cwsox

The Bad Boys! Loved Them! Repeat the memories: Bad Boys still live!

These diplomats were mainly Republican appointees. The military persons speak for themselves. Now this career diplomat you speak of - would that be the one who exposed the intentional lies in Bush's state of the union address? Where upon someone in the White House leaked the CIA cover of the diplomat's spouse (and is there a bigger violation of national security than that?) as revenge? And last we heard, both the vice president and president were seeing private lawyers because of that White House leak?

Tex, I am not arguing with your thread title - it was the AP story title - I am very sorry that I was not clear - what the court did was vacate a district court ruling on standing. They did not issue any ruling to preserve anything but to an AP headline writer who has to summarise something, the wording 'SC preserves under God' is a lot catchier than 'SC vacates ruling on standing.' That is what i meant to say - the AP headline is wrong because it implies there was a ruling and there was not, although to the headline writer the catchier "net effect" argument would prevail but that is a result, not the act.

I'll believe this when I believe in alien space babies who weigh 1,000 pounds who had love affairs with Rosie and Willie Nelson.

I'd beg to differ that they "preserved" under God. They foudn a cheap way out. Without ruling lack of standing, there would have been a 4-4 tie (Scalia recused) which would have upheld the decision that "under Gid" was unconstitutional. In an election yhear. No one needed that. By the way, for those who think "under God" belongs in the pledge, the sigh of relief from many church people was audible. To argue that "under God" was not an infringment, it has been argued in this and every other case that "under God" is a phrase so trite, so trivial, so common as an expression to be meaningless, that it has no meaning and therefore is not offensive and does not infringe. So to "win" the "under God" people would have needed a ruling that the phrase "under God" had no meaning. So to "win" was to defame God. To lose and have "under God" struck out in an election year -- so standing was a wonderful issue on which to punt!

Child, this is not "history." I was in college then and my lifetime is not that old to be "history" yet! Opening Day with that full house after the 56-106 season was a marvel (and says something about Sox fans of my day!) and one of my funniest ever White Sox stories comes from that game but I suspectr no one here would get it because you'd have to know Illinois politics in 1970-1971 for context. It was a great season. I didn't realize that we were 22.5 back. What was important was that we went from 56 wins to 79 wins. No one expected us to contend in 71. Our thinking was with that type of improvement we'd contend in 72 and win it all in 73. We got a new announcer that season, some washed up guy fired by Oakland after being fired by St Louis - Harry Carey. We also got a new organist, Nancy Faust. I will never forget the 1971 season - improving by 23 wins, all the hope we had, Wilbur and Melton winning the home run title and Bart and that whole team with our new manager Chuck Tanner - we had such a future ahead of us!

thanks Krush! I only read as far as I needed to, didn't read the whole story. The story says the man is from ColUMbus, Ohio. All I need to know. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! by the way, now the link works for me - must have been a hiccup in the intervet

of course everyone has an opinion - is that to discount that career diplomats and military leaders who have never been political should not be listened to when they raise their concerns? I just heard an interview with some of the signers on NPR - when you have non political appointed by Republican folks who, as they say, pledged their lives to national security, raising their voice publicly for the first time to say that course of this administration is placing the nation at risk, well, I'd listen. The full text gets released tomorrow.

This is confidential but what the Pistons would like is the format where they would have fouled Shaq with 9 seconds left in game 2 -

we'll get Bush out and it will be ok again Krush - the link did not work for me -

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/...cism/index.html Former officials to condemn Bush foreign policy From Lesa Jansen CNN Monday, June 14, 2004 Posted: 2:46 PM EDT (1846 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Several former presidential diplomatic and military officials have signed a statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy, saying that it has harmed national security, one of the document's signers said Sunday. Many of the signers were appointed by Republican administrations. Phyllis Oakley, the deputy State Department spokeswoman during former President Ronald Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under former President Bill Clinton, said the statement was "prompted by a growing concern, deeply held, about the future of the country's national security." The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration, she said, although it does not endorse any candidate. "We are on the wrong track, and we need a fundamental change," said Oakley. 20 former ambassadors among signers The statement, which will be released Wednesday, was signed by 20 former U.S. ambassadors, including William Harrop, who was appointed ambassador to Israel by former President George Bush in 1991. Military commanders who signed the document include retired Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command over-seeing the Middle East in 1991; and retired Admiral William Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1985-89. The signers called themselves Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change. Oakley said the group is representative of very senior, former government officials who "have spent their lives working to erect the stature and posture of the U.S. as a leader in the world ... and we simply see that edifice crumbling." Oakley also said that releasing the statement was not an easy decision. "We're all career [public] servants who have never taken a political stand," she said. "What we want to get on record is our profound concern about the future security of the U.S."

thank you for your answer!

How can you vote for Bush after the way he savaged McCain so cruely in the 2000 primaries? Not asking to fight, asking because I am interested. What Bush did to McCain, failed to in Michigan, succeeded in South Carolina, was one of the smuttiest dirtiest campaigns I have ever seen. In fact I was reminded of that day in 1988 when Dole grabbed the vice president on the floor of the Senate and said, "stop lying about my record." You don't often see such physical anger on the Senate floor but Dole was so incensed at Bush the first for what he did to Dole's record in the 1988 campaignn, just as Bush the second did to McCain in 2000, except the 1988 thing was no where near as bad as what was done to McCain.

I was thinking of a Kerry-Lugar ticket this morning too! something that was "national unity" would be so worthwhile I still dream of Kerry-McCain

I merged two threads on the same subject, hope that is ok - certainly ok was our weekend attendance!

I agree here

look forward to seeing you!

live and learn!

Cheney was a registered voter in Texas when selected. He had to change his addess to meet constitutional requirements. He had left Wyoming for Texas some years before. So I guess he was both a Texan and a (native) Wyoming-ian or whatever they call them!

Mr Eye, so be it with you. Other than that there are other accounts of why the Reagans divorced than the offical campaign one you cite - and no one questions Ron and Nancy's love for one another - it is under Roman Catholic Church teaching he was commiting adultery because he was in a sexual relationship with another woman (they did have a child) while his wife Jane Wyman lived and there was no annulment. He was ineligible for the sacrament if he were Catholic. Other than the annulment, the same interpretation would hold with the most fundamentalist churches. As well, there are other accounts out there of why Jane Wyman wanted out of that marriage. This "busted" talk is ludicrous. As for Osama and Sadaam, yes indeed Reagan gave aid, support, weaponry. Many of Sadaam's worst and most heinoius acts were done during the Reagan and Bush 1 years. His support for d'Aubbison and his death squads in Salavador was reprehensible. You must be "busted" on this as you have failed to respond and that and other things. In the midst of the haliography that was taking place last week... in the blasting that was received by those who did adhere to the party line that he was just the greatest when some of us hold his administration in low esteem... as the board police attacks on those with differing opinions? It feels like you are ofering a cult where any dissent is to be ridiculed and smashed. I have family and friends dear to me that voted for Reagan, liked Reagan. But this cult like adoration that is being displayed is unsettling. Texsox, we hold understanding the past and looking forward in tension as a difficult dycotomy to maintain. As Santyana said, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The latching on to someone to prop up because they are the enemy of an enemy (foreign policy wise) is exactly what led to Reagan's generous support to bin Laden and Saddam, which end result cost this nation plenty. We just saw a bit of this again with this Chaladi (spelling) -for several years he is built up as the new Iraq because we was Sadaam's enemy, he was Laura Bush's seat mate at a State of the Union address, and a few weeks ago our troops raided his office because it appears he was not so warm and wonderful. The expedient embrace of anyone because it serves a short term or momentary policy is the worst way, most dangerous way, to operate for national security. One of the reasons I like Kerry is that his knowledge of foreign affairs is so much more vast than the incumbent but even and far more because he operates under a different philosophy - build alliances, operate with consensus, act as a part of the world rather than Imperial Rome. (And Imperial Rome will always suffer from Goths and Visigoths and Vandals.) As the world's only superpower, we must act in concert with others. ... and as well, as Kerry has said, operate in reality and not ideology. I was reading yesterday an extensive Tribune piece on conservative Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, one of the most respected senators on foreign policy. (My intital thought and I have witnesses when I heard Bush 1 picked Quyale was, "my God, he picked the wrong senator from Indiana.") Lugar listed all the ideological "truths" that have been so wrong from this administration: we will be welcomed with roses and dancing, we'd be out of there in a few months, on and on and on. And the administration is snubbing Lugar because he will not tell them what they want to hear. I am looking forward to the future where President Kerry does not force things to fit into an ideological preconception but takes reality as is and addresses problems with an understanding of the careful uses of power that the sole superpower must employ for national and world security. And I suspect President Kerry will listen to Senator Lugar --- Kerry gets bashed because he doesn't always answer questions in sound bytes, he lays out all the possible considersations of something as he discusses it. That the man is capable of understanding there are a variety of consequences to possibilties of action, is marked improvement over what we got. And someone who takes time to answer a question in length - we need a president in these times who can think at length.

I'm with you on that

merged for your pleasure

none are guarding Larry Bird however

Bo Derek is GOP cred

read it all the way through liked it