PastaJoe

Ann Coulter and the U.S.S.R.; two great ways to check facts.

I have no problem with using undisclosed "terror alerts" for military and civil personnel, as it gets them to a certain level of preparation in case they are needed. But I never thought they should be made public; all it did was raise concerns among the general public but never told us what we should do differently. In the end I believe it was mainly a feable P.R. attempt to show the public that the gov't was doing something, and it turned into an on-going late-night talkshow joke.

All the Justice dept. and administration officials had to do from the start is tell the truth. Libby got in trouble by not doing so. He was even given a chance to change his statements and he declined. Rove was given the same opportunity by Fitzgerald and did change his statements, and that's why he wasn't charged. If they're not willing to tell the truth, then the truth must be worse than the consequences of lieing. It will come out eventually, as it always does, so why not just cut their losses now and get it over with. Even if they aren't charged with crimes, the court of public opinion will view them as guilty due to this continual resistance to answer questions in public, and therefore they will no longer have to confidence of the public to represent us in the Justice department. At the end of the day they're supposed to be working for us, not Bush.

Liver cancer is pretty bad. Snow and Edwards; it puts things in perspective. Just last night I saw a repeat of the final episode of the show "Six Feet Under". It showed how each of the cast ends up dieing in the future. No matter what, in the end we all die, it's just a matter of when. It makes you think.

Of course the most disturbing aspect of this is that you actually watch "The View".

You'd rather have Americans dieing, when regardless of when we leave the Sunni and Shite will continue their fight for power? Our foreign policy and standing in the world is already in the toilet, and hopefully can be repaired by the next administration. And get serious, how do we end up killing "millions of Iraqis" if we're not there? That would be Iraqis killing Iraqis, just as they are now.

If you were a terrorist, especially Al Queda, you would want a continuation of the current Bush policies, since your strength has grown since the Iraq invasion and your leaders are still safe and sound in Pakistan. Your ranks are growing due to the decisions made by the Bush administration, and the worldwide support for the U.S. that really threatened your influence in the Muslim world has be squandered so that a large portion of the world now see's the Bush administration as a bigger threat. The relatively moderate government in Iran was replaced by a more radical one less willing to negotiate, the Palistinian issue that helps you gain recruits has made little progress in being resolved and again because of Bush unwilling to support the Palistinian moderates more radical leaders are now in charge, and in Afganistan the Taliban and terrorists are making a comeback because Bush redirected forces to Iraq. So bottom line, find the Republican that most believes in continuing the Bush policies, and you'll be assured of another 4-8 years of progress towards your goals. Don't forget to add in a rubber-stamp Republican Congress and you'll really be in good shape.

There aren't enough votes to bring them home now. The majority of Democrats are representing the views of the majority of Americans who don't say bring them home now, but begin the process to draw down combat troops by next year, which is what the appropriation calls for. And this is no longer a U.S. military conflict, it's playing referee in a shooting civil war. Our military conflict ended when Saddam was ousted and there were no W.M.D. found. It's now up to Iraqis to step up.

I agree Bush is a dolt, but regarding the so-called pork, it's actually funding for drought, hurricane, and flood relief that was promised by Bush and the Republicans in their soundbytes but never funded until now. Just another instance of the Democrats making Bush put the money where his mouth is. Regardless, Bush and the Republicans would have opposed the appropriation to fund the troops anyways.

By threatening to veto the House appropriations to fund the troops, Bush will be responsible for them not getting the funds he says they need. Bush is like a bad credit risk, his past actions have shown that he can't be responsible for having a blank check, so the House is asking him to follow rules, some of which are already in place regarding military training and readiness that he has disregarded. So the balls in his court, veto the bill and he's the reason they don't get the funds that the House has appropriated.

I don't know the man personally so liking him isn't an issue. I respect all White House Press Secretary's because it takes skill to make lemonade out of lemons, which is their main job. By default you can't really trust any press secretary to give "the whole truth", they only give the spin they're told to give. But with Tony Snow in particular he comes across as a smart-alack who is prone to make faces whenever he doesn't like the questions.

Of course as you know the issue isn't that firings occurred, but whether the firings were done because the political advisors in the White House through the Justice dept., and some Republicans in Congress like Heather Wilson and Pete Dominici were trying to influence attorneys regarding who they were or weren't investigating, and not because of performance issues which was the reason given by the Justice department. And if they fired those 8 because they wouldn't bend to political influence, were there other attorneys who did get influenced to change their priorities based on political pressure in order to keep their jobs.

Here we go again. The White House wants Rove to testify to Congress without being under oath, behind closed doors, and with no transcript, on an issue that doesn't have to do with national security. But they have nothing to hide and promise to tell the truth. Yeah, sure, because the White House has been so honest about everything else they tell us.

The Dems have only been in the majority for a few weeks, and look at all the problems already uncovered by turning over a few rocks that have been left alone for the past 6 years. Imagine all the issues about this administration's actions that will be brought to light by next year.

Since home openers are usually a sellout, they should play a less attractive team like the Lions or Cardinals who wouldn't draw as well in cold weather or if the Bills are out of playoff contention, and play against more interesting teams later that would draw more fans to the games.

1. Hillary 2. Biden 3. Richardson They're the only candidates that I would feel excited to vote for, other than them my vote would be against whoever least represented my views. If everything were equal I think Biden is the best qualified. But given that money talks, I see Hillary running with someone like Richardson or Wesley Clark. If Gore entered he'd be on the list, and the only potential Republican I would feel comfortable with as president is Chuck Hagel. The other Republican frontrunners are falling over each other trying to appease the evangelicals, and I've had enough of their influence on policies.

Worst 1. Browns 2. Colts 3. Dolphins 4. Lions 5. Jets Best 1. Rams 2. Steelers 3. Raiders 4. Chargers 5. Seahawks

DAs can be removed for good reasons, or no reason, but when they're removed for bad reasons such as politicians thinking they're going too slow to investigate Democrats and too fast investigating Republicans, and politicians are trying to influence them, then it does require Congress to do their oversight job. These were Republican appointees, but I would like to think that when a DA takes office they will make judgements based on facts and not political views. Otherwise we can't trust their decisions. Seedy Gonzalez has lost credibility and can no longer be trusted to make judgements just on the facts.

But that's the new reality; it's the Dems fault that we're stuck in Iraq because they went along with Bush's push to invade with the Republican majority in Congress at the start of the war, and now it's the Dems fault because they won't defund the war to stop it, but if they do defund it it's the Dems fault because they're cutting and running, and even talking in opposition to Bush's plans is bad for morale (at least the White House's morale). So get the talking points clear; no matter what has or will happen, it's the Dems fault!

Give them a break. Like a young Dick Cheney, they have more important things to do than fight a war in Iraq that they say we can't afford to lose.

By discussing Coulter the press is giving her exactly what she wants, more publicity. Every once in awhile she makes some controversial statement to throw red meat to the extremists who buy her books, and gets publicity from those who are offended by her statements. So for her it's a win-win. The best thing Republicans could do is to distance themselves from her.

Shhh! By supporting the troops you're not supporting the troops. Uncovering the truth is bad for morale. The troops shouldn't know what's waiting for them when they get injured and sent home.

Rush and an excel spreadsheet, that's all Dick Cheney would need as proof. But of course if you look at the breakdown between 93-96 only 56 were killed due to hostile or terrorist actions. Now compare 3133 to 56 and you get a realistic comparison, which shows how desperate some are to justify continued troop escalations in Iraq.

I think he would be best suited to be a special envoy to the Middle East to try to complete the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, or to be the ambassador to the United Nations.

That is the truth, without oil the Middle East would be treated like Africa.