MichFan

ABCNews now has an interview with Killian's widow, the text of which is available at Drudge. The widow is going to defend her former husband's memory passionately. Expect every news outlet to want a crack at her to rub it in CBS's face. This is really going to blow up in the Dems face. Forged documents from a dead man that are strongly refuted by his surviving family, and accusations from a top Kerry campaigner whose own daughter says he is lying. This issue is going to extend well into next week and it just makes the Dems look cheap and desparate. At least the Dems did what the experts were telling them they needed to do by framing the issue for this and next week -- good job guys!

At least they know how to abbreviate their state name in Oklahoma .

The most powerful argument is the appearance of "th", which no typewriter at the time did and which Word conveniently does as an automated function.

Mickey, I'm just too much of an optimist to ever believe that freedom can't exist in the Middle East. It can happen and it will happen if America is resolute enough to lead the way. You have done an excellent job detailing the nature of the the challenges we are up against over there. What is overlooked is the power of a father and mother watching their daughter go to school again in Afghanistan. A husband seeing his wife able to enter nursing again. An Iraqi able to go into the streets to protest the American presence there. A Shia able to talk about persecution without fear of retribution. Two societies preparing for respectable elections. Whether they think they like it or not, they are experiencing freedom for the first time in a long time (some ever) and their souls like it. These are the victories that are won on a daily basis that history cannot deny. They may not be able to get away from the headlines in the news, but what they live throughout the day is more important than what they read in the paper.

$2 billion -- what a deal. I'd be willing to spend even $200 billion at this stage of the game . BTW - you may want to edit your reply to Bib, it ended up inside the quote. Bib -- great to see you hanging around again. Excellent post!

Bush has shown that when he is doing well, he has pretty good coat tails. I think a Bush win would be accompanied by a decisive victory in Congress as well. If that didn't sober up the Dems and cause them to start getting work done, the midterms in 2006 would probably serve up 60 Repubs in the Senate.

Here's an overview of the Arab-American community in Dearborn: http://www.commurb.org/features/sgold/detroit.html Here's a section from the article:

Great. When I look at my tax ratio, far too much goes to the federal government and far too little to the local government. America needs to re-evaluate the structure of federal, state, and local governments to ensure things are brought back into balance from a tax and service-provision perspective. While the Feds are squandering billions of dollars through endless pork and inefficiencies, our communities are squabbling over a few mills to fund their local schools.

Why is anybody signing a form 180? Bush has already been through the ringer on his national guard service in the past. It's a non-issue. I don't give a darn about what Kerry did when he was in the service. A bunch of veterans have issues with his public conduct when he got back and that is their right. But we don't need a form 180 to know he did those things. It's time to move this campaign past what happened 30 years ago. You'd think after the August Kerry had, he would want to do the same. I saw the new Republican ad last night and it was like a breath of fresh air. It flashed the key domestic initiatives mentioned in his accpetance speech and then provided information on a website that details his agenda. Hallelujah! Someone gets it! Previously undecided , but now I'm gonna vote for Bush!!!

Link "puhlease"? I was gone for a while so I must have missed that debate. Seems to me Bush has been plenty specific since 9/11. Afghanstan was put in the cross hairs and taken down. Saddam was put in the cross hairs and taken down. Pakistan has been given an opportunity to play it straight. Iran, Syria, and North Korea are on notice. Military, economic, and diplomatic means are all being exercised. Intelligence is actively being shared. Etc, etc, etc... I'm plenty real, it's your candidate that needs to get there.

How this has anything to do with where we are today and what has happened in recent history -- I don't know. The polls have turned against the libs and they are just cracking up all of a sudden -- it's even getting to a normally good poster like Mickey.

Okay -- Kerry has provided a broad description of what his war on terror will look like (more thoughtful, more sensitive) and added that he will get more international support. But there has been no plan, not even any details, provided. Domestically he has stated he will implement all of the 9/11 commission recommendations immediately. So the best I can assume is that Kerry is going to think harder about the problem, be more sensitive to the terrorists, magically pull France into the war, and kneejerk implement a significant restructuring of our intelligence community during a time of war. That sounds bad. Thoughtful + sensitive + France + kneejerk at this stage of the game = look the heck out. So technically Cheney is right -- based on what we know of Kerry's plans, if he wins we're gonna be heavily exposed for a while to getting nailed. Kerry is crazy for not laying out specifics of how he will wage the war on terror. This is one issue where pie in the sky is not cutting it with the American public, and it's his best opportunity to seal the deal on the election.

Rabid - you offer the explanation of sarcasm in your own post and then support Mickey's criticism of me over what was obvious sarcasm in my post? Guess that's what being respectful of your opinions in this thread gets me. Mickey - Go back to Encarta again and do some research on Dearborn this time. Explain to me how people that have no experience with or desire for democracy seemingly have overtaken a metropolitan suburb and prospered in a democratic/capitalist world. Almost all of them have families in the Middle East. Almost all of them want for their families what they have here, and their families want the same. To say that Arabs don't want freedom and self-determination IMHO is a serious miscalculation. I have talked with clerics in my travels who disagree with the tactics of war, but their goal is essentially to bring the American dream to the Middle East (without the sex, drugs, and rap of course). When a middle class starts to rise up in the region, things will snowball. It will take time, but it will happen.

Link? Nice nervous breakdown today, Exiled. You libs live by the polls and the polls are just killing you guys now. Notice the latest Ohio poll? Ouch! Florida? Ouch! Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri? Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch! You need 5 out of 6 and at this pace you'll be lucky to get 3.

Sure. Kerry is going to go to France, tilt his head a little to one side, hold up his index finger, add a dramatic pause and say "I am going to get your support in stabilizing Iraq. I plan to pull American troops out. I will offer you whatever it takes so send some French troops down there." Then he'll give Chirac that Clintonesque bite-the-top-lip-while-you-are-smiling thing. Chirac will say no and go home. Then Kerry will tilt his head a little to one side, hold up his index finger, add a dramatic pause and say "I don't want your support. I'm going it alone with the coalition of the willing. French troops can't handle duty in Iraq." Then he'll give Chirac that Clintonesque bite-the-top-lip-while-you-are-smiling thing. Chirac will say fine, now go home. Then Kerry will tilt his head a little to one side, hold up his index finger, add a dramatic pause and say "I need some froie gras and Chateauneuf du Pape for Teresa. I will not go home until I get some." Then he'll give Chirac that Clintonesque bite-the-top-lip-while-you-are-smiling thing. Chirac will say fine, now go home. Upon returning to America, Kerry will go to the media, tilt his head a little to one side, hold up his index finger, add a dramatic pause and say "I have succeeded in getting French concessions. I just can't tell you what they are, but trust that we are now partners in a greater cause".

Funny how even the libs in DC say that on a personal level, GWB is a very nice guy. Oops, sorry, throwing out facts again.

It's too bad they didn't do world polls when Chamberlain was making peace with Hitler. I bet Churchill's performance on the world stage would have been much worse than Bush's. He probably would have carried only Czechoslovakia with his "policy of aggression".

I don't think that would matter. As long as the regimes in Iran and Syria are in power, Jews will not be accepted regardless of any peace with the Palestinians. The Palestinians are just a convenient front for them. We also supported questionable warlords in the Afghan war to help us get the job done with fewer American boots on the ground. We fought on the same side as Russia in WWII. War requires making interesting bedfellows at times.

From the details that Kerry/Edwards have provided about their plans for fighting the war on terror (e.g., nothing), what Cheney said is technically correct. Cheney still should not have said what he said. He gave the media a soundbite to run with. He reinforced the negative image of him. Kerry/Edwards could have made some serious political hay out of this if they weren't so inept. Funny how they come out of an episode like this looking worse because the best they can do is throw Johnny Boy Edwards in front of the camera offering an acting performance that couldn't get him an appearance in a Breck shampoo commercial. Bush needs to have a little talk with Cheney about his loose lips here lately.

There are times when I genuinely feel bad for people who don't have access to health insurance. This is not one of them.

How about Turkey? Naaah, wouldn't work there either. They don't want it, can't support it. Next thing you know we'll have a dictatorship and shariah law established in Dearborn, they don't like democracy there either. Those gosh darn violent, incompetent muslims...

Wal Mart shoppers = economic cannibals But the AFL-CIO won't do anything about it unless Bush/Cheney say Wal Mart is a proud American institution. If Kerry said the same thing they'd probably encourage all their members to shop there.

Nice picture of Kerry -- makes Gore look humble. Did anyone get a chance to watch Joe Scarborough last night? Great show on the reckless spending going on and the risks we are running by continuing to inflate the national debt. They kept the debt ticker on the screen throughout the show and our debt increased $3.5 million in an hour. My measly contribution to the Feds only supported us for a second or two. Good to know my hard earned money goes so far.

What is up with all this lib pessimism. Mickey posts answers to a slew of questions that basically says we're billsfanone and the Middle East is screwed. Then Rabid says that the Middle East's destiny is to be forever poor like Africa and we should just gain freedom from their oil and leave them to wither. If we pursue policies that isolate the Middle East this will become the century of terrorism. Cutting ties and bailing on them will cause the Islamic Fundamentalists to gain power across the region and become a much larger and more lethal terrorist force. Like it or not -- and both parties seem to agree with this -- winning the war on terror requires democratization and stabilization of the Middle East as well as building a more diverse economy across the region. The goal should be to champion the development of countries who are respected trading partners and socially responsible/accountable to the people. Lastly -- Rabid, will doing the things you mentioned regarding Israel and Palestine work if you have Iran, Syria, and Lebanon continuing to engage in the support and funding of attacks? I tend to think these countries need to be addressed first so the Palestinians have no fallback position. I may be overcomplicating things, though.

It depends on the Afghans. They have an election coming up next month. If they vote the "regime" out of power than it will not outlast our willingness. If they vote for the "regime" to maintain power then they will last at least until the next election. This is a question of the resolve of the Afghans, not Americans. This is also a U.N. mission, not strictly American. All things considered, Afghans have it pretty good as of late and there would be no reason for them to support any type of return to Taliban rule. The only reason the Taliban came into power was because of a sense of desperation from lawlessness. The Taliban have now become the lawless ones. They no longer have the credibility needed to gain political power. Interim governments are exactly that -- interim. The people have a choice to elect their own leader next month. If the Pashtuns don't agree with the composition of the government, they'll have a chance to do something about it. The Taliban will probably never be eradicated. Has Naziism been eradicated? Anarchism? Communism? Facism? Don't make the mistake of confusing Taliban and terrorism, as they are separate issues that overlapped in the case of Afghanistan. There may always be a Taliban party in Afghanistan but they likley would not continue to support terrorism. I don't have access to the information needed to assess this. My gut tells me their capabilities have been significantly impaired but that they had enough in place pre-9/11 to pull off a lot of nasty stuff for years to come and they can still mobilize limited new attacks. I would guess most "peaceful" Muslims despise bin Laden even if they hate America. If a Catholic terrorist organization were to attack Iran or North Korea and kill thousands of innocent people, I wouldn't consider them heroic or even admire them because of what they did. If those countries responded by attacking Italy, I'd be pissed but I'd blame the terrorists for bringing it upon Italy. Jihadists don't just rage against America. In fact, there are many pro-America jihadists who have different focal points for their jihad. If you mean are there more or less anti-American Islamic Fundamentalists since 9/11, I'd say there is no way of measuring this and what's the point? We are at a stage of the war on terror where you implement systems to deal with terrorism that promote long term results. Taking any measurement at this stage of the game is crazy. Is Clinton judged by the economy after 3 years or 8 years? Bush is only 3 years into something that is much more complex and of which we have much less understanding than the economy. No. We don't have a native/regional population of Islamic Fundamentalists seeking independence similar to Russia. The attacks we get will be of the more spectacular variety, designed to throw knock-out punches on our economy. Doing something to one of our schools like they did in Belsan would cause the American public to rage against the Middle East like nothing they want to see. Bringing in suicide bombers would cause the same. Doing these tactics in Russia means they rage only against the Chechnyan separatists. My thoughts -- To win the war on terror we first have to set the right conditions for the war to be won. This war can not be won with the Taliban harboring al Quaeda. Taken care of. This war can not be won with Saddam Hussein destabilizing the region and making a mockery of the U.N. Taken care of. This war can not be won with Pakistan toeing the line between legitimacy and being a terrorist government. Work in progress. Iran - work in progress. Syria - incomplete. Saudi Arabia - incomplete. Lebanon - incomplete. When these issues are addressed, then and only then will the Israeli/Palestinian issue be able to be resolved. Bringing respectable governments to the region and increasing security will eventually provide the climate needed for foreign business investment beyond oil. Establishing a more diverse economy with a broad middle class in the Middle East will ultimately cause the end of Islamic Fundamentalism as an international threat. It will then finally become the law enforcement issue some think of it as today. Doing the ugly work we are engaged in now should allow the later stages to be relatively bloodless.