The liberals want to make it sound as though we're losing
ground. They conjure up pessimism and negativism. They
have to make it all up. Liberals do not look at the good
things that have happened. They don't see them, don't recognize
them, or acknowledge them, because they don't want people
to be or feel happier, or safer. They want to paint the blackest
picture and they want American's to buy into this bull****.

America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it. They
want you to think they are going to be able to solve the problem
when the reality Kerry has gone from supporting the war, to
saying he would continue on our present course, to now saying,
"I am against the war."

Here it goes again, Kerry is against the war. Our troops
overseas can count on one thing. They will die for our
country and Kerry will be apologizing to our enemies.
The military can count on one thing, not being able to count
on Kerry to follow through on what he voted for.

CHENEY: When Congress voted to authorize force against
Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both
voted "yes." Now it seems they've both developed a convenient
case of campaign amnesia. The last thing our nation needs is
politicians who support a decision to go to war and then try to
rewrite history and then fail to support the troops they voted to
send into battle.

*********************************
Kerry has done just that, so has Edwards, they both voted for
the war then they voted against the $87 billion. Now they're
trying to say that they would do it better then do it smarter but
they won't say how and won't answer the hard questions.

Now:
KERRY: [on 60 Minutes] "I'm against this war."

KERRY: "In the two years since 9/11, less nuclear materials
have been secured than in the two years prior to 9/11."

HOLBROOKE [Kerry advisor on the Today Show with:
Katie Couric] He's talking about North Korea. The facts
speak for themselves, North Korea is more dangerous today
than it was before this administration came into power. Katie
looks at Newt and says, is that a valid criticism in your view?

***********************************
What about the US and Soviet arms reduction agreements?
***********************************

GINGRICH: Senator Kerry misses deliberately, as a campaign
device, a whole series of events. Libya has given up its
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and admitted,
by the way, that it was lying to the world for years, which
our CIA reported accurately was the case. Iran has now
admitted that for 18 years it lied to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, which is a multinational effort the United
States is participating in. Five countries, the United States,
Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea, are pressuring
North Korea in a multilateral effort, precisely the kind of
things, by the way, that Senator Kerry says he favors. Iraq
no longer has a dictator trying to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, something which, by the way, the British, Italian,
and French intelligence agencies ten days ago reported once
again that they were trying to buy uranium from Niger while
Saddam was dictator, something which had been disputed
by some people. And A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist
who was the leading proliferator in the private sector
worldwide, has now been stopped from that proliferation,
and the Pakistani government has clamped down. The world
is still dangerous. There are real steps that have been taken.

KATIE COURIC: "Newt, you think the administration would
do it differently if it had to do it all over again?"

GINGRICH: Let's look at the facts. It is a fact that George W.
Bush had the guts to go into Afghanistan, something Clinton
never did. It is a fact that while both Richard and I favored
replacing Saddam Hussein it is George W. Bush who had
the guts to replace him. What's Kerry saying, is Kerry saying
he would invade North Korea? What is his complaint? I want
to talk here, Richard, but what would you do in North Korea?
If you're not willing to invade Iraq, if you don't think invading
Afghanistan was right, what would do you in North Korea?
Not talk about, what would you do against the most dangerous
dictatorship on the planet?

HOLBROOKE: Newt, North Korea actually has weapons of
mass destruction.

GINGRICH: Right and got them under the Clinton administration.

HOLBROOKE: No, they got them before the Clinton administration.

***********************************
At least they built up dramatically under the Clinton administration
***********************************

HOLBROOKE: I would continue the six-part talks but make an
all-out effort to put more pressure directly on North Korea.

GINGRICH: And how would you do that?

HOLBROOKE: The administration's refusal to talk directly to North
Korea even though the South Koreans and the Chinese have said go
ahead and do it is an inexplicable triumph of ideology over substance.

GINGRICH: So you would put pressure by talking with them, you'd
put pressure by meeting with them, this is pressure?

***********************************
Are you laughing as hard as I am? This is pressure?
***********************************

HOLBROOKE: No, it's a complete -- you know it's a complete package.

GINGRICH: No. Are you prepared to invade North Korea or is this
just more rhetoric without any substantive action?


No answer.
***********************************
How can you criticize and then suggest you would both do
nothing differently, and attack N. Korea in the same breath????

I want an answer to this question!
**********************************

KERRY: I think the president made a mistake in the way that he took us to
war.

STAHL: Was the war wrong?

KERRY: I am against the war. The way the president went to war was wrong.

************************************
Kerry voted for it and now says "I'm against the war". He is tap dancing
around the issues and saying the way the president went to war was wrong.
President Bush asked for and got Kerry's vote. Congress got it's chance,
another vote, another debate and, another resolution. President Bush did
not
proceed until he had the votes of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, the
whole government, the whole Congress, and he didn't proceed until he had
two resolutions. Now Kerry wants to pretend that he never cast that vote.

Someone, please send a cows backbone, to Kerry. He is spineless.

Boston Globe editorial on spineless John Kerry.
http://news.bostonherald.com/electio...rticleid=29108

"Safer" due to restricted civil rights. Which good things? People all
around the world hating us? High gas prices, lousy economy that's
finally starting to get better despite the idiot in the WH? Oh, those
things.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
The liberals want to make it sound as though we're losing
ground. They conjure up pessimism and negativism. They
have to make it all up. Liberals do not look at the good
things that have happened. They don't see them, don't recognize
them, or acknowledge them, because they don't want people
to be or feel happier, or safer. They want to paint the blackest
picture and they want American's to buy into this bull****.

America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it. They
want you to think they are going to be able to solve the problem
when the reality Kerry has gone from supporting the war, to
saying he would continue on our present course, to now saying,
"I am against the war."

Here it goes again, Kerry is against the war. Our troops
overseas can count on one thing. They will die for our
country and Kerry will be apologizing to our enemies.
The military can count on one thing, not being able to count
on Kerry to follow through on what he voted for.

CHENEY: When Congress voted to authorize force against
Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both
voted "yes." Now it seems they've both developed a convenient
case of campaign amnesia. The last thing our nation needs is
politicians who support a decision to go to war and then try to
rewrite history and then fail to support the troops they voted to
send into battle.

*********************************
Kerry has done just that, so has Edwards, they both voted for
the war then they voted against the $87 billion. Now they're
trying to say that they would do it better then do it smarter but
they won't say how and won't answer the hard questions.

Now:
KERRY: [on 60 Minutes] "I'm against this war."

KERRY: "In the two years since 9/11, less nuclear materials
have been secured than in the two years prior to 9/11."

HOLBROOKE [Kerry advisor on the Today Show with:
Katie Couric] He's talking about North Korea. The facts
speak for themselves, North Korea is more dangerous today
than it was before this administration came into power. Katie
looks at Newt and says, is that a valid criticism in your view?

***********************************
What about the US and Soviet arms reduction agreements?
***********************************

GINGRICH: Senator Kerry misses deliberately, as a campaign
device, a whole series of events. Libya has given up its
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and admitted,
by the way, that it was lying to the world for years, which
our CIA reported accurately was the case. Iran has now
admitted that for 18 years it lied to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, which is a multinational effort the United
States is participating in. Five countries, the United States,
Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea, are pressuring
North Korea in a multilateral effort, precisely the kind of
things, by the way, that Senator Kerry says he favors. Iraq
no longer has a dictator trying to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, something which, by the way, the British, Italian,
and French intelligence agencies ten days ago reported once
again that they were trying to buy uranium from Niger while
Saddam was dictator, something which had been disputed
by some people. And A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist
who was the leading proliferator in the private sector
worldwide, has now been stopped from that proliferation,
and the Pakistani government has clamped down. The world
is still dangerous. There are real steps that have been taken.

KATIE COURIC: "Newt, you think the administration would
do it differently if it had to do it all over again?"

GINGRICH: Let's look at the facts. It is a fact that George W.
Bush had the guts to go into Afghanistan, something Clinton
never did. It is a fact that while both Richard and I favored
replacing Saddam Hussein it is George W. Bush who had
the guts to replace him. What's Kerry saying, is Kerry saying
he would invade North Korea? What is his complaint? I want
to talk here, Richard, but what would you do in North Korea?
If you're not willing to invade Iraq, if you don't think invading
Afghanistan was right, what would do you in North Korea?
Not talk about, what would you do against the most dangerous
dictatorship on the planet?

HOLBROOKE: Newt, North Korea actually has weapons of
mass destruction.

GINGRICH: Right and got them under the Clinton administration.

HOLBROOKE: No, they got them before the Clinton administration.

***********************************
At least they built up dramatically under the Clinton administration
***********************************

HOLBROOKE: I would continue the six-part talks but make an
all-out effort to put more pressure directly on North Korea.

GINGRICH: And how would you do that?

HOLBROOKE: The administration's refusal to talk directly to North
Korea even though the South Koreans and the Chinese have said go
ahead and do it is an inexplicable triumph of ideology over substance.

GINGRICH: So you would put pressure by talking with them, you'd
put pressure by meeting with them, this is pressure?

***********************************
Are you laughing as hard as I am? This is pressure?
***********************************

HOLBROOKE: No, it's a complete -- you know it's a complete package.

GINGRICH: No. Are you prepared to invade North Korea or is this
just more rhetoric without any substantive action?


No answer.
***********************************
How can you criticize and then suggest you would both do
nothing differently, and attack N. Korea in the same breath????

I want an answer to this question!
**********************************

KERRY: I think the president made a mistake in the way that he took us to
war.

STAHL: Was the war wrong?

KERRY: I am against the war. The way the president went to war was wrong.

************************************
Kerry voted for it and now says "I'm against the war". He is tap dancing
around the issues and saying the way the president went to war was wrong.
President Bush asked for and got Kerry's vote. Congress got it's chance,
another vote, another debate and, another resolution. President Bush did
not
proceed until he had the votes of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, the
whole government, the whole Congress, and he didn't proceed until he had
two resolutions. Now Kerry wants to pretend that he never cast that vote.

Someone, please send a cows backbone, to Kerry. He is spineless.

Boston Globe editorial on spineless John Kerry.
http://news.bostonherald.com/electio...rticleid=29108

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal, and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer. The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits. In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies, and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?




************************************
Kerry voted for it and now says "I'm against the war". He is tap dancing
around the issues and saying the way the president went to war was wrong.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost far,
far less than it has.

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

DSK

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

"Safer" due to restricted civil rights.

Perhaps it's time YOU took that remedial reading course, Jon. Qaddafi has
surrendered his nukes, and we know for a fact that he has had numerous ties
to terrorists, including terrorist training camps within Lybia. So you
don't consider that "safer." Would Qaddafi's acquiesence have occurred if
we'd not entered Iraq?

Which good things? People all
around the world hating us?

Anti-US sentiment is nothing new. If you think we were popular with those
same folks prior to the Iraq war, you're delusional. The price of being the
only superpower . . .

High gas prices,

And you're blaming Bush for this? Have you forgotten the $2.20 per gallon
prices during the Clinton admin.?

lousy economy that's
finally starting to get better despite the idiot in the WH?

More liberal lies. The economy has been improving steadily, if slowly,
since it's pit following 9/11. And I'd like you to show me evidence that
it's improving despite what the current administration is doing/has done.
Don't bother--you can't. (Unless it's something out of a Michael Moore
flick.)

Face the facts, Jon. The only way Kerry (a throw-away candidate for the
democrats) can win is to fabricate bad news, oppose anything the Bush
administration has done (despite having supported it formerly), and hope the
American people buy into the bull****.

Here's another wrinkle fer ya: Hillary Clinton is silently praying Kerry is
defeated. If he wins, it conceivably puts off her bid for the presidency by
8 years. She'll be well into her upper sixties then, and less likely to be
a favorable candidate in the eyes of her fellow democrats, who appear to
prefer younger individuals. Her career is dependent upon Kerry's defeat.
Oh, I suspect WJC and Hillary will make a mild show of support at the
convention, but don't count on them beating the "bush" for him.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence, which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing???? You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer. It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions, good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them, despite the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that seems to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such. That you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max

Sorry but Qaddafi didn't have any "nukes." He had a prelininary program
to develop them, however. Is that what you meant?

Anti-US sentiment is at an all time high. There are terror attacks all over
the world and other gov'ts are loath to involve us or help us.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

"Safer" due to restricted civil rights.

Perhaps it's time YOU took that remedial reading course, Jon. Qaddafi has
surrendered his nukes, and we know for a fact that he has had numerous
ties
to terrorists, including terrorist training camps within Lybia. So you
don't consider that "safer." Would Qaddafi's acquiesence have occurred if
we'd not entered Iraq?

Which good things? People all
around the world hating us?

Anti-US sentiment is nothing new. If you think we were popular with those
same folks prior to the Iraq war, you're delusional. The price of being
the
only superpower . . .

High gas prices,

And you're blaming Bush for this? Have you forgotten the $2.20 per gallon
prices during the Clinton admin.?

lousy economy that's
finally starting to get better despite the idiot in the WH?

More liberal lies. The economy has been improving steadily, if slowly,
since it's pit following 9/11. And I'd like you to show me evidence that
it's improving despite what the current administration is doing/has done.
Don't bother--you can't. (Unless it's something out of a Michael Moore
flick.)

Face the facts, Jon. The only way Kerry (a throw-away candidate for the
democrats) can win is to fabricate bad news, oppose anything the Bush
administration has done (despite having supported it formerly), and hope
the
American people buy into the bull****.

Here's another wrinkle fer ya: Hillary Clinton is silently praying Kerry
is
defeated. If he wins, it conceivably puts off her bid for the presidency
by
8 years. She'll be well into her upper sixties then, and less likely to
be
a favorable candidate in the eyes of her fellow democrats, who appear to
prefer younger individuals. Her career is dependent upon Kerry's defeat.
Oh, I suspect WJC and Hillary will make a mild show of support at the
convention, but don't count on them beating the "bush" for him.

Max

Well, you're obviously easitly fooled!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence, which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing????
You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's
original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical
accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need
either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer. It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya
know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions, good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them, despite
the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding
out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that seems
to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a
very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such. That
you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Well, you're obviously easitly fooled!

I really don't know why, Jon, but I've held out some tiny fragment of hope
for you. Sadly you've let me down. You apparently have no intention of
thinking about your responses before belching them in the form of a post.

I give up. I guess extreme left-wingers, such as yourself, are incapable of
rational or reasoned thought, rather choosing to upchuck the left-wing
party line instead.

So be it.

Max

Well I guess! I thought you were holding out something else, but I'm
not that kind of guy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Well, you're obviously easitly fooled!

I really don't know why, Jon, but I've held out some tiny fragment of hope
for you. Sadly you've let me down. You apparently have no intention of
thinking about your responses before belching them in the form of a post.

I give up. I guess extreme left-wingers, such as yourself, are incapable
of
rational or reasoned thought, rather choosing to upchuck the left-wing
party line instead.

So be it.

Max

well stated cogent points
thanks

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence, which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing????
You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's
original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical
accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need
either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer. It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya
know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions, good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them, despite
the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding
out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that seems
to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a
very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such. That
you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max