[Mike_Cirba]

What courses have Rush Limbaugh, Ted Kennedy, or Thomas Sowell designed?  

Honestly, I think Tom Fazio's comments about Asian cornerbacks practicing martial arts on the gridiron were way out of line, not to mention the sweeping generalizations he used to suggest that the best placekickers should naturally be of Indian descent.  It shows to me that he's clearly too concerned with stereotypes and as such, the subtle nuances of strategic thought seem to be missing too often in his designs.  

[DMoriarty]

MargaretC:

Good point, but the world is not so simple for my friend Mr. Duran.  You see, Lou is a true believer in capitalism and letting the market sort things out for itself, but he makes a big exception when it comes to substantial numbers of people driving any market any direction which he might consider left . . .

I don't feel it a stretch to guess that when reading your latest post, Lou's initial reaction was to blame the liberal media (presumably including Disney's ESPN) for misreporting the event and spinning the whole thing to snooker the unaware public into believing that Rush did something wrong.  

How'd I do, Lou? . . . Maybe I can fill in for you on your radio show when you are on vacation?   Oh . . . I forgot, Rush is the on with the radio show.  Sorry, it is hard to tell the difference if I just look at the words . . .

[JohnV]

Did George Bush lie about WMD?  Did he or did he not say that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa when he (or at least the CIA) knew that it was not true?

I'm not saying that Iraq didn't have WMD.  I'm not saying that everything that was said was a lie, but George Bush got up in front of the nation and told us something that he knew or should have known was a lie.  He phrased it in a way to absolve himself and put the blame on the British government if he got caught, but he lied.

There were good reasons to support regime change in Iraq, but they are the ones that require a lot more explaining than just telling people that we have to get rid of the WMDs.  But, since the people were not told this, they are getting antsy now that the WMDs haven't been found.  He is paying the price at the polls and it will probably only get worse if they don't find something.

By the way Lou, I'm very much a fiscal conservative.  I'd love to see a balanced budget, but we'll never see one under George Bush.  Too bad the Republicans couldn't that constitutional amendment passed a few years ago.  Wasn't that part of their Contract with America?

As for Sharpton getting a pass, he has gotten a lot of flack over the years for the Tawana Brawley (sp?) fiasco.  There are thousands of web pages that mention it.  He'll never live that down and he'll never be a viable candidate for President.  Just as Jesse Jackson never was again after his Heimie Town statement.

Limbaugh wants it both ways, he wants to spew venom, but not get chastized for it.  After all, this is the man who said  "Take the bone out of your nose and call me back" to a black caller.

If you don't think that Limbaugh has racist beliefs (or at least acts that way for his listeners), read: http://www.fair.org/articles/limbaugh-color.html for some of his better quotes.  What is amazing is that ESPN would even have hired him in the first place.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why did ESPN hire a non-sports commentator in the first place ?

Did they not watch ABC's Monday Night Football with Dennis Miller ?

What were they hoping to accomplish with his commentary ?

What did they think he would add, in the forum that they created, on a podium with others, with respect to sports commentary ?

Did he do anything unexpected, anything that might have surprised ESPN executives who made the decision to hire him ?

What role did ESPN play in this episode, and what have they said with respect to the purpose behind their hiring him ?

Why was Fazio retained at Merion ?   (golf related question)

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Merion retained Fazio after the stereotypical, politically-incorrect comments he made in his book??

I thought he was forced to resign??

Oh boy...now I'm really confused.  

[Tim_Weiman]

JohnV:

President Bush did report to the American people that one of our closest allies - the British - believed Iraq attempted to source uranium from Africa. At the same time, the Bush Adminstration never claimed to know exactly when Iraq would acquire nuclear weapons capability. They openly stated there was a range of estimates - usually from 1-2 to 6-7 years.

One should note that intelligence assessments of Iraq's nuclear weapons program have a history of being off the mark and don't offer much comfort. That point was made clear in both 1991 and 1996.

While accusations about "lies" are being thrown about, we should not forget that Bush essentially adopted the Clinton administration view that sooner or later we would have to confront Saddam. He acknowledged we could put off the day of reckoning but argued it did not make sense to wait until the "gathering danger" got stronger.

[JakaB]

Was anything typical about Crabapple....the party line can try to bury the truth under all your political posturing...I don't even care if anyone thinks that course was good or strategic...but it wain't easy and it wain't typical.

[DMoriarty]

Was anything typical about Crabapple....the party line can try to bury the truth under all your political posturing...I don't even care if anyone thinks that course was good or strategic...but it wain't easy and it wain't typical.

John, If you tell us how the typical party line differs from Mr. Tom Fazio's platform, we might better understand what you are constantly moaning about . . .

[MargaretC]

I'm kind of amazed that anyone is still pursuing the WMD charge.

Everyone was in agreement prior to this war that Iraq had them. Everyone. Clinton. The UN. Clinton bombed Iraq based on this info. Clinton, who has no greater critic than yours truly, was right to bomb Iraq, he should've done more.

Hussein was an EVIL EVIL man who tortured & terrorized hundreds of thousands of his own people. They have found Al Quaida camps in Iraq. They found a terrorist, Abu Nidal, who f-ing shot & killed a handicapped man on a cruiseliner. They have uncovered roving bio labs. Do you think these were clinics to help the people? They have found prison camps that held CHILDREN of "enemies" of the state.

You guys are criticising Bush for taking action? You should be ashamed of yourselves. ASHAMED. Take a long hard look in the mirror the next time you think what we did was wrong.

I have no problem crediting someone whom I detest for doing something right. IMO, Clinton represents everything wrong with the world today, yet I commend him for getting NAFTA passed. I commend him for taking action against a Serbian monster who wasn't 1/10th the threat or evil person that Hussein was (Milosevic). Hell, if he had done it intentionally, I'd credit him with creating such a huge distraction in his second term that the rest of the country was able to get on with its business & flourish while a bunch of bozos in DC wasted time & energy pursuing an unattainable goal.

Get a grip. The war between the terrorists & the rest of the world has been growing & escalating for years. Don't let your petty personal politics affect your evaluation of what GW is doing. I was not a big fan of his prior to the election, but he has done a decent job with an unbelievably terrible position.

The only thing that will save the world is the institution of democracy & freedom in the rest of the world. PERIOD. You can bullshit all you want about multiculturalism & such crap that the intellectual geniuses wish to push on everyone, but until we have governments that respect human rights, we will never have peace in the world. How we accomplish this is up to debate, but it will never be accomplished by coddling or ignoring situations like Iraq. Or Cuba. Or Afghanistan. Or the Sudan. Hell, much of Africa & virtually all of the Middle East. The only country in the Middle East that seems to get criticised is Israel, the only democracy in the region, and one that allows Arabs to vote, which no other Arab country does!

George:

Of course, Hussein was an EVIL EVIL man who tortured & terrorized hundreds of thousands of his own people.  That's a no-brainer; however, the US and GB initiated the war under the guise that the threat of WMD was imminent.

Obviously, that's water under the bridge at this point.  I was against the war primarily because I don't want the US in the role of taking preemptive strikes.  Hussein isn't the ONLY "EVIL EVIL man" in the world.  

Last, but NOT least, belief in or a desire to establish a Democratic form of government isn't something the US & GB can put into the water system or the food supply.  I am FAR from a middle-east scholar; however, I was concerned and continue to be concerned that the conflict between the Muslim sects as well as the strong influence of religion in the daily lives of the Iraqi people would be, among others, huge cultural challenges to establishing a new form of government.

The only thing that will save the world is the institution of democracy & freedom in the rest of the world.  George, there are a lot of countries that hold "elections;" however, the elected officials are so corrupt the citizens aren't free -- Mexico is a wonderful example and that's in our backyard.

Well, to get back to golf topics...  

Rush Limbaugh has played in the Celebrity Golf Championship at Edgewood Tahoe.  A course designed by Geo. Fazio.

Well, at least, I tried...

[DMoriarty]

Just a few things on this thread's tangent . . .  

Lou was certainly on the fence on the eve of the war, as he stated well above.  Believe it or not, I think I was more hawkish about the war than Lou.  As Lou might recall, I think I told him that if the President of the United States said that Iraq had WMD which presented an imminent danger to us and our allies, then I supported the attack.  I dont see nat'l security as a partisan issue, nor do most who think like me . . . But I also remember telling Lou that it just seemed like Bush might have been overselling the whole thing, and that he had better come up with the goods after the attack. . . and he hasnt yet.  

For me, the question isnt about whether the war was right or wrong, whether it made sense or not, whether we were justified by international law, whether we will ultimately find some semblance of WMD buried somewhere  . . . .

It is about whether the President stretched and spun the truth to make the American people, the US Congress, and our Allies believe that President Bush knew-- knew-- that SH had his finger on the WMD trigger and that this presented an imminent danger.  

That is what he said . . . again and again and again . . . I know SH has WMD which present an imminent danger to America and its allies . . . I cant believe that anyone who listened to him in the months leading up to the attack recalls it any other way.  

Think about it, many of you wanted our last President removed from office because he lied about oral sex, then tried slither out of it by way of semantic tricks.  (Depo 101:  Huge screw-up on the part of the USDJ for not specifically defining sex during the questioning.)  We are talking about going to war here, putting America's armed forces and reserves into actual imminent danger.  

If Bush intentionally misled the American public (and Congress) regarding his knowledge of SH's WMD and delivery capabilities, this is absolutely unforgivable.  How could any American, left or right, feel any differently???
___________________________________
 
Rush, Rush, Rush . . . ESPN made a huge mistake hiring him.  They were blinded by the size and vehemence of his following on the way-right, and underestimated the distaste the rest of us have for his views and presentation.  

Rush injects politics, particularly the politics of race and so-called 'reverse-discrimination,' into absolutely everything.  I dont know why ESPN thought that his commentary regarding football would be any different.  It was just a matter of time . . .

[When the Feminists were trying figure out which direction they should march, some of them marched under the banner of "The Personal is Political."   This gave them an avenue to try to change the law regarding issues they really cared about, like outlawing marital rape, supporting anti-abuse legislation, and pushing for reproductive rights.   Rush and his band of angry men have taken a page from the feminist handbook and expanded it to: Everything is Political.]

[JakaB]

DM,

I thought Crabapple was perfectly terrible perfect for PGA golf....perfectly uncontourable greens for perfectly fast greens...perfectly deep bunkers for testing perfectly high launch angles...perfectly WFO vistas for pefectly stupid ticket purchasers....I would have liked to have seen the perfectly hidden cartpaths hidden more perfectly from the blimp.....even the perfect champion.  I'm not moaning at all...I kinda like perfectly terrible perfect courses as long as I watch my golf on the radio.  I didn't watch much on TV but did enjoy the leaderboard updates...Its your party and I don't have to come if I don't want to....come if I want to.

[Forrest Richardson]

Margaret,

I rarely respond to political comments, but...yours:

"...[T]hat's a no-brainer; however, the US and GB initiated the war under the guise that the threat of WMD was imminent..."

Prompts this response:

Keep in mind that, to maintain the peace, an officer of the law does not have to see a weapon to use deadly force. Only the possibility that a subject has a weapon and makes actions as if he/she were to use one against innocent people or the officer is necessary as fact in order to use deadly force against such a threat or possible action. I believe your (our) U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this is the law we live by — and the law we protect.

I will reserve all opinions until the facts are gathered. Certainly there is more question than if Mr. Iraq had gassed thousands and unleashed WMD on parts of the world in this recent year. We can all be fortunate that this was not the case — despite the situation now being one of question throughout the world.

[HamiltonBHearst]

DMoriarty-I know you are very precise in your word choices so please be clear, president Clinton "lied under oath" in a court proceeding. I am sure he only "lied about oral sex" when he described his escapades to his wife.

It is also a neat that you describe Rush's following on the "way-right" and then throw out the distaste "the rest of us have".  I will have to figure out where I fit in, I suppose I am "rest of us" but then again I agree with Rush on a lot of things I am sure.

I know you also know a lot about reverse-discrimination after reading your statistical analysis on affirmative action in our univeristies.

[Lou_Duran]

Dr. Moriarty- you know me so well in some respects, so little in others.  In light of all that's been said by the Left about conservatives, white males, southerners, people with strong religious convictions, and most Republican presidents, Rush opining that the Philly sports media overrated McNabb because of his race should not have even made the news outside of that city.  Charles Barkley can openly disparage white basketball players for their inability to jump and play, Jesse Jackson can take very negative shots at Jews, and the Gore campaign ("not going to let a bunch of white boys win") can play the race card repeatedly without consequence.

BTW, while in NM, I retained the services of Doug Wright to represent me in any direct discussions with you.  While Doug is probably much closer to you philosophically than me, your propensity to deal artfully with the language and those things legal prompted me seek the assistance of someone with similar skills.  I hope that Doug will weigh in and start earning his fees.

The Limbaugh episode is prima facia evidence of the Left's strong media bias.  That ESPN and so many were surprised and offended by Rush's comments is pure drivel.  The show in question was rehearsed well before it went live, and it included Rush's allegedly racists remarks.  Not one of the black commentators nor the ESPN brass jumped in to argue against it nor to suggest that the remarks were inappropriate.  The show went on as rehearsed, ESPN received little if any negative feedback for nearly two days afterwards.  Only after the Philly press made it cause celebre on late Monday and the Dem presidential hopefuls piled on did the story get legs.  And just as a coincidence, the story about Rush's problem with pain-killers surfaces.

Rush is a big boy and he can defend himself.  Whether his opinion is right or wrong, it is debatable.  A thorough analysis of the QB's life statistics was presented this weekend and it does appear that something besides performance on the field accounts for the high reputation he  enjoys.  With the NFL's management hiring policy, it is clear that race is a major issue in the sport.   Rush is more than willing to go toe-to-toe or mano-a-mano with anyone on the issues.  Few take him up on it because they can't prevail.  That there is not a successful liberal program of this type is not by accident.  And those who believe that his 20MM listeners are a bunch of angry white guys, please keep deluding yourselves.  The malcontent, the unhappy, and the functionally disordered are in much larger proportions among the liberals than the conservatives.  Personally, I don't know how some of these people can get up in the morning with the world being so unfair, our unelected president such a fraud, the rich starving the poor, Republicans poisoning the environment, women being forced to bear children against their will, corporate CEOs (a white male, of course) making $40MM per year while  minority kids who can barely read and write have to hustle to make minimum wage.  If there is a God, he could not allow things be so unfair and unjust in this country!  Maybe adding Prozac to the water with the flouride would have similar salutory effects.

David, I was under the impression that you believed that my views were actually quite simple, i.e. that I failed to appreciate the great complexities and various shades of grey which underlie our society.  You are right that I am an unabashed capitalist wtih strong beliefs in markets.  While it is far from being a perfect system, it is far superio than having you determing what I should buy, what I should pay for it, and whether my means clearly exceed my needs.  I am not anti-regulation nor do I have a large problem with the will of the majority.  I am very concerned with the tyranny of the majority when it comes to taxes and expenditures, and with an insiduous minority which can misrepresent the world at large and preys upon those with much inferior intellectual capabilities.  As I have mentioned to you, if allowed to opt out from the continually failing, hyper-expensive social experiments, many of us conservatives would have no problems with the Left.  The unfortunate thing is that while the Left hates us, it can't survive without our money.  The art of the science is to keep the goose barely alive so the eggs keep on coming.

Laffler showed that there are two points where revenues to the government are maximized, one is at a low tax rate and the other is at the high end.  It is not by accident that the liberals keep searching for that high point though the impact on the overall economy is to make it weaker.  By definition a bigger government relative to the private sector means a stronger government.  And it is axiomatic that a bigger, stronger government means fewer individual freedoms.  Well, at least that way no one can say that the rich are getting richer; only that the bureaucrats are getting stronger.  Do we really want to be like so many of the European countries?

On the issue of Bush overhyping the need to go to war, if he did, he should be held fully accountable for it.  Do we begin processing a referral to the World Court to try President Clinton for bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan upon false pretenses?  Or could he have acted on information provided by the intelligence apparatus that he so carefully defunded and defanged?  Could Bush have unwittingly become the victim of an intelligence liability created by the great Mr. Clinton?   Tommy N. how much did Clinton earn last year from his book and giving speeches, primarily in Europe (where he is highly respected)?  Something about $15 to $20MM?  Not bad for a guy who only briefly drew a check from the private sector.  And who said that government employment can't be profitable?  Yes, I much prefer private sector elites than political elites.

JohnV- you are a fiscal conservative concerned with deficits?  Me too.  So why did Clinton allow the tech bubble to expand and burst?  Why did the recession start on his watch?  I know that the liberals believe that terrorist are not born, they are made and I guess that we make them in droves.  But do you think that 9/11 on top of an already lethargic economy may have had an impact on Clinton's forecast of surpluses becoming Bush's deficits?  As a computer guy, I suspect that you have a good understanding of mathematics.  Can you tell me how a $100 billion tax break (I know, primarily benefitting the rich) results in a $7.5 trillion negative change in variance?  I guess it must be the $80+ billion war, and the fact that people have more money in their own pocket and they will just piss it all away.  Have we forgotten about the $200 hammers, $300 toilet seats, and tons and tons of dairy products which are routinely disposed by our highly efficient government?  With the exception of national defense, what government programs do you know the liberals to be loathe to spend on?  Don't we all know that if only we could spend more and more money that we would solve everything that ails our society?  Pretty soon we will demand class sizes of one with a teacher making six figures for teaching two or three classes for eight months.

TEPaul- you are absolutely right, and I am a living example of it.  Procrastination along with an errant driver are two of my larger failings currently.  I have a lot of work to do, so, this is the end.  
 

         

 

[George Pazin]

Good points, Shivas, but that quote wasn't from me, unless there's another George P on board.

Regarding my tirade over the weekend, let me apologize if it was a little over the top. Dissent & critical honest self reflection are always a good thing.

I will rebutt the points made later & show you all how wrong you are.

[JakaB]

I am proud to say that in Typical Fazio fashion this post will enter this wonderful and thoughtful thread into the Top Ten Rankings of all threads based on response....The Fazio name sells baby...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

JakaB,
I for one totally agree with you!

Now, is there any chance that the Bush administration can remove Fazio and his weapon of mass destruction, Tom Marzlotovovich from Riviera?

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Hearst:  Yes, Clinton "lied under oath" . . .  You wont find me defending Clinton . . .  But surely the context doesnt raise Clinton's comments to the level or importance of national security.  I dont think that our President (Democrat or Republican) need be under oath before we expect him to be truthful to American People, the Congress, and our Allies.  Especially about something as monumental as going to war.

Mr. Hearst and Lou:  I actually should have been more narrow when describing the "Dittoheads"  . . . many on the far right dont like him either.   I am sure if I dug deep enough even I might agree with one or two of his views, but he is a rude, name-calling, and insulting bully whose ratings depend upon stirring up the worst in both his supporters and opponents.  As John Stewart recently commented:  "He got rid of the 'big fat' part, but couldn't shake the 'idiot' part."

Lou, the "liberal-left media" position is fallacious when Rush and the like spew it and equally fallacious when you try to parrot it.  This story had legs because people were interested and offended.  The free marketplace of ideas at its best.  

And Lou you are all wet with regard to your description of the events.  For example, there was no dress rehearsal, but was a run-through the day before, but Rush failed to mention the favored-because-black mumbo jumbo.  And the other commentators were offended.   One was visibly agitated, all disagreed.  If they didnt react quickly or loudly enough it was because they were caught off guard.   I read somewhere that one or more refused to continue to work with him.  As far as the Philadelphia press making too big a deal of it . . . I lived in the Philly area for some of the Cunningham years . . . if they made a big deal out if it, it is because they knew how brutal the Philly press is willing to be on black QBs.  

You also talk of stats without giving any.  McNabb accounted for about 75% of his teams offense over the last two full seasons.  That stat and the team's success must count for something.

But even if he is overrated, he certainly isnt the first successful QB to be overrated.  It is the huge leap from "overrated" to the accusation of racial-favoritism.  Why go there if you dont have an agenda which goes well football?  

My theory . . . Rush, talking football, was out of his element and in over his head . . . Like Dennis Miller with his esoteric puns and obscure references, Rush needed to find a comfort zone so he fell back on what knew best-- blaming the press and hate-mongering.

[DMoriarty]

So which one is it?  He specifically said he wasn't waiting around for imminent danger in this case because, in this case, it might be too late.  It's pretty simple, as far as the imminent/not imminent argument goes.  He never claimed it was imminent.  The argument was straightforward -- these are bad people, they're truing to get bad stuff, they may even have bad stuff, they intend to use it, and we're gonna stop them before they can.  That was, and remains, the issue.  All this nonsense about "he claimed it was imminent, but they don't have them and never did, and he knew it" is just political gobbledygook, trying to score points with people with short memories.

Jeez Shivas, talk about revisionist history.  

I dont give a hoot whether he said 'imminent threat' or 'grave and gathering danger.' [Starting to sound a little like "it depends on that the meaning of 'is' is" to me.]  Bush and his people told us that he knew knew[/k] knew that they had WMD. (I doubt the term was created by the left.)  He didnt say "they may have bad stuff"  he said they definitely have bad stuff.  He also said he had 'intelligence sources' backing it up.  Thus far they havent even confirmed the supporting intelligence . . .

What if time tells that the administration made its WMD claims without intelligence support, or worse yet,  despite intelligence to the contrary? Would this change your view at all?  If the administration knowingly mislead the citizens, the Congress and the world in order to garner support for the war, should their be any consequences?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

What if they didn't ?

Then what do you say ?

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,

What if they didn't ?

Then what do you say ?

Patrick,
Believe it or not, I really hope that they didnt.  I hope they find the weapons tomorrow, or at least tell us why they made the claims they did.   Not even I am cynical enough to hope that our Commander-in-Chief would have intentionally mislead the Congress regarding a matter so important.

So Patrick, now that I have answered your questions, will you answer mine?  

Shivas, Tim W, and George,  

You are mistaken if you view President Bush's speech to the UN as his most important.  He was Constitutionally required (Art II Sec. 3, i think) to inform Congress of the "State of the Union."  Not that Bush necessarily did, but I think it safe to assume that the founders would have considered intentionally misleading Congress as to the "State of the Union" as a serious deriliction of the President's duty as Chief Executive and Commander-In-Chief.    

Time may tell whether President Bush had good reason to believe the claims he made during the State of the Union.  As I said above, I hope for the sake of our country that he did.  

But if it turns out that the President of the United States intentionally mislead a Joint Session of Congress as to the 'State of the Union' in order to convince Congress to support (and declare) War, then President Bush would have betrayed Congress, the Constitution, and the Nation.   Such behaviour would undoubtedly constitute a high crime worthy of impeachment, trial, and (if conviction) removal.   I assume that even the most ardent Conservatives would agree with this, especially after our recent forays into impeachment for far lesser misdeeds.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

There is no doubt in my mind that President Bush made clear he wasn’t going to wait for the “imminent threat” case when it came to Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. That’s exactly what his UN “grave and gathering danger” speech was all about. It wasn’t what conservatives call “Clinton like lawyer-speak”. It was the culmination of years of policy making discussions about how to deal with so called “asymmetrical” threats, among them WMD falling into the hands of rogue states and/or terrorists.

We’ve entered the political season and the battle of sound bites, but there are some hard truths Americans need to understand that I believe our current political dialogue obscures:

For starters, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (WMD) exist. So do people who would use them against civilian populations without warning and without mercy. These are not things made up by the Bush administration. They will confront every future President, Democrat or Republican.

With all the best efforts, our intelligence agencies will never be able to tell our President exactly when, where and how WMD might be used against us and/or our allies. The intelligence process itself isn’t that perfect. It involves analyzing mountains of data everyday and providing our political leaders with the best judgment about what it all means – not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our adversaries have learned a few things over the years the Russians weren’t aware of when they put missiles in Cuba: America has spy satellites and various other forms of electronic surveillance. So, they aren’t going to make proving the case against them as easy as President Kennedy could do.

The danger is that all this talk about President Bush lying could come back to haunt us: will we elect leaders who don’t understand the nature of WMD, how easy forms of it are to conceal and how destructive it could be? Will we elect leaders who think our intelligence capability is so good that we can wait until dangers are proven “imminent” beyond a reasonable doubt?

As politicians banter, I wonder if Hollywood has done a disservice: do Americans believe we can wait until the last minute to avoid danger, a bit like Clint Eastwood jumping in front of the President to stop the assassin’s bullet at the last second? That’s what makes revisionism and counter charges of revisionism so important. Serious policy makers on both sides of the aisle actually understand the risks of waiting for threats to become “imminent”. They were laid out in Bush’s National Security Statement released last fall and were built on work done by the Clinton administration.

As the sound bite battle continues, let’s hope our public discussion can catch up with the sober analysis done behind the scenes. We’ve entered the world of “asymmetrical warfare”. We won’t have the luxury of waiting for dangers to be proven “imminent”. Americans should not be encouraged to think otherwise.

[Craig Disher]

Geez, what a thread. I jumped in at the end just to see what hornet's nest JakaB stirred up over Fazio.

Really, at this point what difference does it make what reasons we had for attacking Iraq. What we found were a two-bit, third world army, a country collapsing from the inside, and no nukes or bad germs. What we're left with is half the Iraqi population hating us, most of the world thinking we're arrogant bullies, and over 100,00 Americans overseas with no clear way to get home anytime soon.

I'll give the Pres a pass on misreading ambiguous and incomplete information; but at this point, I sure don't feel any safer.

[JakaB]

If you are not aware you really need to go to the More Stats section found on the Discussion Group opening page....We are going to number six with a bullet....I guess it is probably obvious based on my public school education...but I do love my President and Country....

[A_Clay_Man]

Interesting how this "Faz" thread has degenerated into some (forgive me ya'll) boring political re-hash of a re-hash of somebodies political spin.

Mimics nicely the result of standardized architecture and maintenance.

In my best Joann Worley...

BOOOOORRRRRIIINGGGG

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()