so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[Borscht]

There's a very real chance of being killed by the Americans

ROFLMAO! Yeah, those damn Americans. Wonderfully insightful and informative post.

We now return you to your normally scheduled anti-Americanism...

[Gnutter]

LOL, don't get me wrong. I'm British, and I'm in favour of this war. I'm proud of the fact that British service men are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Americans.

It's just that even with all your high tech equipment, you still can't shoot for shit.

I mean, patriot missile against a RAF Tornado. Itchy trigger finger or what??? ( I know it's an automated system, before someone gets on their high horse )

Hell, if you can't laugh at it, what can you do.

[Borscht]

I know it's an automated system, before someone gets on their high horse

I'm not laughing because your immediate assumption is that the fault lies with the American technology. Before any investigation has been completed, and the causes reckoned.

Anyone who suggests that Americans can't "shoot for shit" after the thousands of surgically precise strikes against Baghdad hasta be smoking some very low-quality hemp.

Especially considering the first strike of the war, in which missiles from several ships in different seas, along with bombs from stealth fighters, precisely struck their high-value target at the same instant.

My guess is the investigation will reveal a couple of pilots flying where they didn't belong, or with their FF transponders disabled, and paying the ultimate price for their error. As you admit, it's an automated system, with clearly understood parameters of operation.

[Borscht]

"Conditions of a successful campaign", as defined by the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media:

- The war must end in a week, 10 days at the most.

- There must be no U.S. casualties.

- There must be no capture of coalition forces.

- There must be no deaths from friendly fire.

- There must be no deaths from accidents.

- No Iraqi civilians can be killed in the process.

- No Iraqi schools, mosques or hospitals can be damaged.

- Our troops must be welcomed by Iraqis waving American flags.

- We must find weapons of mass destruction.

- We must kill or capture Saddam Hussein and his sons.

- There can be no oil well fires or other environmental disasters.

- Defense spending cannot grow beyond the current 3.5% of GDP

I see a signpost up ahead. Next stop....the Twilight Zone

[Cryonic]

Originally posted by Borscht
"Conditions of a successful campaign", as defined by the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media:

- The war must end in a week, 10 days at the most.

Not likely to happen

- There must be no U.S. casualties.

too late for this one.

- There must be no capture of coalition forces.

Doh, another objective not completed

- There must be no deaths from friendly fire.

Gah, just can't seem to win this one.

- There must be no deaths from accidents.

This one was killed before the campaign even began.

- No Iraqi civilians can be killed in the process.

- No Iraqi schools, mosques or hospitals can be damaged.

- Our troops must be welcomed by Iraqis waving American flags.

- We must find weapons of mass destruction.

Hey, one we might have succeeded at

- We must kill or capture Saddam Hussein and his sons.

- There can be no oil well fires or other environmental disasters.

Gah....

- Defense spending cannot grow beyond the current 3.5% of GDP

I see a signpost up ahead. Next stop....the Twilight Zone

Very amusing.

[Gnutter]

I knew someone would take my comments too seriously.

It was meant to be a very tongue in cheek statement. Accidents happen in war, and I agree, there have been many successfull surgical strikes.

There is a reputation of "friendly fire" scenarios here though. More brits were killed by friendly fire in the first gulf war, than were killed by Iraqis.

[Geekylad]

PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to
President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and
so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush
thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United
States.
Check this out....

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

and this.....

1984...

http://www.rense.com/general15/happy.htm

[Cryonic]

I wasn't trying to take your post seriously, (hence the very amusing comment at the end of my post).

[Alwayslost]

In regards to the patriot vs. Tornado incident:

The threat identification and targeting system is automatic, the firing mechanism is not. A living, breathing, and hopefully thinking, human being must push the launch button after the system has identified a potential threat.

The pilots have specific instructions on how to return to base if their ident responders are damaged or if their radios are out.

What I THINK happened was a malfunction of the Ident Responder that the pilot was unaware of. Thus he did not use the contingent approach patterns, as was thus targeted as an enemy missile or plane (general threat)

Or there is the possibility the Pilot was already injured and the Ident Responder and radio were both out and he took the default path to base due to medical condition/fatigue issues.

[futuro]

Originally posted by Borscht

Futuro, you have demonstrated the totality of your brand of utter vacuousness. You have ceased being amusing. You've dodged every shred of substance in my many posts directed at you, and chosen to jump off into some obscure area that I didn't even allude to.
All of your hasty replies are filled with the sophomoric silliness that is your trademark. Again you demonstrate how impervious to reason and truth that you are, and how you simply dance away from every objective fact.
As I've said before, I don't argue with fools and I don't throw pearls before swine. Welcome to that nice, quiet place where Jeeves lives! You have no power here, be off with you.

Your ad hominen attacks aside, I admit, until this message I did not view the video. I just assumed you were referring to the violence that broke out in SF. However, my comments still apply. You're using a video very selective in it's subject matter. All the people presented there were fringe, except for the last guy.

You're still painting with a broad brush by totally ignoring the vast majoirity of protestors who plainly don't think this war is necessary. Some people even are of the opinion that wrt preventing terrorism, it is counter-productive.

If you think that video is "objective fact", I'll show you some web pages from some religious nutcases and associate all religious people with them.... But you'd scream about that, wouldn't you?

Treat people as you would want to be treated. Don't lump me in with the nutcases, and I won't lump you in with the arab-haters who want to nuke the whole middle-east on your side of the war discussion, ok?

[futuro]

Originally posted by Borscht
I agree with your general precepts, however I would respectfully caution about accepting or conceding the premises of your opponent on these matters.

I read this as Borscht saying "don't give them any room to wiggle, even if they're right, we have a war to fight here, and we're not letting truth get in the way, everything has to be black vs. white, us vs. them, good vs. evil, otherwise, you'll confuse the masses and they might lose their resolve. Tell them anything, even insinuate that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, so their emotions get in the way of their rational thinking. Rational thinking is the real enemy".

Typical progagnda. De-humanize the opponent, call them "evil" and "enemy" and "anti-american".

Anyone who claims that America's goals in the Kuwait conflict, or the current Iraqi conflict, are oil money is demonstrating their complete ignorance of reality.

During the Kuwait conflict, oil prices dropped precipitously to a low of $17.00 a barrel for crude. Anyone invested in oil in those days took a major bath.

Crude prices are dropping like a rock even now, and began their drop in the hours just before the war. The economic forces that cause this are identical, and there will be many deflated stock portfolios as things continue. This is a boon to the oil consumer, but a total kick in the shorts for the oil distributor or investor.

I would submit that the writer here has a poor underatanding of economics. It's not the absolute price of the oil, but the relative price versus costs to extract and process. That's what is known as the "profit margin". Exxon could really care less what the price of oil is, as long as it covers their extraction, processing and delivery costs, plus a nice profit. Oil prices, like any commodity, are simply a reflection of supply and demand. The rise in crude prices reflected fears that some supply would be shut down (however temporarily) by the war. People started stocking up in anticipation of a bottle-neck in supply. It was generated by fear. Now that it seems the war will go relatively uneventfully, those fears were calmed, and the price will stabilize somewhat above where it was prior to the run up.

Any "investor" in crude who didn't have downside protection in the form of hedges and straddles, isn't an investor, they're a gambler. The major oil companies have their own supply, and buy oil on the market when it's economically feasible to do so. Exxon/Mobil has millions of gallons of pumping capacity at all levels of price. When the price goes up, they pump more of their "expensive" wells because then they can sell it at a profit. More supply come online, and demand being equal, the price starts to come down until their "expensive" wells aren't profitable anymore. Then they start buying on the open market again.

Either way, Exxon/Mobil makes money hand over fist. Anyone remember the "windfall profits tax" insituted on the oil companies during the 2 OPEC embargoes in the '70s?

And the speculators (gamblers) take a bath, so what?

We seek to preserve the Iraqi oil fields to conserve those resources for their rightful owners, the Iraqi people.

Is this the most naive statement you've ever heard in your life?

America has a long tradition of good stewardship and selfless sacrifice for the free world. We have asked for nothing from those countries we have saved or liberated, except enough ground to bury our dead. Only the pathetic leftists talk about "costs" where liberty is concerned.

No, I take it back.. This one is. I'm really wondering where you get your information. Granted, after WWII, we strived to rebuild Europe and the Pacific Rim, and (most) of those people are better for it. However, after Korea, we abandoned that practice, and have practiced a "enemy of my enemy" foreign policy that supported dictators as bad as Saddam (hell, including Saddam).

And we haven't asked Iraq for it's oil profits after the war. We just assumed the right to take them and dole them out to our "allies".

As a people, we are the most generous by any measure you care to devise. Do not let the aberational phenomena of the Clinton administration, or the current decrepit wantoness of the Democrat party lead you into believing that all our government is corrupt.

Here's a measure : Foreign aid as a percent of GDP : We're number 22 in the world. (source)

And, before I forget ---- "decripit wantoness of the Democratic party" ---- and you call me a partisan hack???

The nuances of difference between the opposing sides are not subtle, but rather easily discernable.

The one thing I almost agree with. Unfortunately for us normal Americans, the one thing both parties have in common is being owned by corporate interests.

[futuro]

Originally posted by homer
If people would actually read all the resolutions that have been passed since 1991, they all give authorization in attacking Iraq if the points in it are not met. Time and time again Saddam has decieved, lied, and bullshitted his way out o fconflict. He even went as far to say he had no scud missles anymore.

Well, if that was true, where the hell are the scuds coming from now that he is firing?

The Resolutions, even teh most recent one passed last year, gives us the authority to do what we are doing. Why do you think the U.N. Sec General has not condemned or condoned what we are doing? All he has said is he hopes for a quick and decisive end to the conflict so humanitarian aid can be started.

If the resolutions had not authorized it, the U.N. would have already brougth charges against the U.S. and the other 39 countries of the coalition to the world court.

Please have your facts.

Fact : Given the current world military situation, the US cold concievably wipe every other nation form the face of the earth

Fact : The UN headquaters is in New York

Fact : The UN didn't authorization military action. The troops are not under UN command.

Fact : The US took this action on it's own (oh yeah, with 39 cojuoled, bribed or threatened "allies")

Fact : Without US troops, the UN is virtually powerless.

Fact : Bush withdrew from the world court. Do you think he had this in mind already? I sure do, since Wolfenstien, Rumsfeld, Chaney and others have been wanting this war for years.

So what would you have the UN do? They tried to stop us diplomatically, they tried to do this peacefully. Now all they can do is talk nice while the 900-pound gorrilla does what it wants to,anyway. 1441 called for "serious consequences". That's quite an open term, isn't it? During the time since this resolution, the US masses 300,000 troops on Iraq's border. Perhaps that's not what the Security Council meant by "serious consequences"? Bush and company *knew* this, that's why they tried for another resolution calling for military action. France, Germany, and Russia *disagreed* and wanted to give more time for inspections.

Noting that France, Germany, Russia, and all the countries combined couldn't stop us, what can the UN do?

But maybe I missed it, where is the resolution that specifically authorizes military action?

[futuro]

Originally posted by TDES
George Bush - Used political connection and office to improve his personal wealth. Arguably made poor decisions regarding economic policy. Probably not the most environmentally concerned president we've seen.

You forgot : Attacked another country without provocation

Saddam - Tortured children in front of their parents for the purpose of instilling fear in his domain.

And we've supported dictators who've done the same or worse. As long as they were friendly to us, or our corporations.

I'm sorry ... as I watch the news tonight knowing my sister and all the other soldiers are very much in harms way ... I'm able to discern the purpose. As respectful I've been to everyone’s opinion (and still am where it pertains to decent over war) ... I'm feeling the need to give a big F-Y to those that are not fully supporting our people that have the balls (ovaries) to get the job done.

And I feel the need to give the give F-Y (I like that, not profanity, but everybody knows what it means ) to all the ballless chicken hawks who want to put your sister in harms way for their personal profit. Check out the military records of the main people in Bush's administration, including Bush. (Powell excepted, of course). None of them have even been in the military, except for Dubya, who got a milk-run national guard assignment by way of his daddy's influence. If I were you, I'd be more mad at people who send kids to die while sitting counting their money. None of their kids or grandchildren are in Iraq, you can be damn sure.

As a country, we may not be loved for out policies, but I still maintain that we have done far more good for this planet than bad in our 200+ years. Show me a country that has done more for the world (despite our faults) and I'll conceed.

Sure, we've done some good. We've done pretty bad, too. Ask yourself why Iran picked the US embassary to take hostages in 1978(?). Then look at history and find that the US installed and supported the Shah of Iran for years, and gave him the weapons and money to keep his people suppressed for 30 years. We supplied weapons and training to Afghan rebels, then, when the USSR collapsed, instead of helping to rebuild the country and help the people, we abandoned them, giving rise to the Taliban. Perhaps our callous attitude toward Afghanistan was what changed OBL from a rich-kid rebel to an America hating terrorist.

We've proven that there is nothing we cannot accomplish as a united country. USA is still the #1 place that people flock to in effort to seek a better life and a chance to prosper.

I agree. And I want to keep it that way.

If we all don't remember what brought us the prosperity that we all enjoy and most of us take completely for granted, we'll end up as footnotes in the history books.

I firmly agree. And we're losing the economic egalitarianism that made us great.

Descent and differing opinions are what made us unique, but not rallying behind our brothers and sisters in times of need, whether or not we agree with the cause will be our demise.

Here I have to disagree. The true patriot stands behind his country when he thinks it is right, and rises up in protest when he thinks the country is wrong. In WWII, it was apparent to all that the US was on the right side. We stood as one and fought the threat. At the time, Germany was much stronger militarily then us, and I submit that, given some patience by Hitler, by not attacking the USSR and stopping Japan from attacking us, he could have eventually conquered the world, since even his research was way ahead of ours. But he was insane, lucky for us.

However, I don't need to tell you about Viet Nam, do I?

Futuro, if you don't like George, I support your opinion, but save the campaigning for 2004.

Please! The campaign on both sides started January 21st, 2001
Meanwhile, if it wasn't for anti-war protestors during Viet Nam, we might still be ther fighting an endless war. As someone else posted the 1984 endless war might have started 2 decades earlier. Blindly following your government just because there's a war on is a ticket to oblivion.

Right now, I'm much happier having Donnie and John making decisions than Madeline Half-bright and that broad that held a MP5 to Elian head..

I'm glad at least you admit that Bush has no power. Isn't it great? We have a president that doesn't make the decisions, his "handlers" do.

[QUOTE]BTW .... you enjoy these forums (and I enjoy your debates) .. where's your contribution ? <wink>[QUOTE]

I gave at the office

noticed this a while after I posted ......

Americans are inhumane

Yeah ... we're the assholes .... where are your liberal crocodile tears about this .... huh ? [/B]

No crocodile tears here. This is terrible. These poor kids are going to grow up unwanted and frightened. But just two points...

1) I don't hear Bush expanding his "Axis of Evil" to include China.
And anyway, it was Chinese Police that found this and stopped it. You have to give them credit for that.

2) I wouldn't be surprised if a few of those babies ended up here with American parents. There was a 20/20 expose on this exact thing a few years ago, and the babies were coming here illegally. (maybe it was 60 minutes, I forget). Instead of using the adoption system in the US, some wealthy Americans effectively buy asian babies. Meanwhile, many US babies grow up in serial foster care. I don't need to tell you why, do I?

[hhh]

futuro, nice to have a refreshing debate w/o any resort to name-calling because opinions differ isn't it ?

>It's funny that everybody here seems to think it fine for the US to have the weapons that we deem necessary for our defense, but other countries can't do the same.<

Following that logic, ok, maybe even we shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction. Then something like 9/11 happens to us anyway (and it would - Ill get to this further down). Shouldn't we retaliate? Or just take it and turn the other cheek?

Sometimes after thinking about this, I wonder if the world itself isn't very lucky that on 9/12, 90% of the middle east wasn't a radioactive mess.

>Being the most powerful nation in the world doesn't give us the right to dicate to the rest of the world how they should act. <

No, but with it, comes some indirect responsibilites and well, for lack of a better word, conditions.

As _THE_ superpower, you are going to be hated/envied no matter how nice you are, how much good things you do, or the nice things you do for society. Think about a local celebrity or something you know that is well off. If this person doesn't help or given back to the community, they are percieved as stuck up or too good for everyone. If this person does give back to the community, people think they are trying to buy themselves publicity to make oneself look good. Jealousy is something people are born one, and those that have not are going to be jealous, its natural. People will always envy/resent the United States no matter how much good/bad we do.

>Why do you think that other countries should take care of their less fortunate citizens when we don't? Why do you condemn Iraq and North Korea for spending money on their militaries at the expense of their poor, starving citizens when we're doing the exact same thing? <

I think plenty is spent on such in our own country. At just above 10% I think our poverty level is less than that of the compared countries. Couple with the fact that inflation isn't 60% here. Poverty should include the type of economy (ie unemployment, do a degree and such) that a government creates for its people, and I think they are slightly neglogent. Granted Bush is leaving a lot of room for improvement for economic policy.

You know, I hypothesized once that another reasont his war was "hurried" (well, thats an incorrect term, any idiot knows that if we were going to war it had to be before the hot weather hit in the desert) -- but another whole reason was to get servicemen out of the country, for an extended period of time -- since this would artifically make unemployment seem lower than it really is, compared to if those people were here and looking for day jobs too. History shows generally war is good for economy, but when people return afterwords usually equals a slump, due to the excess labor force. I had to discredit the hypothesis due to no hard evidence since I don't operate soley on conjecture. It just did seem to fit in kind of "neatly" though.

>So how do you know that the stories they tell you aren't designed to inflame your emotions into supporting an attack on the world's second largest oil reserves?<

Again, things aren't so black and white, and the media in this country isn't solely controlled by the government, so your going to hear it "all", not just stories that would seem to make you pro-war.

> And if Saddam is such a terrible guy, and wants to screw everybody anyway possible, why is he trading with France and Russia in such a way that they would want to continue? <

Ever heard of gangs? Bad guys band together? He needed an ace up the hole incase the US was going to come after him again? Afterall he tried many a time to draw Israel into the Gulf War, and we know what that would do that area. Man if Israel ever gets involved, even the US better stay out of their way. These people have fought since their existance, no one is a match for them.

Of all the things I've been reading lately, I really find the protests upsetting. The time for demonstations is over, that should have been done before the bombs started dropping. Now its time to line up behind your President and support him whether you approve of what hes doing or not. I have a ton of friends that are in Iraq now, and they know their mission is to bring a new Gov't to Iraq, and they are stoked about it. I remember in the Guilf War I was always worried about getting drafted and such. (I later found out I'm disqualified for any type of military service because of being blind in 1 eye). The opportunity to fight for your on country would be such an honor, even if you don't approve of what we are doing, it is your duty to your country. If not, Canada isn't far away because your disrepecting what this country was built on.

A minister of mine once said something along the lines of "a true friend is someone that knows everything about you, and is still your friend". That said, I'd like to publically say thanks for the UK, and Tony Blair, one of the most courageous men alive today for standing shoulder to shoulder with the US amist skeptism in his own country in the name of doing the right thing. We certainly know who one true friend is.

[futuro]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Borscht

Be cautious not to accept the premises of liberals when you debate them. They are always flawed or empty rhetoric, for the foundation of liberalism is utopian fantasy and emotion...not reason and intellect.[QUOTE]

Demonize your opponents, go ahead. Don't post substaniated facts and evidence, just call names and spew FUD.

I do not believe there has been any substantiated instance of Bush using political connections to improve his personal wealth.

Then you're either a liar, or severely mis-informed. Just one example : Bush and the Rangers
And another : Bush name helps oil dealings

Considering the gutter-level criticism coming from Daschle, I imagine even the wildest speculation of any sort of dealing would be national news by now.

No, the corporate press is quite happy with Bush. They spent their time in the last election trashing Gore for his internet quote. I'll bet you didn't read the link I supplied before about the RNC mangling Gore's quote to trash his reputation, and the "liberal" press running with it, as per orders. Bush's mangling of the english language, his drug and alcohol use, his driving record, his failed business dealings, all were off limits for GE, Disney, Viacom, Clear Channel and the two or three other corporations that control the US media.

Bush's economic policy is no different than that of John F. Kennedy.

An outright LIE. Kennedy reduced top income tax rates from 90% to 70%. Reagan reduced them from 65% to 33%!
Then Reagan raised FICA rate from 4%ish to the current 6.5%, a tax that people stop paying at (currently) $80,400. He moved the tax burden to the working man away from the rich, and gave us debt we're still paying today. Kennedy's budget was almost balaced, and he didn't burden future generations to pay for a war, or a military buildup. When Kennedy reduced tax rates, he also removed some tax havens, too. His tax cut was revenue neutral. Reagan's was designed to casue a deficit, to force the elimination of social programs that help the poor and middle class.

I now accuse you of being a shill for the neo-cons, who want to ruin the US for their own profit and wealth.

Which was the very economic policy that Ronald Reagan adopted.

Bullshit, plain and simple. Kennedy's tax cut was Keysian, pure and simple. Reagan's was supply-side. Supply-side is about the stupidest economic idea since sefdom.... wait, it's ultimate goal IS serfdom!


[QUOTE]I see no errors in Bush's economic policy, with the exception that it is being implemented much too slowly to have the effect that JFK's and Reagan's did.[QUOTE]

Another load of Wooly Rhino shit. The only reason hat Reagan had any kin of economic expansion is that oil prices declined from $40 a barrel to $12 a barrel. Absent that, his cuts would have had no effect, and his deficits would have been much larger. I'd post some references, but I can see you're blinded by the supply-side idiots. Just remember, the guy who came up with this whole "economic policy" was names Laffer. A fitting name for a laughable economy.

Since virtually none of Bush's ten-year economic plan has actually kicked in yet, it's a bit premature to analyze the quality of his decisions.

Wrong again. The middle class cuts are already in. And what happened? Deeper recession, higher deficts. What do you think giving more money to rich people who already have plenty of cash laying around in t-bills is going to do for the economy? For an example, Microsoft is sitting on $40 billion in cash, and Berkshire-Hathaway has $20 billion. What makes you think giving them more money will make them invest it?

We have more basic problems in this country that any size tax cut can solve. I ask the IS people here, how many of you have seen co-workers or friends jobs go to H-1B immigrants, or worse, outsourced to India, Indonesia, or Ireland for 1/2, 1/4 or 1/10 or American wages? And meanwhile, the glory of IS jobs is fading rapidly, and good programmers are saying "you want fries with that?"....

Environmental "concern" has approached the level of radicalism. Banning sensible and necessary harvesting of national forests has led to the plague of recent wildfires with huge property losses to homes bordering the forestlands. Onerous restrictions on energy development have led to the rolling blackouts in California.

Lying through his teeth for the corporations. I'm sory, but massive drought, and overdelopment lead to the plague of recent wildfires wiht losses to homes bodering national forests.

And it's been proven, with evidence and admisisons from those involved that the rolling blackouts in CA were casued by price manipulation by ENRON and other energy companies.

You should try to get Rush and Sean and their friends to update their rants.

And I sincerely hope that once international terrorism is dealt with, we turn our attentions to our domestic terrorists operating under the guise of "environmental concern". Earth First, etc.

Oh, yes! Those "terrorists" who want clean air, clean water, and some few square miles untouched by human development. Just another example of demonizing your opponents.

It seems innapropriate to me to apply liberal "standards" of how things should be done to a Conservative administration. Liberal "standards" are merely policy opinions. Bush applies the policy opinions of Conservatism as his standard, so one would not expect him to use Keynesian economics or radical zero-growth policies as regards the environment.

At least you're on the same page as Bush. He did say "There should be limits to freedom" and "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." That's the ticket, ramrod your views against all opposition, screw the concerns of people who disagree with you. As long as you get your way, everythings hunky-dory. Oh no, someone disagrees???
They're anti-american!

He should be judged on objective results, and it is much too early to measure those. His rejection of liberal hysteria on matters economic and environmental are to be expected.

His embracing of neo-con hysteria is to be fought tooth-and-nail. And less than a year to go before the 2004 campaign begins in earnest. His record is well documented and his goals are well known. He needs to go, even if you brainwashed-by-the-corporate-controlled-media types lie for him.

The liberals lost, both in 2000 and again in 2002...devastatingly.

I can't believe how you lie. Goebels would be impressed. Losing by getting more popular vote in 2000 is "devastatingly"? Losing a few seats in the Senate in 2002 is "devastatingly"?

Now that they have ludicrously positioned themselves so that the only way they can gain political advantage is if terrible things happen to the economy or in the Iraqi conflict, I suspect their demise will continue to accelerate.

Now this is funny. You mean more terrible things happen to the economy? It's not bad enough? You mean going to war against a country that posed no threat to us and was inspected, sanctioned, and embargoed for twelve years? I have news for you, even 8 REPUBLICAN Senators have had enough, they voted to DENY access to ANWAR for oil. What message more do you need that his policies are not popular? And don't point me to the polls showing 76% of American support the war. Americans are a good people, and don't want their sons and daughters to think they're not being supported in their jobs. I seem to recall that Daddy Bush enjoyed similar ratings during GW I, and after that was over, his ratings plumeted. Dubya will follof in his daddy's footsteps, and be a one-termer.

It's time for them to get over it, and quit acting like their failed policies are some manner of objective standards.

Why don't you give Rush Limbaugh credit for this screed? It seems to be taken word-for-word from several of his hysterical monologues. I'm worried that a seemingly intelligent perosn like you can be fooled into supporting policies that will cause you great harm in the long run.

But I blame the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that allowed companies to own multiple media outlets in single markets. You can't get real diversity of opinion, so you tend to believe the lies that Rush, Sean, Savage, and their type tell you.