cooperation of neighboring countries to assist Iraq in securing her borders.

A weakness in any one of these links will prolong the conflict indefinitely. However, this is not a war we can afford to lose. Future generations of peace-loving people around the globe will be the beneficiaries of this struggle if/when we are successful. We cannot afford to lose our resolve in this conflict.

 
At 11:47 AM, Blogger D. said...

"Did Iraq support multiple terrorist organizations by offering resource/refuge? Yes."
NO, it did not. Everyone one say it with me. Iraq did not support terrorists. this is the 4th time I've stated this FACT that the 9/11 commission and Richard Clarke, the terrorist czar have stated and they have the proof to back up their assertions. You are relying on this LIE as an excuse to go to war in Iraq.

You're contradicting yourself saying that Iraq was, "a breeding ground for terrorists" and then saying, "most of the terrorists aren't Iraqis..." first of all, you don't know that. Second, there are no set number of terrorists that you can kill.

As I said before, they don't hate our, "way of life" they hate our foreign policy. This is the reason why terrorist attacks are growing in Iraq. The lack of planning, the lack of jobs for the Iraqi soldiers, the prison abuse scandal put our gov't in a negative light. After these events, terrorist attacks have gone up not down. These policy decisions are why our troops are being attacked.
I don't know where you get the idea that we haven't been fighting terrorism before 9/11. We've been fighting terrorism for the past 30 years, through sanctions against state sponsored terrorism; to attacking different groups who had training camps; to investigating and arresting people who we found plotting against our country.
Bush has tried to "market" the war on terror differently, and use this war as a way to increase his political power for Republicans.
As for assistance from neighboring countries. Bush has alienated all our allies. Even Turkey, which is a western-style Muslim democracy. is against our invading Iraq and they share a border with Iraq. They obviously didn't believe Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism. I've made all these statements before to contradict these same false arguments you've made before. You still haven't shown ANY FACTS that this strategy works.
You rely on this conservative script again, "Liberals appeased the terrorists and emboldened them. That's why us tough-ass conservatives have to step up and protect their sorry asses from danger." This sort of self aggrandizing, heroism is false pride glossed over as patriotism.
To win this war on terrorism you have to bring America together not tear us apart as you keep trying to do by calling us liberals weak on terrorism. It's especially galling when you have a Conservative President who did absolutely NOTHING to combat terrorism before 9/11 and screwed up EVERYTHING in combating terrorism after 9/11.

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

D.
I have supported this war with no less than 10,000 words in this very blog. I'm not changing any subject, its obvious we are done with it. Both of my parents were democrats and I am not idealogically stuck in any way. I don't bend my opinions to match a party, I bent to another party to match my philosophies. And I would contend that there isn't a single "desperate" republican in the country. Desperation is a product of nothing going your way. I would admit blindness if I said the war was going well or in an ideal manner. It is obviously not. But only you would jump on how its turned out as a reason to not go as if any of us could do that. It's just another unrealistic desire to throw on top of the pile. John McCain is not desperate, John Kerry is not desperate, Gephart, Liebermann, Edwards.. this wasn't a partisan issue at all until the campaign made it useful. It is supremely obvious that nothing good can come from blasting our efforts at all. Honestly what good can come from it? You know we can't pull out and you know its not over and can still work out well in the end, and you know that American casualties are a fraction of any other war of this scale in history. Even in the rubble there are positives to be found. AGAIN, We all understand politics.. I don't mind you blasting Bush. Believe me when I tell you that when your guy is in there we will demonize the hell out of him regardless of what he does. It's the anti-America talk that pisses us off and brings us out in record numbers on voting day. I think you know this 4 years will come and go like any other, the economy will be at its usual decade's peak, armageddon will have not occured and there will have been no draft. THen you guys can build up the next one as a matter of life and death too. It's just absurd.
Are you hungry? Is your family falling dead in the street? Well no one else's is either. All this campaign talk about the poverty and everything else is just a lie. Anyone who ever had their phone shut off for a week thinks the government sucks and they are in poverty. Grow the hell up.

Anyone up for abortion or gay marriage next?

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

D.
I have supported this war with no less than 10,000 words in this very blog. I'm not changing any subject, its obvious we are done with it. Both of my parents were democrats and I am not idealogically stuck in any way. I don't bend my opinions to match a party, I bent to another party to match my philosophies. And I would contend that there isn't a single "desperate" republican in the country. Desperation is a product of nothing going your way. I would admit blindness if I said the war was going well or in an ideal manner. It is obviously not. But only you would jump on how its turned out as a reason to not go as if any of us could do that. It's just another unrealistic desire to throw on top of the pile. John McCain is not desperate, John Kerry is not desperate, Gephart, Liebermann, Edwards.. this wasn't a partisan issue at all until the campaign made it useful. It is supremely obvious that nothing good can come from blasting our efforts at all. Honestly what good can come from it? You know we can't pull out and you know its not over and can still work out well in the end, and you know that American casualties are a fraction of any other war of this scale in history. Even in the rubble there are positives to be found. AGAIN, We all understand politics.. I don't mind you blasting Bush. Believe me when I tell you that when your guy is in there we will demonize the hell out of him regardless of what he does. It's the anti-America talk that pisses us off and brings us out in record numbers on voting day. I think you know this 4 years will come and go like any other, the economy will be at its usual decade's peak, armageddon will have not occured and there will have been no draft. THen you guys can build up the next one as a matter of life and death too. It's just absurd.
Are you hungry? Is your family falling dead in the street? Well no one else's is either. All this campaign talk about the poverty and everything else is just a lie. Anyone who ever had their phone shut off for a week thinks the government sucks and they are in poverty. Grow the hell up.

Anyone up for abortion or gay marriage next?

 
At 12:30 PM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

While I appreciate your zeal, I don't agree with your mis-placed aggression.

I do not refer to you as anything (nor myself for that matter). I am only stating my opinion which is influenced by a lot of people/places/things - but is not a hard line for any political party. My opinions are my own - nothing more, nothing less.

Please refrain from casting me into any flavor of political candy box. I truly want honest dialogue here - not fanaticism or hatred or minimization.

I appreciate and consider your opinion and I would like the same consideration.

In my opinion, (based upon multiple life experiences - including the 9/11 report you seem so fond of referencing) Iraq did support terrorism.

One can find any 1 opinion/document/person/place/thing to hang one's hat upon and close his/her mind to all opposing views if one so chooses. I do not subscribe to that approach.

I find no discrepancy in claiming Iraq has been a breeding ground for terrorism. If I had been born into such an oppressive society I feel certain that I, myself would have been susceptable to being recruited by a militant Muslim organization. Not only would being a martyr be preferred to the daily struggle for existence, but the desire to be accepted/appreciated by elders/peers alike would be extremely enticing. Add to that the monetary offers for such acts, and in that environment, the offer easily becomes overwhelmingly acceptable.

As long as power hungry dictators dominate the masses with religion and terror, we will have breeding grounds for terrorists.

Make no mistake, our foreign policy is not perfect. However, it is not (in my opinion) the predominate issue in creating terrorism.

The predominate issue, in my opinion, is robbing people of freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Otherwise, the war in Iraq would be insane. I, for one, believe that supporting the establishment of a free and democratic form of government in Iraq is a win/win proposition - both for the masses of Iraqi citizens who desire freedom, and for the US lead war on terrorism.

Only time will tell, but I believe our pursuit of freedom in Iraq is worth every resource we can bring to bear. I believe that this is a pivotal point in the history of the world that we cannot afford to shy away from. If Viet-Nam taught us anything, it taught us not to declare/go to war if we are not willing to devote ourselves to victory. We are already at war against terrorism - we have been for a long time, it just became official on 9/11.

We must not shrug our responsiblities/opportunities for short-term refuge. Now is the time to pursue the defeat of terrorism around the globe.

I believe we should be building concensus/resolve to weed out these terror regime's instead of bickering/arguing amongst ourselves about who did what to whom (or whose report is more reliable). Weigh the pro's/con's of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the balance of time and honestly ask yourself if this is not a war worth fighting (hopefully, you can hear the voices of the multitudes of Iraqi citizens who sought to express opinions contrary to that of Saddam and paid with their lives).

To build concensus, we must have an open and honest dialogue among opposing views, and on some issues, we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, on the issue of what's best for future generations of peace-loving people around the globe, I believe that declaring war on terrorism is a step in the right direction.

I am openly considering alternative points of view and reserve the right to change my mind if/when I am presenting with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 
At 1:18 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

D. I have a simple question for you and would appreciate a thoughtful answer. You have spoken at length about what our approach has caused and its ends.

What do the terrorists have to learn from this experience, starting from 9/11 to now? If you're a fascism fighter, what do you say to Bin Laden about his approach?

Next. Our foreign policy or whatever particular motive aside: We all know and agree that Al-Queda cannot take over the U.S. So what is it they expect? What is a reasonable method of change for them by this approach? They can divide us politically instead of dealing with them in a cohesive manner, ultimately put pressure on the government through their assigns (you), and do we allow this to work as a method of change in this millenium?

Is our behavior the only aspect under scrutiny? Are we not also entitled to an effect as an answer to a cause? And what are our differing messages to them contrasting conservatives to liberals?

 
At 1:31 PM, Blogger D. said...

"..this wasn't a partisan issue at all until the campaign made it useful."
Wrong again! Bush made this a partisan issue when he wanted the vote on Iraq BEFORE the 2002 elections. He campaigned against Democrats as being soft on terrorism; and Karl Rove wrote a memo specifically telling other republicans to use terrorism as a campaign issue.
Bush has used this war as a political sledgehammer since it's inception.
As for the, "Anti-American stuff" that you hate, blame yourself for that. As I said before, You're projecting the negative feelings you have about the U.S. on to us liberals. First you're arguing that liberals are naively idealistic and aren't tough enough to hand terrorism. Now when you we speak up and state where we need to be tougher you get all whimpy on us and say you're attacking the troops, you're hating America, etc..
"In my opinion, (based upon multiple life experiences - including the 9/11 report you seem so fond of referencing) Iraq did support terrorism."
Your opinion has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. You've made it clear by you're above statement that you don't care what the facts are. You aren't interested in facts only your beliefs. You still haven't quoted any data in the 9/11 report (yes, I'm fond of referencing it because it's existence was to investigate and determine the effects of terrorism and the war on terror) that shows Iraq supported terrorism because there isn't any connection. You're life experiences don't compare to the work of all the intelligence agencies, commissions and reports that said there wasn't a connection. To put it plainly, we're not fighting a war on terror based on an opinion but on hard evidence. (Or at least we should be).

"One can find any 1 opinion/document/person/place/thing to hang one's hat upon and close his/her mind to all opposing views if one so chooses. I do not subscribe to that approach."
You do subscribe to this approach you there are tons of evidence to point to the fact that Iraq had no connection to terrorism! We simply can't win this war if people continue to deny the reality that's in front of their faces. These are the FACTS! you can't show any evidence to the contrary. You might want to believe there's a connection. Hell, you might wanna believe in Santa Claus but it's not gonna make it come true.
"I find no discrepancy in claiming Iraq has been a breeding ground for terrorism. If I had been born into such an oppressive society I feel certain that I, myself would have been susceptible to being recruited by a militant Muslim organization. Not only would being a martyr be preferred to the daily struggle for existence, but the desire to be accepted/appreciated by elders/peers alike would be extremely enticing. Add to that the monetary offers for such acts, and in that environment, the offer easily becomes overwhelmingly acceptable."
Again, stating your opinion which is based on FAITH; not evidence. You make assumptions based on you're interpretation of Iraqi society and ignore all the evidence to the contrary that the Iraqi people was not a breeding ground for terrorism. All the evidence shows this, you continue to deny the FACTS. You have no evidence so you repeat this mantra eventhough you know it's not true.
"As long as power hungry dictators dominate the masses with religion and terror, we will have breeding grounds for terrorists."
Again, no examples of state-sponsored terrorists. Afghanistan was ruled by warlords until we invaded it. Syria's Qaddafi was the last despot who sponsored terrorism and we just cut a deal with him and lifted sanctions against him. That's right we cut a deal with a brutal dictator!
"Make no mistake, our foreign policy is not perfect. However, it is not (in my opinion) the predominate issue in creating terrorism."
Well, you need to start listening to the people who support the terrorists b/c they say it IS the predominate issue. So does several formal CIA agents, a former terrorist czar, a former assistant state dept sec't. So, again you're opinion is not based on FACTS, it's based on Assumptions that are wrong.
"The predominate issue, in my opinion, is robbing people of freedom and the pursuit of happiness."
China is a dictatorship; they have prison work camps and there isn't any terrorists attacking us from China. Oh by the way, China has over 20 million Muslims.

"Otherwise, the war in Iraq would be insane..."
Exactly! you finally understand! the war in Iraq is insane. You've subconsciously admitted it to me, can you come straight out and admit it to yourself?
I, for one, believe that supporting the establishment of a free and democratic form of government in Iraq is a win/win proposition - both for the masses of Iraqi citizens who desire freedom, and for the US lead war on terrorism.


I believe we should be building concensus/resolve to weed out these terror regime's instead of bickering/arguing amongst ourselves about who did what to whom (or whose report is more reliable). Weigh the pro's/con's of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the balance of time and honestly ask yourself if this is not a war worth fighting (hopefully, you can hear the voices of the multitudes of Iraqi citizens who sought to express opinions contrary to that of Saddam and paid with their lives).
Liberals and moderates have been trying to build a consensus since the war began. Bush is the one who wants to do things his way and only his way.As for The multitudes or Iraqis citizens who were oppressed by Saddam, we all agree he was bad, the real issue was how to deal with him without creating new conflicts. Which is exactly what this administration has done. We have more terrorists, not less. People are more willing to side with terrorists then with us in Iraq.

"I am openly considering alternative points of view and reserve the right to change my mind if/when I am presenting with overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
You're presented with contrary evidence. Will you embrace it?
D.

 
At 2:07 PM, Blogger D. said...

"What do the terrorists have to learn from this experience, starting from 9/11 to now? If you're a fascism fighter, what do you say to Bin Laden about his approach?"

Nothing. put a bullet in his head and leave him there. Unfortunately, we are now creating more sympathizers then we can kill. I agree that Bin Laden is fascist in his goals, but the vast majority of sympathizers, (make no mistake, that's who's supporting/protecting him.) don't want the return of a muslim state like he talks about.

"Next. Our foreign policy or whatever particular motive aside: We all know and agree that Al-Queda cannot take over the U.S. So what is it they expect? What is a reasonable method of change for them by this approach? They can divide us politically instead of dealing with them in a cohesive manner, ultimately put pressure on the government through their assigns (you), and do we allow this to work as a method of change in this millenium? "
The method of change for them is to weaken us. Death by a thousand scratches....They continue to plot, plan send out videos and keep us thinking about a future attack while we spend 1 bill a day in Iraq eventually driving us into the poor house. Remember, they only have to get through once to create a devastating attack. We have to use all our resources to track them down across the globe. It taxes our resources.
"Is our behavior the only aspect under scrutiny? Are we not also entitled to an effect as an answer to a cause? And what are our differing messages to them contrasting conservatives to liberals?"
Ah, here's the real issue. What are your real goals here?? You seem to be alluding to a cause but aren't specifying what it is. Do you want to maintain an empire and force all muslims to fidelity to the west? do you want their oil? Do you want their markets to sell them goods? Make no mistake about it we are using military force to coerce the muslims to our side. All stick, no carrot.
As for our political systems messages to the terrorists it's nil. It doesn't matter which party is in power our foreign policy has been fairly consistent for the past 30 years in regards to the middle-east. If you're trying to insinuate that they take heart in our bickering and see the liberals as a weak link for them to exploit, you've missed the point of this war.
Our dissent is what makes us powerful. We can openly display displeasure with our leaders and the gov't continues; it doesn't collapse. Just look at the great depression; we had 25% unemployment. Communists were gaining support and ran a candidate for president who got 1 mill votes in 1932. You had bread lines, starvation and a drought. But through the democratic process, we changed our gov't to address our concerns. The USA Communist party was receiving direct funding from the Soviet Union and they had far more resources then Al Qaeda. But because of our openess people traveled to the USSR and read about the Soviet system and didn't like it. Our free press showed the loss of freedoms, the oppressiveness of their system. This helped (not the only thing that helped) turn public opinion into finding a better way to run our society/gov't; not what we had in the 1920's but not Socialism either.
Bin Laden knows this, that's why they are attacking us in cells, not directly. Make no mistake, this is a political move. They can't influence us by opinion so they use terrorism. Unfortunately, it's working b/c we haven't taken a long-term approach to dealing with the threat.

 
At 2:57 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

THAT'S IT!! You're so close now the tension is almost unbearable. Just have to put it together now.

When I refer to a cause, I'm referring to 9/11. You would track that back to a cause of our foreign policy. This is important! Our foreign policy is NOT unnacceptable to the governments that we deal with. HOWEVER, the governments there are not accountable to the PEOPLE there, and therefore it can be argued that our foreign policy is unpopular or unfavorable to their people, which we cannot deal with directly. SO, the long term goal and plan is breaking THAT barrier. DEMOCRACY in the middle east! This oil thing is indeed a wasteful diversion. THERE WON'T BE ANY. This is why this MUST be done. If you blindfolded yourself and pointed to the middle of the middle east, your finger lands on Iraq. It's not what we stand to gain from Iraq to this end of installing democracy so much as stemming from the fact that the sanctions made them worthless to us and the rest of the region, coupled with being run by an unpopular asshole, coupled with the resolutions, the war treaties, the posturing of threats.

If our power is the dissent, then dissent will also make them powerful, will empower the people, and can not be construed as ANYTHING other than a good thing. So this all IS in their best interest. America and Europe is the reality of this world. For all our bickering we are on the same program with respect to the economic future of the world. The middle East MUST become part of this regardless of how you view the totatility of it. They can continue to preserve their culture and religion to the extent that it doesn't become mutually exclusive of our combined existence. This is the vision of the Republicans, and Bush is just an agent in the forefront of it.

If Bin Laden deserves a bullet, then he is doing a tremendous disservice to all that stems from him and all who follow likewise deserve the same fate. Iraq is a catalyst of truth. It forces those on the fence to make a decision. I can't imagine a better plan than to attract them all to a central location like this has.

All of my people that continue to try to link Iraq to 9/11 do me a disservice, as Moore does to you. That is a distraction that was part of the Dem's campaign and some of ours have come to believe they need to support that in order to support the party. Iraq IS completely separate and its goals differ entirely from the general war on terror, but if successful will lend itself to the overall remedy in a very germaine manner.

 
At 3:36 PM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

While I openly admit that my opinions are my own (based upon my experience/education), you continue to sight your opinion based solely upon one politically motivated document.

While you study that document, I suggest you also study the documented mass graves that have been (and probably will continue to be) found in Iraq. Study the actions of Saddam Hussein and his sons (and their henchmen) and declare to yourself whether or not you believe Saddam ruled the masses through terror and religion. Ask yourself, had you been born into that country on Saddam's watch - would you dare to dream for a day of freedom, or submit to the oppression out of fear.

Please do not use my comments as anti-muslim - on the contrary, I know and love many good muslim's and have immense respect for any religious organization that stays out of politics and focuses on mankind's relationship with a higher power.

There are enough "extremists" to go around in all cultures and religions. However, when certain extremists use religion to manipulate others in the name of "god", I take exception.

I agree to disagree with you on the subject of Iraq. Let's look for common ground as decent human beings who hope and pray for not only our own freedoms, but also the freedoms of those less fortunate.

As far as China, our military is already stretched too thin. We cannot bite off more than we can chew. How does one eat an elephant?..................one bite at a time.

Happy Thanksgiving to All!

 
At 3:47 PM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

Ask yourself if the world will be a better place if/when Iraq becomes a free and independent democratic form of government. If you can answer yes, support our troops. Whether you can say yes or not, support our troops - and keep them in your prayers.

FYI - perhaps other countries are beginning to support the effort to establish democracy in Iraq:

New York Times
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
France Says Time to Help Iraq End Violence
By REUTERS
SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) - France told an international conference on Iraq
Tuesday it was time to put aside differences over the U.S.-led invasion and help the country put
an end to violence.
``We all know what positions our different countries held in the period that led to the current
situation developing. But today we must turn to the future. France, and Europe, are ready to do
so,'' French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said.
``We have a collective duty to put an end to instability in Iraq,'' he said in a speech prepared for
delivery at the conference in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. An official English
translation was obtained by Reuters.

 
At 3:49 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

They don't care how bad Hussein was. They can somehow concience looking away and absorbing themselves in this illusion of world peace that apparently exists naturally outside of everything the U.S. does. Then they'll say of course well what about this place and that place and the other place? All of which they don't want us doing anything about either and the names would just be taped over Iraq on the signs they've already made to protest that too. Then while stating they wouldn't have done it at all want to reserve the right to say they would have done everything differently if they did. It's like John Kerry...I wouldn't have attacked the Indians at all... but If I were Custer I would have taken 10 times the troops and smashed them all.

 
At 5:00 PM, Blogger D. said...

"Our foreign policy is NOT unnacceptable to the governments that we deal with. HOWEVER, the governments there are not accountable to the PEOPLE there, and therefore it can be argued that our foreign policy is unpopular or unfavorable to their people, which we cannot deal with directly. SO, the long term goal and plan is breaking THAT barrier. DEMOCRACY in the middle east!"
You seem to be missing the point. Our foreign policy is unpopular because we support these gov't. The reason why we support these gov't is b/c we don't trust the muslim people to adhere to our policy goals of a jewish state. Many muslims want to see a return to Palestine and an end to Israel. This is why we support dictatorships that will keep these forces in check.

"It forces those on the fence to make a decision. I can't imagine a better plan than to attract them all to a central location like this has."
You're still confusing Bin Laden with Iraq. Just b/c there are terrorists in Iraq doesn't mean they are pro Bin Laden. Some are Pro Saddam, some are Shiites
muslims some are turkomens. And just b/c there are terrorist attacks in Iraq, doesn't mean there will NOT be attacks here. They can do both.

"All of my people that continue to try to link Iraq to 9/11 do me a disservice...Iraq IS completely separate and its goals differ entirely from the general war on terror, but if successful will lend itself to the overall remedy in a very germaine manner."
Bush and Cheney continue to say that Iraq and 9/11 are linked. They say it's part of the larger war on terror. They do this b/c they want to scare people into supporting this war which they were planning from the day he was elected. John O'Neil, his treasury sec., says so in his book.


"I openly admit that my opinions are my own (based upon my experience/education), you continue to sight your opinion based solely upon one politically motivated document."
Jesus, I feel like a broken record. It's not my opinion that Iraq had nothing to do with supporting terrorism or breeding terrorists; It was the 9/11 commission. And they were a bipartisan committee with an equal number of democrats and republicans and by the way, was commissioned by President Bush.

"Study the actions of Saddam Hussein and his sons (and their henchmen) and declare to yourself whether or not you believe Saddam ruled the masses through terror and religion. Ask yourself, had you been born into that country on Saddam's watch - would you dare to dream for a day of freedom, or submit to the oppression out of fear."
Saddam's atrocities were never the issue. Again, as i've said in previous posts, Going to war in Iraq gets rid of Saddam but creates more complex problems. also, Saddam was a SOCIALIST, not a religious ruler. The Ba'ath party is a socialist arab nationalist party and there is still a Ba'ath party in Syria today.

"As far as China, our military is already stretched too thin. We cannot bite off more than we can chew. How does one eat an elephant?..................one bite at a time."
You missed my point. We don't want to attack China; China is our trading ally. We support China's gov't by openly trading and doing business there. China is the biggest communist state in the world and our foreign policy towards China is not to change their gov't but to enrich it. These contradictions are what I was trying to point out to you. We are not interested in spreading democracy. Our economic survival depends on stable gov't so we turn a blind eye to dictatorships that torture and kill their citizens. We can't claim to be spreading democracy in the middle east when we support dictatorships there too. We don't have credibility with the muslim people which is why they oppose our foreign policies.

 
At 5:25 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Well I think we were closer to a resolution in the last round, but without the U.S. and its partners in capitalism and production, the one and only thing that has brought any of them any wealth at all would just have been sticky black stuff that contributed to why nothing seems to want to grow there. After its gone, we won't have any interest there whatsoever, so if they want to give up everything they've bought and come to rely on and go back to an African tribal existence, that will be their opportunity. I still think we're giving them the best chance at world participation as an aside to the hundreds of other supportive reasons I've given.

We have no credibility because they have no free press. Perception is reality.

 
At 5:56 PM, Blogger D. said...

"After its gone, we won't have any interest there whatsoever, so if they want to give up everything they've bought and come to rely on and go back to an African tribal existence,"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq was the site of Sumaria, the world's oldest civilization. They have a well educated population; full of scientists. doctors, engineers, etc. They'll survive without us. They've been doin it for over 5000 years.

"We have no credibility because they have no free press. Perception is reality."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really sure what this means. They have Al Jazeera, in the United Arab Emierate and they broadcast around the arab world. They are very anti-U.S. but they are free to report anything they want; and they are still more balanced then Fox News (from what I've heard, I haven't seen it). Iraqis have satellite t.v.'s so they can receive these broadcasts and they also have web access even during Saddam's reign so they were well informed.
As far as perception is reality goes. This is what I've been saying to you guys all along. They perceive our policies are anti-arab, and pro-Israel. They feel like we support dictatorships in their country, they think we only are there for their oil. These perceptions, whether true or not, helps to drive the terrorist attacks against us.
As far as I know, there hasn't been one terrorist, suicide or otherwise, who was an Iraqi. Sorry to stick holes in your dogma but Iraq wasn't a terrorist zone until we invaded it.

 
At 8:10 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Yes, they were a regular Atlantis. I think we're all aware of the mesopotamians and everyone's wonderful achievements. Just ask any Aztec. I'm not referring to pity or inferiority, I'm referring to the fallout of oppression, and their place in a new world order as a piece of a high-tech puzzle.

Al-Jazeera, being Anti-American is enough. I'm surprised they even approach the red cross trucks.

 
At 8:34 PM, Blogger D. said...

Yes, they were a regular Atlantis. I think we're all aware of the mesopotamians and everyone's wonderful achievements. Just ask any Aztec. I'm not referring to pity or inferiority, I'm referring to the fallout of oppression, and their place in a new world order as a piece of a high-tech puzzle.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Their place in the puzzle?!? Don't they get to decide that for themselves? That is the idea in a democracy.



Al-Jazeera, being Anti-American is enough. I'm surprised they even approach the red cross trucks.

Yeah, but there free to be anti-american. That's the problem with democracy is that people are free to disagree with you. If they disagree with the U.S. policy on Israel, I guarantee you the troops will march in and Iraq won't be democratic for long.

 
At 8:56 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Now I just think you're trying to be difficult. Yes, their choice, as opposed to the fact that they can't now.

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

and how come you're so "survival of the fittest" when it comes to Israel being outnumbered 1000's to 1? It's hardly inconsistent with even the worst of your impression of our motives. And it's not symmetric warfare we have a hard time with. If there is to be no democracy in Iraq, it will be because the insurgents managed to scare the people enough to stay home.

 
At 8:51 AM, Blogger Carter King said...

In response to Lydia,first off,nobody will be "booting" President Bush from office in 2008-he will leave office,as directed by the constitution,at the end of his term.Second,all the sour grapes whining from you people gets awfully old-grow up.Third,obviously the majority of the electorate chose Bush over Kerry-for many reasons,but basically because most of us-the PRODUCTIVE elements of society-are'nt buying what your side is selling.

 
At 12:35 PM, Blogger CleverCynic said...

Last Word.

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger Teresa said...

I wish I could just take a nap for the next 4 years too. But alas, that is not happening. Hopefully the Republicans will get some sense knocked into them and get some funding going for the No Child Left Behind Act. I may sound uncaring, but that's my biggest concern right now. I know the war in Iraq isn't going to get solved any time soon, but at least that can.

 
At 6:16 PM, Blogger Red Kitten >^.^ said...

No napping allowed! Keep getting out the word so maybe the politically blind will see and the morally righteous will finally become compassionate and do the right thing.

 
At 9:15 AM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

Dialogue – exchanging of ideas to promote understanding between individual points of view.


This requires a certain amount of acceptance and open-mindedness.

I hope we can all learn to accept and open-mindedly consider other points of view without becoming defensive and seeking to undermind what we choose to perceive as a threat to our own opinion.

We are all individuals with our own circumstances, experiences, beliefs, traditions, morals, convictions, intellects, considerations, etc. No individual opinion is any more important than another – it is when we can consider as many individual opinions as possible that we begin to form wisdom within our own individual decision making process.

Thoughtful consideration of other opinions when tempered with our own individual experiences, is our best means of gaining insight.

I seek dialogue and the open exchange of ideas – ultimately, I seek to broaden my own horizons through the thoughtful consideration of as many individual opinions as possible.

To promote and nurture insight & wisdom, I must learn to take a step back from my first reaction to a different opinion, and seek to understand and explore that opinion with an open mind.

There is a quote for which I do not remember the author that goes something like this:

“There is one thing that can keep a person in ever-lasting ignorance. That thing is contempt prior to investigation.”


I hope to experience, as much as humanly possible, honest dialogue. Please join me in my quest.

 
At 8:37 PM, Blogger lelabear said...

The world will not casully stand by and watch the current administration set policies that threaten the very future of our species. We will be stopped, and some of you might soon wish you'd bothered to apologize properly instead of perpetuating the horror that our government has become. Those resisting the war are not spineless, they just have the ability to hear their hearts. I, for one, will welcome their intervention, since we are incapable of stopping this ourselves.

 
At 4:16 AM, Blogger bmac said...

Dear God what have we become? We spend our time arguing over the exact, single reason we should have/have not removed Hussein. I had the unfortunate experience of seeing some of the video shot by British Intelligence of the bodies of villagers gassed by Sadaam. Bodies piled like cordwood, or crammed together in cellars. Dead children in the street. You cannot wash your brain of those images. I don't know if they are available for viewing anywhere, but you can read the equivalent in an article written in the New Yorker at http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1.
The civilized world can not, must not turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by tyrants. President Clinton rightly stepped in and stopped the genocide in Bosnia, Bush in Iraq. We are now in the process of politically paralyzing ourselves while tens of thousands are slaughtered in Sudan, while the Ivory Coast murders innocents. We are not always offered the ability to do what is perfect- just what is best. Removing the Taliban, Sadaam, Milosevic those are worthwhile, if imperfect, goals. Stopping the genocide in Sudan should be a world priority. Instead we argue incessantly over political issues. We cannot stop terrorism, fanaticism and genocide everywhere, but that doesn't mean we should act nowhere. It would be in everyone's best interest if the civilized world would act in concert to achieve those aims, but how many children will we watch murdered waiting for concensus? We waited too long in Bosnia, in Rwanda, in Somalia, in Iraq. In some cases we finally acted and the world is better for it. I urge you to spend a few hours reading up on the atrocities in Iraq, in Darfur, in Bosnia before you condemn actions to stop them. You may attribute evil intent as our reason for interfering in Bosnia, in Iraq, but if the outcome is the ending of genocidal regimes at least let's agree that is good and worthwhile.

 
At 11:16 AM, Blogger D. said...

"The civilized world can not, must not turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by tyrants. President Clinton rightly stepped in and stopped the genocide in Bosnia, Bush in Iraq."
------------------------------------------------------------
Wait just a minute. You cannot say these two political decisions to use force are parallel.
First, Clinton's reason for invading Bosnia was stability to the region not humanitarian. Second, NATO agreed to go into Bosnia with the USA.
Third, we didn't just invade Bosnia and decide to overthrow Milosevic out of the blue, the country was in the midst of a civil war.
Bush's reason for invading Iraq was WMD's not stopping atrocities, as you well know.
You're trying to justify the failed policies of the Bush administration by switching the reasons for going to war. And even if you do believe that the war was justified to end Saddam's atrocities, the reason why most of us our against the war was because it would increase terrorism, and escalate out of control.
The downward spiraling of violence we see now, shows Bush's assumption before the war were wrong.

 
At 1:30 AM, Blogger bmac said...

Sad- tyrants get to murder people to satisfy your jaded politics. Bosnia was not humanitarian? Then why is Milosevic sitting in the docket at the Hague? And Iraqi's were not shooting at British and American aircraft daily. And they didn't use known terrorists to assassinate Kurdish leaders. Well, at least I can stop worrying about Darfur. No Nato, let em die. Sad.

 
At 7:44 AM, Blogger D. said...

You changed the subject. Bush's reason to go in was not humanitarian, he "hyped" the intelligence to say there was a military threat, then when the WMD's didn't show up he claimed humanitarian reasons.
As for Milosevic, again you changed the subject. He's imprisoned for humanitarian reasons but we didn't go into Bosnia to end his ethnic cleansing. We went in because we didn't want the war to spread into other countries and destabilize the region.
This is just a sad attempt to justify Bush's failed policies. As I said before, people weren't against the war because it wasn't popular with the U.N. people were against the war because it creates more problems then it solves. You can't deny that. Terrorism has increased because of the war in Iraq not subsided.

 
At 12:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey i got here searching for sport book affiliate program
Your sites not too bad!

You got good rankings for them keywords sport book affiliate program

Check out my site
sport book affiliate program

 
At 11:58 PM, Blogger Adult Personals said...

Hey i got here searching for affiliate program marketing partnerships
Your sites not too bad!

You got good rankings for them keywords affiliate program marketing partnerships

Check out my site
affiliate program marketing partnerships

 
At 2:15 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Blogs are a blast....So is my niche ecology site. Check it out for yourself niche ecology

 
At 1:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I really like this one. I have a website that talks mostly about earn home money r You should check it out sometime.

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site. Check mine out if you can. free bingo for cash

 
At 11:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a site for you vintage shirtcaulfield, its called Holden Tees. We're a small company and we sell shirts and stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time

-Holden Tees

 
At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

free adult personals ads
free adult personals ads

Find a date at free adult personals ads

 
At 3:49 PM, Blogger job opportunitya said...

Suitable blog, its very good. I liked the site its
from so much I have to visit it again! I surf the web
for blogs like yours in my spare time.
I want you to look for my bad credit plastic surgery financing blog.

 
At 10:04 AM, Blogger delightfully-wonderful said...

Extraordinary blog. Your site was hip and fresh
and we'll visit it again! I love surfing the internet
for blogs.
I hope you had a chance to check out my cash advance with savings account blog.

 
At 9:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Money Making that Works... See This: Scientific Money Making

 
At 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I need to to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoyed every little bit of it.
I have you book marked to check out new things you post…
Also visit my web site : elgg.tronicsis.com

 
At 7:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A varietу оf сlinical ѕіgns, symptoms, and
&#959th&#1077r sequelae may long bеfore it cеll phonе waѕ in Gеna's stomach.

Here is my website ... http://presidentialsmoke.com/index.php?do=/profile-38598/info/

 
At 9:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Τhis monіtoгing apρ cell рhone is named Sprint
Family members Locаtor and іs attаched t&#959 th&#1077 сhаrger and
thе сharger i&#1109 ρlugged into thе wall.


Alsο visit mу weblog mknet360.com

 
At 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is the best time to make some plans for the future and it's time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I desire to suggest you few interesting things or advice. Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article. I want to read more things about it!

My homepage: Louis Vuitton Handbags

 
At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

whoah this blog is great i like studying your articles.
Stay up the great work! You recognize, a lot of people are looking around for this information,
you can aid them greatly.

Here is my web blog Chaussures De Football Pas Cher

 
At 1:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this is among the most significant info for me. And i'm glad reading your article. But want to remark on few general things, The site style is perfect, the articles is really excellent : D. Good job, cheers

My web site: Oakley Sunglasses

 
At 5:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello, i think that i saw you visited my site so i came to “return the favor”.

I am trying to find things to enhance my web site!
I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!

My blog post; Michael Kors Canada

 
At 11:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's remarkable to visit this web site and reading the views of all mates regarding this piece of writing, while I am also keen of getting knowledge.

Here is my web blog :: Abercrombie & Fitch

 
At 7:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi to all, it's genuinely a good for me to visit this website, it contains precious Information.

My webpage ... Cheap Jerseys

 
At 12:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am no longer positive the place you are getting your information, but great
topic. I must spend some time studying more or figuring out more.
Thank you for great information I used to be searching for this information for my mission.


My web blog :: www.tedxyse.com

 
At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I drop a comment whenever I appreciate a article
on a website or if I have something to contribute to the discussion.
It's caused by the fire communicated in the article I read. And after this post "Sorry Everybody!". I was moved enough to post a thought ;) I do have a few questions for you if it's allright.
Is it simply me or does it appear like a few of the
remarks look as if they are written by brain dead individuals?
:-P And, if you are posting on other online sites, I'd like to follow you. Could you make a list every one of your public sites like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

Feel free to surf to my web blog Nike Free 5.0

 
At 8:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is my first time pay a visit at here and i am really pleassant to read all at one
place.

Take a look at my website: www.hokudai-saikyo.com

 
At 10:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for finally talking about > "Sorry Everybody!" < Liked it!

Feel free to surf to my web blog: Air
Max

 
At 10:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Currently it appears like Movable Type is the preferred blogging
platform out there right now. (from what I've read) Is that what you're using on your blog?


Stop by my blog post Solde Air Jordan

 
At 5:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you have a spam issue on this website; I also am a blogger, and
I was curious about your situation; many of us have created some nice
methods and we are looking to trade methods with other folks, please
shoot me an e-mail if interested.

Here is my web blog :: Learn More Here

 
At 1:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, fantastic blog structure! How lengthy have you
ever been running a blog for? you make blogging look easy.
The full glance of your site is magnificent, as
smartly as the content material!

my web-site; evllabs.com

 
At 11:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a shame you don't have a donate button! I'd definitely donate to this excellent blog! I guess for now i'll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.
I look forward to new updates and will talk about this blog with my Facebook group.
Talk soon!

Feel free to visit my webpage - Tory Burch Flats

 
At 8:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

However, these long distant dating events can be excessively difficult.
If this comes to following cesspools, a agency can
handle the specific clean-up.

Feel free to visit my web page; tanie noclegi zakopane

 
At 7:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you submit your balance functions and login, you may
go as a response to each history.

My site; okna katowice

 
At 9:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greate post. Keep posting such kind of information on your page.

Im really impressed by your blog.
Hey there, You have done an excellent job. I'll definitely digg it and in my opinion recommend to my friends. I am sure they'll
be benefited from this site.

Have a look at my homepage: Cheap Jerseys

 
At 8:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can watching some of specific finest rubber farms on backwater
travels around Kerala. Reservations can be generated by calling 310-265-2836.


Here is my site ... grzejniki dekoracyjne

 
At 11:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Other times, distinct supplements like aminoacid powder and rr 3
pills are suggested. Your own 16-week training program begins August 2nd.


Also visit my page szkolenia bhp

 
At 4:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If somebody still sell four or more the particular
next time increase the price as soon as.

Also visit my web-site :: gsa search engine ranker

 
At 7:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Towards the beginning of American footbal
games, I found that I could and never watch all some of the play offs from the family TV.


Feel free to visit my blog post :: oghao.com.pl ()

 
At 8:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Either way, the development lead to assist
you to iron work and, eventually, the proven to
steel. Outdoor garden sheds can be made with wood, bricks, or metal.


Look into my blog post - www.kulinarnasztuka.pl (kulinarnasztuka.pl)

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ethnical functions can wind up a great place to meet people.

In some cases, a investigation of the property may determine the cesspit's location.

My website - http://www.athiss.com.pl/

 
At 5:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is certainly a great deal to find out about this issue.
I really like all of the points you have made.


Visit my site: Kevin Durant Shoes 2013

 
At 8:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Important stools are easier provided they will be not hard.
These methods can be also useful for the purpose of the relaxation linked
with the mind and the body.

my website: pozycjonowanie

 

Post a Comment

<< Home