Arondale

I think Clinton didn't act on the intelligence in the same way simply because 9/11 had not happened. Unfortunately, I think it took 9/11 for everyone to realize how serious this war on terror was. After all, we had been attacked before, but nothing to the extent of 9/11. There is speculation (and speeches to back it up) that Clinton may have been able to take custody of Bin Laden, but he didn't. Sorry, I wasn't necessarily referring to you as someone who called GW stupid, just in general. I'll never be one to proclaim GW as a genius, but he is not the moron people portray him to be. I know so many people (not necessarily referring to this board) that think he is stupid based solely on the fact that he is not a polished speaker. I just think that is so naive. The thing that bothers me about Kerry is that he has been wrong on several key national security issues in his career. The cold war and the first Gulf war are the most glaring. He has also voted to cut intelligence and military spending. If he and others think this is the wrong war, then he was wrong just the same as GW. Recent comments of his also worry me. His mention of a "global test" at the first debate. His answer to whether this war is worthy of "it depends on the outcome". I can find a lot at fault with GW, but Kerry as a president scares me even more. I think the American public holds that same sentiment. I still believe that if the democrats had picked a better candidate, there is no way GW would have a chance at being re-elected. I don't like him, but I think Dean would be ahead of GW right now if he had been the Democratic candidate simply because he is consistent and has always been against the war.

I just don't agree that you can put the blame all on GW for this news. The reality is our original rationale, the intial reason for even considering war in Iraq was not simply the fact that we thought they had WMD's. The UN just put forth their 17th or 18th resolution on Iraq (some ridiculous number) in which it was agreed that if Iraq did not comply, they would face consequences. When Iraq did not comply, here is what GW was faced with: 1) Intelligence and history indicating Saddam had WMD's. It would be one thing if only the US believed in the WMD's, but in reality, most of the world agreed. We received intelligence from several other countries that supported our own intelligence. I find it hard to believe some of these reports coming out now - we know Saddam had WMD's in the past. We know many of them are now unaccounted for. How is it possible that every intelligence agency prior to the war was 100% wrong on this? I don't know what to think about that, I just find it hard to believe. 2) We were working within the war on terror. Our country and our government was forever changed as a result of 9/11. I don't remember GW's exact words, but in his speach at the RNC he basically said that he was faced with a decision to look after the interests and safety of the country or trust a madman. He chose to protect our country. No other country in the UN was looking at this decision within the context of 9/11 as the US was. Do you think Germany, France or Russia would have been more supportive or had a different perspective if 9/11 had happened in their country? No matter how Kerry and Edwards spin it, they supported this war and this intelligence, just as GW did. Kerry says he would have done it differently and built a stronger coalition - but that still means he would have done it! Kerry has also stated, knowing what we know now, he still would have supported the war. Some of these reports are discouraging, although as I said above, I don't believe for one minute that Saddam was no longer a threat or that he did not have WMD intentions. There is definitely blame to spread around, but if you chose to simply blame GW, call him stupid and all that other stuff people are saying, you are just ignoring the facts. Just my opinion.

I agree and you'll see that in my first post. However, I do think it is also taking a chance to mock and criticize Bush's faith. As for your contention that Bush "will do anything and say anything, including take quotes out of context", there is obviously truth to that, but it runs evenly on both sides. You say that "Bush is so desperate to win he'd sell The Man down the river if he had to", but I think all the facts about Bush speak against that. I know people don't like polls, but most polls show that people feel Bush is much more likely to stick to his principles and beliefs as opposed to Kerry. The last poll I heard like that, it had Bush up 60-40 or something. Unfortunately, both candidates still do it all the time, but I think it is incorrect to paint Bush in such a negative light.

Wow, that was intelligent. Prove to me you know what you are talking about and then I'll have an adult conversation with you. My point was and is simply this: you obviously do not understand the scripture referenced - if you did you would understand that it is taken out of context and in no way raises any questions about Bush policies that contradict his faith. This isn't about Bush or Christianity, this is about you maintaining beliefs about something without making any effort to examine the truth. If you still maintain those beliefs after actually doing some research and listening and debating with someone like myself, then I will respect you, until then childish remarks like that only prove my point and affirm to everyone reading this that you don't know what you are talking about.

What "similar points" do you raise? This spoof is trying to mock Bush's faith and the types of ads he runs. Note the word mock (consider the source - Mad Magazine). You can't raise similar points because this ad is a joke. It is pulling quotes from scripture, without reference to their context or their actual meaning, and manipulating them to fit an agenda. Bush manipulates quotes from Kerry and Kerry does the same to Bush. This ad is just exaggerating this by attacking Bush's faith. By doing so it is not just attacking Bush, it is attacking Christianity. If you think they are raising serious points and you think these points are valid then you are misinformed. Do me a favor and look up the scripture they quote (which they conveniently do not reference), do some research and then once you are informed we can have a debate. Until then, the only thing I can say to you is "its not the same issue".

I'll try to answer it. First of all, when you believe that abortion is killing innocent, unborn children (as I and GW do) it is not an issue of staying out of the lives of citizens. It is a matter of life and death. I'm assuming you are pro-choice, in which case you only view it as a matter of individual choice in which you think GW is then trying to apply laws to a woman's right to choose. I won't get into an abortion debate, but as you can see it is a fundamental difference in how each side approaches the matter. In one way you can say that GW is not staying out of the lives of citizens, but in this case he is doing so to give a voice to the citizen that has none - the unborn child. The same goes for gay marriage. If you believe that God created us and that he designed marriage to be solely between man and woman ( as I and GW do), gay marriage is an attack that threatens the foundation of society - the family. It is not something that I or GW can sit back and let happen. Again, you are approaching it from the perspective of choice and individual equality. Finally, limiting malpractice suits is not as much about staying out of the lives of citizens as it is about the entire medical field. If these lawsuits are allowed to run rampant and not somehow controlled, they will continue to harm healthcare. When doctors and hospitals can't stay in business because of extraordinary malpractice insurance, due mostly to these suits, that is not an issue of the individual, but of the good of society. That is my take and my belief, I can't speak for GW though.

Why does Kerry do this? I watched Cheney's speach, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Cheney acknowledged Kerry's service in Vietnam. After doing so, he then simply said that that service does not qualify him for presidency, it is the 20 years in political office and Kerry's policy over those years that indicates his qualifications for office. I do not remember Cheney connecting Kerry's Vietnam service with his ability to be in office. If Kerry wants the Vietnam issues to go away, he needs to stop attacking like this. Attack Zell Miller on this issue, not Cheney, who did attack Kerry, but on the issues, not on his time in Vietnam. I think this proves that Kerry is still holding on desperately to his Vietnam service and hoping that alone will carry him through.

I don't understand what you are you talking about. Where do you get that Allawi is in negotiations half-heartedly or that he doesn't have a plan? Here are some excerpts from your article: "But an Iraqi source said Dr. Allawi had decided to take a harsher approach toward Mr. Sadr and the Mahdi Army, possibly including the use of military force. The source said Dr. Allawi appeared to be motivated by disappointment with the agreement in Najaf, which ended the bloodshed there but left the Mahdi Army intact and made Mr. Sadr stronger than ever, in the eyes of many Iraqis." "Mr. Sadr has promised repeatedly to lay down his weapons and stop fighting, but he has repeatedly broken that promise." "We have seen no evidence that Moktada is prepared to forswear violence and enter the political process, the movement has suffered damage and wants a timeout. We can't figure out why that is in our interest." Based on this article alone, and I have not read any others today, it sounds like Allawi is trying to do what is best for Iraq. Just because he backs out of negotiations that means he doesn't have a plan or is negotiating half-heartedly? It sounds to me that Sadr is trying to manipulate the negotiations and can not be trusted. Didn't you think it was kind of odd that all of a sudden Sadr was willing to stop fighting, saying he wanted to join the political process? Personally, I don't know why they should do anything but arrest this guy.

Sorry, but you are making a rather general opinion of the "view of many Republicans" if you think there isn't a large contingent in favor of legislation limiting gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. I am in favor of all of those as are the majority of Republicans that I know. I completely disagree with you on this assertion. I realize your post is about the RNC, but you have to realize, as I and others have pointed out, that this happens on both sides and it is part of the campaign. These 4 speakers you mentioned help attract the votes of some Republicans that may not agree with GW on everything and may be on the fence. It would be stupid for the RNC to ignore them. Your point about the very liberal speakers is correct, but what did they speak about? Their messages were extremely toned down (except for Sharpton). The entire DNC sought to create a conservative, centralized democratic party. You would not have guessed by watching the DNC that John Kerry is the most liberal senator. Both parties do it. I'm not sure I always like it, but if Arnold, McCain and others motivate some swing votes to GW then in the end its all right with me.

First you say that the speakers "represent the views of many Repbulicans" then you say, in reference to Rebpulicans, that the "convention is not representative of their platform". I'm a little confused. Second, I hope you understand that the conventions also constitute another part of the campaigning. Of course they are going to have Arnold, McCain and others, because they appeal to the independent and swing votes. They are still Republicans, right? They still support GW for president, right? Finally, you only mention 4 speakers. What about the others? What about the DNC? They used the exact same strategy that the RNC is using.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I have never believed that terrorism can be eliminated and I have never believed that GW and his administration thought that either. Maybe their is an assumption by myself, GW and others that when you say "win" the war on terror that does not imply elimination, it implies protecting this country from catastrophic attacks like 9/11 and crippling the general terror network out there. Maybe GW should have clarified that assumption early on, but I was never confused. I don't think anyone is winning the hearts and minds of terrorists either, but you are twisting your own words. You say that "creating conditions to make terrorism less acceptable" means "winning over the hearts and minds of people of other nations - including the Arab world". You did not say it means winning over the hearts and minds of terrorists (unless you are implying the entire Arab world are terrorists!). I think it is vital and rather obvious that to win the war on terror we need other countries to agree to fight the battle as well. You can see through the success of Pakistan, Britain and others that others have done so. We are "creating conditions" where terrorism is less acceptable. GW did not mean, nor has he ever implied, that we will win this war on terror by "winning the hearts and minds of terrorists". Not only did you twist GW's words, you twisted your own words.

Obviously, GW's choice of words wasn't the best, as we have seen from both candidates, but anyone with half a brain can see the intent of the two quotes. I don't see anything in this that shows GW "embracing the idea of changing people's hearts and minds". I don't see anything about these quotes that indicates any change in philosophy about the war on terrorism. I think it is pretty obvious that GW's response to Lauer was simply making the point that we can never eliminate terrorism. I doubt there is anyone out there that believes terrorism will ever be eliminated (including Kerry and Edwards, despite their attempts to attack GW on this) and I find it hard to believe that you think GW ever believed that. And I think it is pretty obvious that GW's speech was implying that while we will never eliminate terrorism, we can certainly lessen their effectiveness and lessen their ability to repeat 9/11 or worse. I think we have done that for the past 3 years, but in no way have we "won" the war on terror, in the traditional sense of the word.

Look at the facts. Have we had another terrorist attack on our country? You and I can't say for sure how many attacks have been prevented, but the fact that there has been zero since 9/11 indicates a continued success on the war on terror. Obviously it would be nice to get OBL, but the facts show that his network has been severely damaged and that dozens of his top aides have been captured. Why is that a joke to you?

Nice try, but you know that is not what he said. He was not simply comparing GW's 4 years as president, he was citing the fact that GW has spent the last 3 years fighting a very effective war against terrorism. He has 3 years of experience leading the war on terrorism. Kerry has 4 months of fighting in a war that occurred 30+ years ago. You can claim that Kerry has more military experience, but by doing so you ignore the experience GW has gained leading the country in war the last 3 years. Does GW have as much Vietnam experience? No. Does GW have more experience in dealing with the war at hand? Yes and that is more important to me. Kerry's Vietnam experience does nothing to prove that he will be an effective president in dealing with the current war on terrorism.

My wife is a labor and delivery nurse, has been for 4 years. All the incidences you speak of would never happen these days, but to claim that is due to lawyers is nonsense. I can tell you that my wife and her coworkers give the best treatment possible (my wife has had 2 babies, one whose heartrate dropped dangerously low during delivery, so I know the overall level of care). Their treatment has nothing to do with lawyers - it has to do with advancing medical technology, better training, etc. My wife and coworkers have the option of getting personal liability insurance, in case they make a mistake, so they are covered from the frivelous lawsuits. My wife and many of her coworkers choose not to do so. They do not because they are driven not out of fear from lawyers, but out of a passion for their job and a knowledge that they are doing their job correctly and at a high level. Pretending that lawyers create the high level of hospital care is a joke. They may help in taking down some of the crooked doctors out there, but they are also putting hundreds of exceptional doctors out of business or forcing them to go to other states. Do you think lawyers are doing their jobs when entire emergency rooms have to shut down because they can no longer stay in business due to extraordinary malpractice insurance? Lawyers aren't the only problem though, it is the ridiculous perception by most of society that whenever something goes wrong, you better sue. My sister-in-law almost died after a c-section to deliver twins. The main reason was because of poor nursing care. Her husband would have been left to raise 5 girls under the age of 7. They could have sued for millions and they should have if they took advice from an attorney. They never sued and never asked for one cent. What is ridiculous is that lawyers encourage people to ask for millions of dollars in damage - ridiculous amounts that are driven from greed alone. Have lawyers created a sense of accountability in healthcare? Yes. Have they been responsible for better training of those in healthcare? No. Have they been responsible for advancing medical technology? No. Are they responsible for abusing their powers, driving good doctors out of business and advancing the idea that greed is acceptable? Yes.

I'm glad some did point it out; I watched two news broadcasts and read several stories on the internet and only one of them mentioned it. But, my point is this, if both parties do it, then why should it even be much of a story. By making it a story, the media immediately brings Bush into question, even if they do mention the democrat side of the story. People hear that a headline story that a Bush lawyer working for the SVBT group and Bush resigned, so they take that and run - many won't read or listen to the whole story. The media knows that. Why didn't they put a positive spin on it, or view it in favor of the Republicans? In other words, they could commend the lawyer for stepping away from a controversial issue - the 527 groups - and ask why the Democrats aren't doing the same. Instead it is geared negatively towards Bush and his lawyer. That was my point. Its not so much a matter of what was in the story, but why the story was even headline news. Same goes for Max Cleeland going to Texas. I could not believe that was the lead story on NBC. That was obviously a publicity ploy and nothing more, yet they give Cleeland center stage to bash Bush and praise Kerry.

I'm sick of this crap about GW being responsible for the SBVT ads. If that is the case, he is no more responsible than Kerry is for the ads comparing Bush to Hitler. Of the funds spent by these 527 groups, almost 90% has been in support of Kerry. They have just as many connections as anyone in the Bush camp does. You have absolutely no credible evidence to back up your claim. You just say whatever the liberal media tells you. If you want proof of how the liberal media coverage is trying to aid Kerry, look at the story yesterday of the Bush lawyer resigning because he also counseled the SBV group. I would say 75% of the coverage I saw made no mention at all that there are lawyers in the exact same position with Kerry. Law firms on the Democratic side are representing both the campaign or party and outside groups running ads in the presidential race. Washington attorney Joe Sandler represents the Democratic National Committee and a group airing anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org. You are a bit too much for me because you offer no factual basis for your attacks, plain and simple.

I saw a bit on NBC news last night investigating the conflicting reports. They interviewed the one SBV, Thurow (sp), who is saying there was no enemy fire in that incident and Kerry was in no danger, nor was Rassman. The piece really didn't come to a conclusion. The SBV was criticized because he got a bronze star for that very same fight, but he says he accepted because he thought it was because he pulled a couple guys out of the water after the mine went off. He supposedly is willing to give it back if a bronze star requires enemy fire. Kerry's testimony was also criticized, since there is a report the day after assessing the condition of the boats that indicates Kerry's boat had no bullet holes or damage, which seems unlikely if it was as fierce a battle as Kerry claims. There was also a doctor who was quoted as saying Kerry's arm only had a bruise/contusion, and it was not bleeding or cut as Kerry claimed. I don't think we will ever find the whole truth. I personally think Kerry should sign the Navy 180 (?) form that gives clearance for all his records to be open to the public, which he has yet to do. After all, Kerry was the one openly criticizing Bush to reveal all his military records. I have yet to hear Bush openly criticize Kerry. I don't think this group is necessarily "unhappy with Kerry's politics". I think a lot of this stems from the hatred many Vietnam veterans have for Kerry and what he did upon returning from his 4 month tour. That, more than politics, is what is fueling these men to go this far. All in all, I just hope the isse either resolves itself or goes away so people can hear about the real issues, not what happened 30 years ago.