BadDad

although I'm an advocate for gun control, hat a surprise, eh? ) I agree with the basic premise of your post Darin. Like many others who have responded in this thread, I can't understand why somebody with that many offenses in such a short period of time can get out so quickly.....of course the vast majority of theincarcerated in this country are in for drug related offenses.

Not sure of which debate it was exactly but I think it was the Reagan Mondale debates were the last. After that the two parties got ahold of the process and it's gone downhill from there. The two major parties control the whole process now and the comission is co-chaired by a former head of the DNC and a former head of the RNC.

I heard early this morning, before the figures came out, that they expected between 50,000 and 250,000 so it seems the actual is on the low side, according to those figures.

Well said Mickey however if somebody like Rush would, (after this is all over), begin to work towards a different solution for these essentially victimless crimes that would be a big help. The billions a year we spend on drug interdiction, incarceration costs for offenders, litigation, prosecution and court fees, etc. could be better spent on treatment for the addicts and education of the population.

I saw it too last night and from what I gathered the guy from TV Guide thought Kerrey was serious. Now with only a few weeks left before the election the probability of it happening are pretty slim, but you never know.

Of course they could but then that's something that's simply not going to happen as long as this administration is "staying the course". Ef the world.

Your theory of why Saddam kept interfering with the UN weapons inspectors is a valid one and may quite possibly be correct, (that he was waiting until the sanctions were lifted so he could reconstitute his WMD programs). I think it's just as likely that, first, by not allowing anybody to definitively show that he had no WMD's his greatest enemy Iran would think before attacking him. Second, a point you made about him losing face in the Arab world is, I think, half right. I think, being the meglomaniac that he is, he took great pride in the perception that he alone amoung Arab countries was standing up to the last Superpower in the world.

We now know that Saddam had no WMD's and that, according to the report, he was not getting stronger but on the contrary he was getting weaker. If he survived, there is a possibility that he would try to resurect his WMD programs, this I don't doubt or deny. I also think that to try and justify the collosal mistake that this administration made by invading Iraq at the time we did, in the way we did, and with the plan (or lack of a plan) for the peace that we did, by saying now that well he probably would have resurected his destroyed WMD programs is sounding like more of the same grasping at straws that this administration and its supporters have engaged in for all too long now. Again I'm simply saying that I think that the policy that this administration continues to hold to has proven to get us into a mess in Iraq, has not made the world safer from terrorism, has alienated the world against us, has cost us the lives of our troops and over 120 billion in tax payer money, etc. When questioned about it the President and the VP both say that should they be elected we will see more of the same. As for your statement about the corruption in the UN "oil for food program", I don't dispute it and you're probably right any way we'll know for sure shortly. However I still contend that there are, (were), ways to get our allies to stand with us. My God George Bush, (the one I voted for), convinced Arab countries to not only not interfere with the first Gulf War but to actually send troops to join us in the coalition against Saddam. This administration wasn't very interested in having our traditional allies involved anyway or they would have taken the time to get them on board.

I know that you were against the war before we invaded and we agreed on many of our reasons for being against it. I think we both agree that now that we're there we have to finish the war. My contention is that, because the reasons that we were given as justification for invading Iraq have been totally proven to be eroneous, and the fact that from Condi to Bush to Cheney, none will accept the fact that we made a mistake and in fact have made it clear that they will not change this policy, then we need a change of the administration. As for our traditional allies in Europe and their loss of graft and billions in coruption, I'm sure that hurt them and don't doubt that it factored into their opposition to the war. I also feel that the loss of potential, (legitimate) oil contracts that they had with Iraq and would stand to loose (which they did as a result of the invasion), factored into the opposition. However, what I was saying was simply that had we taken the time to allow the inspectors to finish their work, as I recall they requested a few more months, maybe six, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Our allies and that includes Arab neighbors of Saddam all joined us in 1991. Our allies all joined us in Afghanistan and are still there today. That's what I mean by historically. I know you've lived around the world and I think you know that I have as well, and I still travel quite a bit and do business with people outside of the U.S. When I said your entrenched position, I was trying to point out the all or nothing attitude that you exhibit when you say that you couldn't care less what the world thinks because you've lived around the world. Since you've lived around the world and have been exposed to other peoples and cultures I know your mind is much more open than those kind of statements make it seem.

Both common sense and history dictate that you're wrong Darin. Your "ideology" and stubborn conservatism, won't allow you to see any farther than your entrenched position. Around the world your second paragraph is being paraphrased substituting the Bush administration for "Those 3 countries". Take a minute and take the blinders off, open your mind I know you're not as bitter as you appear.

Yes I think that the security council would have supported the U.S. if the case was presented in the right way at the right time, however, simply telling the world that we are the only power and there is nothing they can do about it won't win many allies. How many times has the U.S. ignored it's dues, or resolutions we haven't agreed with? Many countries have ignored UN resolutions or failed to comply with them for reasons of national security. The point is that ignoring U.N. resolutions is not perceived as a serious challenge to the world community. Also at the time the U.N. did have weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq. As for N. Korea, it is, (and was), obvious that they have been persuing nuclear weapons for a number of years and so has Iran. If Mr. Kerry wins you contend that they will both threaten us with nuclear attack. I contend that if Mr. Bush wins, they will both continue their nuclear programs because we can't do anything about it short of using our own WMD's. In reality I think Mr. Kerry, or Mr. Edwards, or Mr. Powel or Mr. McCain would seek a much more diplomatic position. Of course I could be wrong and they could attack with the NYS reserves and the UB ROTC candidates. Last, the argument that if you opposed the war and still do you must want to reinstate Saddam is a crock of caca. Nobody in their right mind would reinstate Saddam after the fact, however for those without memory, he didn't have to be deposed at the time he was, in the way he was, and unilaterally by the U.S. That is not the same as reinstating him but those of you who want to paint any critics of the administrations policies as heresy will never see that. As AD would say, turn on e microwave and pour yourself some koolaid.

Hoya, no problem with wanting a forceful response after 9-11, I wanted blood like everybody else in this country. I applauded Mr. Bush, (right here) for his speech to the firemen and police in NYC with the bullhorn. The problem I see with this admin is more fundamental than saying Wolfowitz saw what he wanted to see. Who put Wolfowitz in that positiion? Who put Fieth in a position to determine U.S. foreign policy from the Pentagon? Who allowed it all to happen? I blame the smart guys the most, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powel. They were the reason I had some confidence in this admin. after the election. The political people like Rove and Hughes I discounted, my mistake.

No problem, my question is why did we decide to stir up that particular hornets nest? Why did we, if as you contend overthrow a secular Govt. when we had two Fundamentalist States bordering it, Saudi Arabia and Iran?

Probably the last post I will ever respond to you in since it's a total waste of time. However, for those who are still willing to openly debate something that has cost over 1,000 lives, over 13,000 Iraqi lives, close to 20,000 injured U.S. soldiers, and over 120 billion U.S.tax payer dollars, should we continue down this road? Should we blindly follow our Govt. and not question their decisions? More of the same for the gentleman from Michigan. He agrees with Kerry, Clinton, the King of Siam and the rest of us that, (from what we knew in 1997-1998 when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq for the previous 5 years) Saddam was continuing his WMD programs. Saddam was a percieved to be a patsy for this administration. They knew we would role into Baghdad without a problem. They had intel from Chalabi, etc. that we would be welcomed with open arms. They heard from Chalabi that Al Qaeda was in Baghdad. What better "enemy" could we attack? What better, and easier, revenge could we take? It wouldn't cost us much, only 2 billion according to Wolfowitz et al. It wouldn't be difficult to conquer the Iraqi army, according to Tommy Franks (which was true). We had cover with WMD, according to Tenent. Why go after N. Korea which would have been much more dangerous, 38,000 troops in range of artillery and, God forbid, nukes. Iran, not as dangerous but a lot more difficult to role over and, percieved to be, much more difficult to manage after the war. My contention is that this was a war of political convenience and your pat talking points responses do nothing to refute it.

My solution to more of the same, is what should have been done in the first place. Before we go off on Syria, Iran, N. Korea or anybody else we first verify that the intelligence we are receiving is accurate. Second, if it is accurate we use it to build a strong coalition of our allies that will back us with both troops and treasure for not only the initial war but whatever occupation period would follow it. Third, I would listen very carefully to our military commanders, their plans, their needs and their concerns. Fourth, I would exhaust all diplomatic paths available. Last, I would stop trying to equate a regime change based upon WMD's with the war on terror, unless there is irefutable evidence that the terrorists that are attacking U.S. interests either here or abroad are being harbored by that regime, as in the case of Afghanistan. Although our military is the most powerful in the world, it is not limitless and until we finish with our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, we should be very careful of going after anybody else. Maybe that's one of the main reasons that Iran and N. Korea are now openly defying us in their developement of nuclear weapons.

-What do you mean "the alternative is better than we are now?" -I didn't mention Kerry and I find it very telling that your response is mostly to attack Kerry, and call me naive, but I'm glad you got a laugh out of it. -Last I heard Mr. Dean, who I never supported, was no longer running for President. -Can I assume that what you're saying is that more of the same is what you support?

Many of us here on PPP, both liberal and conservative, were opposed to it. That I can recall not one person was opposed to it because they thought Saddam was a great guy. Although there were many reasons including, but not limited to, not convinced that WMD's were present, not convinced that Saddam presented an "imminent danger of attack", if he did have weapons he would definately use them against our troops during the attack or give them to terrorists, not convinced that it would be a relatively inexpensive war and short occupation, not at all convinced that the secular Iraqi Baathist party would have contact with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists like Al Qaeda, we still hadn't finished the war in Afghanistan yet, it would become a recruiting tool for UBL and others, etc. In addition, the rationale being offered up by the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq, was much more legitemately applicable to othe countries, i.e. Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc. Most of the world was also in opposition to a war with Iraq, including the general populations of the countries that joined the "coalition" (especially Spain, G. Britain, Italy, Poland and Australia). The U.N. would not go along with Mr. Bush' last resolution, the U.N. weapons inspectors requested more time and even Saddams more traditional enemies sat on the sidelines, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria, (all of whom,except Iran, were part of the coalition during the first Gulf War with both troops and treasure). None of this gave pause to this adminstrations rush to war. The intelligence that they had, and we couldn't see, was indisputable. The threat was real and Saddam was even reconstituting his nuclear weapons program with aluminum tubes and yellow cake from Niger. The people in Iraq were tired of being oppressed by Saddam and would greet us with open arms and flowers. The cost of the occupation would be bourne by the Iraqi oil wealth not U.S. tax payers money. Once "major combat operations" ended, the clamour for WMD began. We were told that it would take time, both here on the PPP board and by the administration. Shortly thereafter David Kay came out with his report stating there were no WMD's, but that also was disputed by the administration. Now this latest report comes out stating that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, there have not been nor are there presently any WMD's in Iraq since at least 1993 and that Saddam had allowed the programs to wither over the years. In the meantime, the U.S. has spent 120 billion dollars for something that was going to cost us only around 2 billion. Over 1,000 U.S. troops have died, upwards of 20,000 have been wounded, 13,000-20,000 Iraqi's have been killed, terrorists are pouring into Iraq and killing coalition forces, civilian contractors and Iraqi's at ever escalating rates, terrorist attacks have increased worldwide, and there is no end in sight. The present administrations response today to anybody who mentions any of the above is, we must stay the course. Our path is difficult and will take much hard work, but we must stay on it. I don't see us getting out of Iraq for quite sometime and don't think we can reasonably do so. We created the mess we're in and we must see it through. But, to "stay the course" means more than staying in Iraq, it means continue with the misguided policies in the war on terror that got us into the war in Iraq in the first place and that's just rediculous. p.s. I will respond to civil debate but flamers and personal insults will be ignored.

We just saw it again. I'm not denigrating the refs or the Pat's, I'm just saying that Buffalo can't take chances, if you're to stupid to understand that then you must be a Pat's fan and not worthy of further response. 0-2 vs. SB champs.

..get to the line on extra points? N.E. isn't leaving anything to chance but we are. Just got the T.D. but the way things have gone, no room for error, or replays. Go Bills!!!

To bad we don't have a "smilie" for something going over your head, because if we did that's what I would put up here. I understood what he said to mean giving funds to police and firemen who are our first responders, instead of police and firemne being cut because of budget constraints which is what is happening at the present. What that has to do with the difference between police work and warfare you'll have to explain to me because I don't make the connection.

He also said that he is going to fund police and firemen (the first responders), work on tightening security at our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and air cargo. In my opinion Mr. Kerry did state at least some of the things he would do differently than what is presently being done. Then again, I'm just a lemming.

.....ashes, ashes we all fall down.....

The problem I have with your statement is that although you're sure Mr. Kerry is not the answer, your unequivical support for the current administration is not backed up with the answer to the question. I know it's difficult to answer and none of us have the answers that our leaders should have, so I understand your dilema. Unfortunately Mr. Bush has not given us his plan either.

O.K. Rich, can you please explain how we will be able to invade and occupy Iran when we haven't got enough troops to control Iraq? If you say we simply bomb their facilities and don't actually invade, don't you think they've already thought of that? If we are able to bomb and destroy their nuclear facilities, how would they respond? Not enough terrorism in the region and the world yet? These aren't wisecrack questions, they are real questions so please respnd accordingly. BTW, any military guys who have a reasonable answer please feel free to explain how we can occupy three countries at the same time, three countries that have hostile populations to us in a region that will probably blow up on us with the next incursion.

Nice guy???? He's a real bastard from way back. As a matter of fact he's the King of all bastards!!!!