GEORGE BUSH SAYS "WAR ON TERROR LIKE WW2"

I hope he doesn't actually believe this. That would not be helpful.

The smart money says no, even if only by hairs. You lose sight of the fact that America is no longer a democracy but rather, a militarized Bund.

You're forgetting a miraculous plummeting in gasoline prices.

In the meantime, I trust you all have heard the rumors that Bin Laden has already been captured, and that this is being kept secret for October surprise purposes. And the story that Bush is keeping in a room just off the Oval Office the gun Saddam had on him when he was captured.

Ultimately I think that bin Laden and his ilk are really nothing more than cryptofascists who care little about Islam and less about Islam's adherents. That's apparent in the attacks over the weekend in Saudi Arabia -- why not target the kingdom's sprawling and prone oil networks, instead of messy human targets like foreign nationals? The reason: they want those oil riches for themselves. And in that they are very much like their adversaries in Washington.

There used to be a balance of power - the threat of horrible annhilation, yes, but a balance. Terrorism is the new nuclear threat - in every way - because it might be nuclear at some point. I do feel that terrorism has succeeded in many ways.
I feel that the slow and silent terror of detetiortating towns and inner cities, schools, and after school programs is worse. I feel that watching kids pack into a classroom where they the do not have a desk is, in itself, an act of cultural suicide.
People are being told about this, but then they decide to...whatever. And that is there choice.

This is only true in a very minor way although it has been cast as such by the left and right in the U.S. It is by no means easy to accumulate a nation-slaying nuclear capability. In America, it was developed while Curtis LeMay was the head of the Strategic Air Command. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union attained functional parity.

Obviously, terrorist organizations don't have the infrastructure or dedicated manpower to develop a strategic nuclear force, although there seems to be some confusion about this since 9/11. It is possible that terrorists could be -given- an atomic bomb by an existing nuclear power or come to aquire the components for an atomic weapon.

It would be easier for terrorists if they just were given one with an assured capability. This means they would also have to attain with
some cooperation from the selling power because, typically, nuclear weapons come with things known as permissive action links which make them impossible to detonate unless they are armed by a specific
confidential process. Mostly, this is to prevent them from exploding
when they infrequently drop out of airplanes during shipment and guarantee that a disgruntled group of employees or soldiers attempting to steal one cannot use it directly.

Assembling a bomb that will actually work from components aquired on a black market, while not something that is out of the question, would be harder without the direct hand's-on expertise of someone who had already worked in bomb development.

In addition, practically speaking, the United States can and would survive a nuclear detonation on a major city. However, the storm of hysteria would be fearful and the political pressure great to strike back with the strategic force even in the presence of poor intelligence as to the identity of the foe.

On balance, I'd day, the world -- generally, has a lot more to fear from the results of a nuclear attack on America than Americans do.

Did everybody like, forget what happened on 9/11 or something? Jesus Christ! Why weren't we searching Baghdad for passenger jets?? We definitely would have found something then!

I think it is much more likely that if something happens, it will be turning something common on it's head like the thing with the planes. If not that, I figure it will be a smaller forcused attack with more psychological or symbolic overtones.

Bush Co. seems so divorced from reality anymore, I don't even like to think about them or really give any care to what they say as it seems all in doublespeak. I just hope that enough people are paying attention and do something about it in November. I think he is potentially the scariest motherfucker that ever run this country and I shutter at the worse case scenario if given four more years in office, especially if the election is a big win with more Senate seats swinging his way.

I do believe that Bush really believes in his mission, and in a perfect world, I do think it is a virtuous and worthwhile goal. But I think the reality of the region is such that a democratic Iraq is just not a possibility. If I am wrong I will be the first to admit it and I will be very happy. But it seems like there is just too much conflict and tension between not only Sunnis and Shiites but also the Muslims and the Jews, not to mention all the history of conflict between the groups.

I will be voting for Kerry come November. I think what we should do is pull out of there. It was a mistake going in, I believe. But now we have to get out. An argument can be made that we are leaving the Iraqis in boiling water by leaving now, after completely disrupting everyday life there, but so be it at this point, we made a mistake. It might take us 40 years to acknowledge it, but we did. We need to leave and take care of things here at home.

You will be very happy to be wrong? Then be happy, you're wrong! Why don't people like you (no offense) want to consider the possibility that there were no lofty goals were behind Bush's decision to go to Iraq - that it was purely about profit, power and oil? Does that shake your world view too much?

I agree that this is terrible situation which cries out for intervention. But surely it's a good thing that America has too much on its plate at present to want to get involved here as well? Because that now leaves the UN and EU free to demonstrate their more sophisticated way of dealing with international problems, as compared to Bush's blundering and bullying imperialism. No? I'm a bit surprised though that they haven't already solved this crisis, considering how marvelous their track record has been in dealing with this kind of crisis (in Rwanda and Yugoslavia).

Remembering back to (I think it was) Liberia .. after we had started on Iraq (or was it Afghanistan?) .. we were slow to step in to settle the revolution and were criticised for not sending troops.. I remember wondering at the time why France (or Germany or Russia, etc..) wasn't taking the lead in solving the crisis, as the US was already spread thin.. But instead, once again, the US was at fault - this time for not getting involved.

Of course, my memory is very fuzzy on this.. And also, I still think Bush is an arrogant piece of shit.

So true. We also heard Saddam Hussein and Stalin frequently mentioned in the same breath, an inconvenient fact for WWII comparisons, since Stalin was our ally and all.

Yup. Sadaam Hussein was also our ally for a long time. Until he had the gall to become a despot.

As long as we're making historical comparisons, is Ahmad Chalabi the neocons' Alger Hiss?

That's the point.They put a sock puppet in place, thinking they could control him, establishing the Bush dynasty etc. George W., the second, is a Christian wingnut! He's an idiot, as has been proven many times, but he's a very zealous idiot. I don't think the neocons took his religious zeal seriously when they propped him up to become the president.
His particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity LOOKS FORWARD to the day of reckoning, as is supposedly proscribed in the biblical texts of Revelation.
There is a man, who is president, who belives that inciting violence in the Middle East will lead to the return of Christ. Fundamentalist Christians always make deals with the Jews while smirking to themselves that they are the only ones who will be saved, come the end of times, which they are looking forward to!
The neocons want the Bush dynasty to succeed - which is absurd, in a democracy - we're supposed to be against that, right? ( I do admit that I love the Kennedy's - but that's history) Jeb was the more rational choice - he actually has a brain. But he had to remain in Florida so he could help steal the election. Neil can't run because...oh yeah, the savings and loan scandal. He was CAUGHT robbing the public, unlike his idiot brother who bought and sold a baseball team and made other people pay for it.
Dubya is a wingnut - George Bush Sr. made me cringe, but at least I saw some credentials and experience on his part. He invaded Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait - not because mostly Saudi militants with connections to a terrorist group funded by a Saudi billlionaire - bin Laden - flew airplanes into two tall buildings in New York.
The Bush family and the royal family of Saudi Arabia are quite cozy. the bin Laden family are also good friends - except for their wingnut son, Osama, who is now getting his every wish fulfilled by his enemy, the wingnut son George W. who continues to inflame the Holy War that they both seem to desire.
I just don't want to be part of it. But becuse I have been forced to be part of it, I have to say it's personal, and religious...and none of this has anything to do with democracy.

The problem with west africa is it's still stuck in 19th century sphere's of influence diplomacy. Therefore when Siearra Leone went titsup i was up to the UK to go in and sort it out. When it Was Cote d'Ivoire, it was up to the French and Liberia was supossedly the America sphere of influence. Why it still works like that in that part of the world, I don't know. I'm not defending it but that's why there was clamouring for the US to get involved.

Stuffing vs. potatoes
Tastes great vs. less filling

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:EJtCAg76cy0J:jasoncorder.com/graph/rumsfeld.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:P3pzisVWKTYJ:home.comcast.net/~garrettart/wolfowitz.gif

http://www.tabloidcowboy.com/skeletor.jpg

Okay, aimurchie. Cheney or Schwarzenegger. Who's it gonna be?

(I apologize right now)

Who would you rather do:
Putin or Bush?

WORD UP BROTHER

Susan Sarandon or Amy Sedaris.

Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro

Osama, natch. Amy, obv. I don't want to imagine the other match.

Democracy = WWYRD

If you see Jose Padilla behind the counter, tell your friends to come quick and take advantage of the idiot. Hand him a fiver for a cup of coffee, you'll probably get a twenty in change.

http://www.backoffjohn.com/images/picture_bottom.gif

I might have chosen the wall eyed Sarandon - she is so wise and wonderful and has a cute younger husband - I also disagree with the Osama choice - I've had my fill of doing it in caves/tents/nature in general. I want the palace and the gilded lilies!
Even if it means I must die.

http://www.wwf.org.uk/

"I Gotta git me one a those stripey bears"

500,000 protest Bush's visit to Rome
Bush late for meeting with Pope
John Dean on "The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation"

Well, of course it's hard to imagine that he doesn't know something more, if not much more, than the next-to-nothing he has publicly stated about the matter. While that knowledge may, depending on his actions/statements, support a charge of criminal liability, this isn't necessarily likely. And if he's hiding something that's merely politically-damaging, that wouldn't necessarily be of concern to the prosecutor.

Does hiring private counsel mean that he's hiding some bad knowledge or action? Not at all. Dean's article implies this point, though perhaps not clearly enough. As Dean explains, the attorney-client privilege inheres in every client relationship, and is intended to improve the quality of legal advice by ensuring that the client can trust the lawyer to hold their conversations in confidence. That privilege applies in most conversations Bush has with the White House lawyers. However, Dean explains, in criminal cases the White House lawyers may have an obligation to disclose client statements that would otherwise be protected by the privilege. Thus, because this is a criminal matter, Bush has sought private counsel to ensure that he receives the best advice possible, as would any President in his position under the current legal regime if they were to seek legal advice in the first place, unless they were to decide that risking disclosure was less costly than any political cost (and at least some lawyers might not accept the representation under such circumstances, given concerns about both the quality of the representation and the hazards of navigating the disclosure obligation). You can draw the conclusions you want from his seeking legal advice, but do you think that all persons who hire lawyers in connection with questioning in a criminal matter are guilty?

Started by a smug meat-headed fascist. Perpetuated by a smug meat-headed fascist. Cultural elitism forced onto foreign nations by a smug meat-headed fascist. Yep, sounds right to me.