Justice

The 'faulty intelligence' excuse dosen't fly, especially considering that there was such flimsy evidence anyway. The Bush Administration intentionally went out of it's way to ignore any CIA briefings or UN weapons reports that contradicted their need to go to war. Any shred of evidence that would prove there were weapons, no matter how ambiguos, were treated as the holy gospel. This is proven where? Honestly, there was little against it. The UN reports said for years that he DID have them. The UN was one of the primary sources used in our intelligence, plus information gathered from foreign intelligence agencies. The idea and the information on Iraq's WMDs was universal. The whole WMD argument is just you guys using hindsight to try and bash the War on Iraq. When the war began, there was no dispute that he had them with anyone, even the dissenters. The entire argument was to either let the inspectors stay or just invade them and get it over with.There was little in the way of "They don't have 'em!" because no one had any real intelligence to indicate as such. We can now look back and see all the warning signs, but before there was no real indicator that any of this stuff was false. It's hindsight bias, plain and simple. Why the hell does this matter anymore since we are there and doing the best we can to make Iraq a democracy? Seriously, even if we came in on bad intell, we are making it up by trying to bring Iraq into the world as the first Arab democracy in the Middle East.

What? The site doesn't really prove anything, it just skirts the issue rather than actually addressing what they said. Attrocities did happen, yes. Thank you for proving that. I never argued that they didn't, though. The problem is, they weren't nearly on the level that Kerry claimed. No one has ever proven so. "The Level of which hasn't been seen since Gengis Kahn" is an overstatement to the max. They did occur, but not nearly to the level that Kerry had said. He even admits that his anger against the system influenced why he said that.

I'll give you the point that we aren't putting as much pressure as we could, but at the moment, do you really think it would be a good idea to invade another dictatorship? While our armed forces could probably deal, I don't think they honestly should have to. And as to Saudi Arabia: We can't feasibly invade there. People bitch about how we are giving a reason for them to commit acts against us, how do you think it would be viewed if we invaded the holiest of all places in Islamic faith? Hell, isn't it against Islamic law to let nonbelievers even ENTER Mecca? The only way we can change SA is to put political and cultural pressure by changing the surrounding Muslim world. Asking us why we don't invade there is just a strawman.

That said, Saddam should be impeached. To all Saddam apologists, what justifications are left for not going through with this war? If going to war to remove a brutal dictator is the reason (which was merely an after thought during the whole OMG WMD HE"S GONNA KILLS ALL!!! fiasco ), then the US have a long list of dictators to remove, including one's that they deal with. Given the situation now, where ten's of thousands of lives have been lost, I wouldn't say Iraqi's are better off now Apparently we are supposed to invade every dictatorship within a 2 year period. I guess that's part of the contract or something. And, to note, that isn't a reason against taking Saddam out of power. It's a nice diversion, but give us an explanation why Saddam should have stayed in power.

Your kidding, right? This both campaigns were just smear campaigns against one another. Jesus, let's just ignore F9/11 and all the bullshit that tried to pass off as facts. I'd say the SBVT attacked an excellent spot where Kerry was weak: His after-war actions in the US. The book was false, yes. But the accusations made on the commercials were just fine: He deserved to be cooked on the Winter Soldier testimony and throwing his medals away. It was a testament to how weak he really was when he couldn't even properly explain his throwing away of his medals. Jeez.

? The book might have been complete crap, but to be honest, all the commercials were about his actions as Winter Soldier and throwing his metals away, right? I thought everyone declared those okay, since it wasn't his service record. Perhaps I'm wrong on this one. The commercials had people who weren't even on the same boat as Kerry claiming they "served with him" and knew he was lying when they had no way of knowing. Also, O'Neil the unoffical leader of the SBVT, has had a grudge against Kerry ever since the Nixon days. No... that was the book. Perhaps I forget, but the people who testified on the commercials were just PoWs. The book, though, did have a bunch of shit on that. I'll come out right now and say that the book was full of shit when written. But the commercials, for all the bitching, seemed pretty fairly aimed at his after-service days. And I don't care if he had a grudge, Kerry deserved to be slammed for his post Vietnam days. His lies as Winter Soldier were much worse than anything the SBVT ever put out.

? The book might have been complete crap, but to be honest, all the commercials were about his actions as Winter Soldier and throwing his metals away, right? I thought everyone declared those okay, since it wasn't his service record. Perhaps I'm wrong on this one.

If you remember correctly, I had headphones to listen to the Brandenburg Concertos Fugue gave me. Feel the power of Bach!

God damn internets.

What hindsight bullshit. Iraq at the time was believed by everyone to have weapons, the only thing people argued about was how to deal with that fact, so saying "No weapons" doesn't constitute an argument. We didn't know that Iraq was as weak as it was. Not to demean North Korea as not a threat, but different measures for different countries. Kerry didn't propose invading North Korea. He didn't plan on doing anything besides bilateral talks while we were already talking between China and North Korea. He can't take him to task if he doesn't propose to do jack shit different.

Damn Freudian Slip. Multilateral talks, my bad. Again, how did he take him to task?

You are still expecting 100,000 votes to turn out of nowhere. I just don't see how you can argue that Bush stole the election when he won the popular vote and Ohio by pretty fucking handy margins. Seriously, unless there is adequate proof that, well, there are 100,000 more Kerry votes out there in Ohio than we thought before, well, shut up on Bush stealing the election. This whole thing doesn't seem nearly adequate to hide 100,000 votes. I'm sure the Democrats would have already made this HUGE issue if Bush managed to 'steal' that many votes, because frankly it doesn't seem to me like this year's Democrat would give up when they had information in Ohio saying they won. Edit: Yes, the only campaign worker they credit in that piece is one of Cobb's (Green Parties) Campaign Managers. Wow, that's an unbiased source, isn't it?

Huh? Bush sort of pointed out we were in talks multilateral talks with NK already, didn't he? Didn't Kerry only suggest we go to bilateral talks? What the fuck are you talking about "Taking to task"?

Wow, Novak was listenable back then. And holy shit, the WashTimes wasn't just Paper Fox News back in the mid 80s, but their columnist looked like an extremely stereotypical nerd. And hey, they didn't seat guests according to their political affiliation back then. Isn't it sad how far politics have degenerated since then?

Considering Bush once had one of the highest approval ratings of all time, the answer is yes. Ok please ignore the post 9/11 approval rating when no one wanted to question anything, and basically walking around the streets of NY was good enough. And his worst ratings are still better than Clinton's worst. He was averaging around 60-70 throughout most of 2003, long after the 9/11 phase you describe wore off. Clinton was mid-low 40s for a while, I believe.

This truly does baffle the mind. The Dems have gotten schooled in the last two elections. They need to move on to something new, whether it be Dean or Edwards or SOMEONE. They honestly need to get a new strategy going.

I like this format a lot. More surprise to it. Perhaps maybe announcing an ME or something, but still it's a lot cooler.

*Laughs* He renigged, that's all. The idea of a Global test without sacrificing some of our own power to act in self defense is paradoxical: Either the global test means nothing and we aren't beheld to it, or it does, and we give up part of our power to defend ourselves to the public opinion of other countries. It's his way of double-speaking and trying to straddle an issue. Seriously, is it that hard to see through?

I tend to think it was just a figure of speech.

You can honestly say that while on the internet? On the internet, any moron can say anything he or she wants. When you get on TV and radio, you expect a certain amount of character, ability, and honesty from the person on the broacasting end. Political talk radio and TV shows nowadays seem to be lacking all three. I guess I value my ears more over my eyes. Listening to something far irrates me more than reading, and on the internet there are ways to respond. Frankly, out of all the mediums, talk radio is probably the one I pay the least attention to. But your points are well enough made.

The first step to winning is turning Rush off and turning Stewart on. There, your method of victory. From a guy who rarely, if ever, listens to talk radio. Lord knows it's the least regulated and consistantly stupid of all the mediums, on both sides of the coin.

Why should I be outraged? This is like getting a free outside consultant for the Border Patrol. Seriously, if there's anything they can learn from that book to get into the US better, we'll be able to see it as well. If they identify a weakspot that we didn't know about before, well plug that thing up because we can fix it. Frankly, I don't see a problem with it. Lord knows much of that stuff is probably common sense stuff.

Ahahaha... The first thread is a Frank Zappa Mask one! Ah, the classics.

*Laughs* *Looks again* *Laughs HARDER* They arguably exterminated the same amount of people when it comes down to it. The deciding factor, though, is that Hitler started a war in Europe that took millions of lives. Over half the 50 Million dead are Russian, committed to a theatre of war HE started. Doesn't the idea of Stalin being evil directly contradict the idea of Hitler NOT being evil? They essentially did all the same things, and all for the same cause. If anything, one could perhaps interpret Stalin as being the better of the two: He brought a country from farming into an Industrial powerhouse in a matter of a decade. It was this that saved Russia and brought it around to being the world power it is today. He basically modernized his country. Hitler took a modern country and gave it will. His 'accomplishments' don't compare to what Stalin did, and it's all wiped off the map anyways because he left Germany in worse condition than it was when he got it. It was HIS fault that Germany was split the way it was for so many decades. When it comes down to it, if Stalin was evil, so was Hitler. Hitler was far, far stupider with his evil, though. Oh God, what a load. Hitler was a notorious strategic micromanger (See: Stalingrad, the Battle of Britain, and the Battle of the Bulge): He loved to be in control and set the agenda wherever he could, which is one of the main reasons why Germany lost the war. To think that he wouldn't know about this is utterly absurd and arguably 'willingfully blind'. One wonder what 'literature' you like to read, and frankly I'd LOVE to have proof on the whole Madagascar thing. I've never once heard of that before and honestly sounds like a complete crock. Whether or not the 'ideas' were there before, he carried them out, and Himmler with his blessing. Himmler could not have diverted the resources he did without Hitler's explicit approval. Fuck, he didn't need to be at the committee meeting when he was the one who had already set the fucking agenda. You are a massive hypocrit. If Stalin is evil, then Hitler certainly is.

Ban freshmen. This year at my college, we've had NO cases of Alcohol poisoning at any frat on campus. We've had a record 11 involving freshmen (That was back in early November, and this is a college of around 1700 people). The frats at my college tend to be a LOT better with alcohol because they have something they lose if they get caught drinking (The house). I find freshmen are far dumber with alcohol than any frat boy could ever be. Ban Freshmen.