Peter

You are absolutely correct. I should have mentioned that. Travis is a hard runner, but he does do some things that make you wonder.

You are dead wrong. Watch the play again. He made a lame attempt to block the guy who ended up sacking Drew. Travis was face down staring at the turf.

1. Given the abilities of our personnel, I liked the ball control approach and the fact that we were able to eat up the clock. It looked like we were going to be able to run out the clock or score at the end of the game but for . . . 2. Villarrial's holding penalty was a killer. I will have to watch the game again to see if it was justified. It it was, the penalty had a huge effect on the outcome of the game. The O was clicking and Willis was starting to get in a groove. Without that holding call, I dare say that the final score would have been 17 - 6. 3. We still have problems with the o-line. Travis and Willis did not have too much room to run. The problems with the o-line explains why we do not try to stretch the defense with long passes at this point. Until we can consistently provide time for Drew, look forward to the short passing game. Mike Williams has a long way to go. He will forever be compared to Bryant McKinnie. At this point, the comparison is unfavorable for Big Mike. We made a huge investment in a guy who so far is an average right tackle. Big Mike is a right tackle who, at this point, is not able to handle quick DE's. I still think he has a lot of potential, which this staff should be able to get out of him. We picked him way too high though. I do have to give credit to Big Mike, Villarrial, and especially Teague on Willis' screen however. I have to admit Teague made a great block and showed some athleticism on the play. 4. Travis Henry still does not know how to pass block. He has not improved since his rookie year. His deficiencies in this area are highlighted by the fact that Thurman was great at pass blocking. If you want to see what I am talking about, take a look at what he did on that play designed for Shelton. In future games, also take the time to watch what he does. 5. The defense played great until the end. That goes without saying. 6. Jimmy Smith pushed Clements in the back on that long pass play at the end of the game. He should have been flagged. You know that they would have flagged Clements if he had done that. Nevertheless, Clements should have broken up the pass. If he had, the game would have been over at that point. 7. Lindell . . . what can you say what has not been said already. We needed those 3 points. 8. McGee, I like your enthusiasm and ability, but please learn when to stay in the end zone. 9. Don Criqui needs to retire or do a show where he just reads lines. It is sad. He used to be great several years ago. 10. I would like to see more of Travis and Willis in the same backfield. 11. Where did the Bills misplace Lee Evans? He was great recovering that fumble, but I hope that he is going to do more to justify our investment in him. 12. The fans at the stadium were great (from what I could see and hear on TV). 13. What was Fletcher thinking? Was that on purpose so that the D would have more time to get set with the right players or did he just go nuts? 14. Overall, I like the coaching staff. I am still optimistic about the team, but yesterday's game showed that there is still a world of difference between us and the Patriots.

Yes, Travis Henry. Travis gave up on his block and his guy ended up sacking Drew. Since Travis has been in the league, he has been a horrible pass blocker. Thurman, on the other hand, was fantaxtic at pass blocking. I would have thought that Travis would have gotten the hang of it by now.

Congratulations. I had high hopes for us (the U.S.), but we could not even get to the finals. Oh well. Next time.

You got to be kidding. Canada sent troops to Afghanistan to help us out in the real war against the people that were responsible for 9/11. Canadians died in both 9/11 and in Afghanistan. In fact, we even mistakenly bombed a Canadian base in Afghanistan killing many people.

Three years ago, this country was attacked by Al Qaeda (not Iraq). A few days later, Bush went to Ground Zero. In the finest moment of his presidency, he said: "I can hear you. The rest of the world can hear you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." At that moment, I had the highest hopes and confidence in George W. Bush. The entire world was rallying around us. Moreover, with all of the goodwill that the US, and by extension this administration, had at that moment (around the world and in the country), there was so much that we could accomplish both overseas and at home. It was a tremendous moment in history. Although we were all in mourning, we rallied around each other and our government with a purpose -- which, at least in part was, in the words of George Bush was that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." In my view, we squandered the opportunity that we had in order to cater to the pre-9/11 goals of the neocons in the administration who used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans for their own purposes. The neocons should have sold this war on its own merits and been up front with the reasons as well as the tremendous price that we have asked over 1,000 Americans and their families to pay as well as the billions of dollars that we all will have to pay. I realize that the neocons and unilateralists on this board disagree. That is your right. That is what makes this country great. We can disagree and hopefully be civil to one another at the same time. In the end, my high hopes (as both a citizen and a Republican) for this administration and the President have nearly evaporated. I just hope that, if GWB wins in November, that he will jettison the neocons and do more to fulfill the promise that all of us had for him (Democrats and Republicans) on that day in September nearly three years ago when it seemed that we could all unite around him and accomplish so much together. Just my two cents.

Happy birthday.

I was at the game last night. As a Hurricane fan, it was pretty depressing until the end when it became and "instant classic." The Orange Bowl was crazy. Both defenses are amazing - especially UM's which lost FOUR first round picks. It is unbelievable how they are able to re-load each year.. As for Brock Berlin, he is the QB and gets most of the blame. Coming out of high school, he was rated the best or second best QB. He has lots of physical tools, but got beaten out by Grossman at UF because Grossman was able to grasp Spurrier's offense. He transferred to Miami. He had a difficult time in a lot of games year last year. As the QB, he is the whipping boy for a lot of people -- just as DB is for a lot of people here. My view is that he is a pretty good QB but not as good as his reputation out of high school. His problems occur when the O line does not give him much protection -- which is a pretty common problem with QBs. Last night, the O line did not give him much time and did not open up many holes for the RBs. Moreover, Berlin operates much better in the shotgun (e.g., at the end of the game last night and the second half of the Gator game last year). Coker, however, does not like to use the shotgun that much.

The funny thing is that these documents also claim that Saddam was trying to get yellow cake from Africa.

Wishful thinking.

You mean like Jim Kelly or Bernie Kosar or Vinnie Testaverde or . . . . Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Bush has united the world against us I know that most of you are unilateralists, but Bush 43 has no idea how to build a real coalition compared to Bush 41. Further, if we are going to fight a War on Terror, we really are going to need as many allies around the world as we can get. It would be interesting to compare these numbers with the numbers in the aftermath of 9/11.

When I saw the title of your post, "By God I am getting pumped!," I thought that perhaps something else was happening to you right now. In any event, I am excited as well.

This campaigns of both candidates are going to be getting pretty ugly. Unfortunately, negative campaigns work (e.g., swift boats). We are going to be hearing a lot of crap from both campaigns for the next 50+ plus days.

You don't know me so I will not take it as an insult. I am a card carrying Republican who became a Republican in college because of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. If you do not believe me and are willing to donate some money to a charity of my choice, I can e-mail you a copy of my voter registration card. Being a conservative, however, does not mean that I have to buy into the neoconservative's vision of the world. As you may know, there is a huge debate going on in this country between paleo and neo conservatives. Take a look at Pat Buchanen's recent book. I really believe that the Bush residency has been coopted by the neoconservative agenda. He did not run on this, but has adopted it without question. While I agree with lowering taxes, I have problems with spending $3 billion on promoting marriage in this country just to placate the certain elements of the party for example. Bush inherited a huge surplus. We now have a huge deficit in part because of Iraq. I would have preferred if that money had been spent more wisely (if we were going to spend it all). Further, I wish that Bush 43 had the diplomatic skills of his father who built a real coalition and, as a result, we only had to pay 10% of the cost of the first Gulf War rather than practically all of the costs of this war. These are my opinions. I also believe that the Iraq war has the potential of undermining the domestic agenda that us supply side conservatives like about this presidency so far. Just my two cents.

As a Reagan Republican, I am not happy with Bush. I had high hopes for him during the first year of his presidency. I was all for the war in Afghanistan, but have huge problems with the war in Iraq (the way we went about it as well as the timing of it and the fact that there was no imminent necessity for it). I also have problems with the fact that we have squandered all of the goodwill we had throughout the world after 9/11. I also have problems with the huge deficit we have because of the spending that both parties are responsible for as well as the billions of dollars that we are going to have to spend on Iraq. I have this feeling that, if Bush is re-elected, Iraq is just the beginning if he chooses to continue to let the neocons dominate our foreign policy. Don't be surprised if we invade Syria and/or Iran next. They are both on the neocon's hit list. I have problems with Kerry as well. His problems have been on display for much of the past month. The guy still cannot clearly articulate what he would have done and what he would do. What I do in the election will be determined by the debates and what happens in the next 50+ days. It would take a miracle for me to vote for Bush. If it looked like he would get rid of some of the chickenhawks in the Pentagon (e.g., the neocons), I could be brought around. Otherwise, it is a hobson's choice of not voting or voting for ABB.

For what it is worth, I am a Reagan Republican and am not a big fan of Clinton.

Yep.

We apparently disagree on priorities. I also do not think that Getting Saddam and invading Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 -- rather 9/11 was a pretext. The neocons had Saddam and Iraq in their crosshairs long before 9/11. Further, if Rumsfeld had listened to the professional military and used more troops in Iraq, I believe that we would have had a much easier time winning the peace after the "major combat" had ceased. That is one of the reasons why this war should have waited if the Pentagon leadership was not able or willing to put enough boots on the ground as the professional military wanted. There is no question in my mind that Iraq was a distraction to the the real war on terror and has probably bread more terrorists than it has killed. Saddam was a thug and the world is a better place without him. Yet, OBL and Al Qaeda are and were much greater threats to us. Saddam, on the other hand, posed no threat to us -- even according to Colin Powell prior to 9/11. It was an optional war that nothing to do with 9/11 and very little to do with WMD. Getting rid of Saddam is good, but at what cost. Because we had a real coalition after the first Gulf war, we paid less than 10% of the cost. Because we went about this optional war all wrong, we are stuck paying the hundreds of billions of dollars that this will cost.

Tommy Franks answered your question when he spoke with Sen. Bob Graham. Resources were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq It is pretty simple stuff. Look at the resources (men and money) we have spent on Iraq and look at the resources we have spent on Afghanistan etc. It is obvious that this Administration thought that it was more important to get Saddam and the book of cards than OBL and the rest of Al Qaeda etc. Also, our resources are stretched way too thin in Iraq and around the world -- just ask the reserve guys and others that are over there for much longer than they thought. If you don't believe that Saddam and Iraq were higher priorities for this administration than OBL, Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan, you are terribly naive or you are choosing to ignore reality. Follow the money . . . . Ask yourself this. If we had devoted as much (or even a fraction) of our resources (men, equipment, money, etc.) on going after OBL and Al Qaeda as we have on Iraq, would we be farther along in eradicating OBL, Zayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda, Mullah Omar, and the Taliban? You and others apparently agree with this administration's view that Saddam and Iraq were higher priorities. That is fine except that these goals had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Of course there is. Thanks for the softball. Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars that we have and will spend on Iraq that could be spent on destroying Al Qaeda and making the homeland (ports, airplanes, borders etc.) safer. Or, how about the 150,000 troops sent over to Iraq. I wish we had at least 10% of that number during the past (almost) three years in Afganistan and/or Pakistan with the mission of destorying OBL and his minions.

Let's fight the war on terrorism, but let's fight it against the people who were responsible for 9/11 instead of diverting resources from that war to topple Saddam to accomplish a goal of the neocons that is unrelated to 9/11. Since we allowed unreliable proxies to go after OBL in the mountains of Tora Bora, we have taken our eye off the ball. If we had devoted as much of our resources to going after Al Qaeda as we have on Iraq and Saddam, I have to believe that we would have been much farther ahead in the real War on Terrorism. I really hope that we get OBL and all of his inner circle. In a few days, it will have been 3 years since 9/11. That is far too long to allow these people to escape what they have coming to them.

70% believed Saddam behind 9/11 -- I wonder where they got that idea? I also would like to get the terrorist "scum" that were responsible for 9/11. They are Al Qaeda and OBL -- not Saddam and the Baath party. The world is a better place without Saddam. One could say that about many dictators around the world. Yet, this was an optional war where we are virtually alone. You and I and our children will be picking up the tab. This will amount to billions and billions of dollars. lIn the first Gulf War, Bush 41 built a real coalition. As a result, we picked up less than 10% of the cost. The administration should have sold this war on its own merits rather than falsely invoking 9/11 and WMD.

From Cheney and Bush. The legal document that the administration prepared in support of the Iraq war specifically cites to 9/11. Cheney still believes Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Also, you should read Bush at War and the other books that have been written about 9/11 as well as some of Wolfowitz's quotes on the subject. Indeed, this Administration had 70% of Americans believing that Saddam was behind 9/11. That was no accident. The memory of 3,000 dead Americans was used to justify pre 9/11 goals of the neocons in this administration. To think otherwise is naive.