Rex Kickass

Personally, I think 9/11 accelerated that. The Pentagon was drafting up Iraq war/occupation plans in March of 2001. Bush didn't exactly have a humble foreign policy before 9/11. He walked away from the honest broker role in the Israel/Palestine situation, he made a difficult situation more so in North Korea, and started calling for the creation of a Ballistic missile shield. That's not humility. Hubris might be closer to the right word, actually.

Tex: Yes it was. But I went to the training center next to Philmont, never actually made the 50 miler there happen. I was also supposed to be on the trailmaking crew in 1995, but couldn't afford that.

That is a funny picture. The NY Post says they analyzed it and found the mystery cheat sheet, was just a pen.

Where you going from where? I've done South Bend - NYC. That was no fun at the end, and people did try to break into my stuff on the train. I brought my own food though so it wasn't so bad. They'll bleed you dry for food prices. I've also taken it to New Mexico in scouts. Both trips were about 24 hours. Not as quick as a plane, more satisfying than a bus trip. They have plugs for your laptop.

There are conspiracy theories on the other side that say that Bush was wearing an earpiece and was fed his lines. They have pictures to prove it too. I give credence to neither.

That's a mile high club I wouldnt mind joining.

Holy crap, thanks.

I don't defend the actions of Dan Rather. In fact, I don't think he's a very good newsperson. But I will say his actions were done in good faith. He stood by his story until his vetting team said otherwise. He then retracted... even though he still stands by the rest of the story, which has not been denied by the White House. I find that honorable actually. He owned up to his mistake and didn't make s*** up.

Nuke, I got respect for you - because every time I think you've turned into a Republican robot parroting off talking points, you say something insightful like that. I don't think Kerry's got things wrapped up and Bush sure doesn't. Kerry has a reputation of being a good closer, Bush has a history of not being a good closer. In 2000, Bush held a small lead at this point in the presidential race. He did not win the popular vote. This could be a point of concern for Bush and co.

So Nuke, you don't have a problem with the current Vice President skirting the spirit of the law rather then the letter of it and making money by giving aid and comfort to our enemies? Drilling for oil under Hussein's regime still made money for Saddam Hussein. Or did he just place the Halliburton money in his "Not From Evil" fund?

Nuke, you didn't answer the question - how is it to Russia or France's advantage to not go along with an inevitable war to save billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq, which they could have saved had they gone along with the war? First it was economic advantage to argue why they didn't go along with the war, now its just simple braggadocio? And you also haven't answered the question of why it is acceptable for someone in an American company to do business with Iraq when they are not allowed to by US law?

beer, Its nice to see you seizing on the most insignificant of the three lies I posted. George Bush now denies ever claiming victory in the battle of Iraq. That doesn't bother you?

You're right. A big f***ing difference. The guy assigned to cover the Kerry campaign showed his bias against Kerry and made s*** up. CBS ran with a few unvetted documents in a story that the crux of it has never been denied by the White House.

I think he'd be good as a middle reliever. I do remember seeing him pitch well earlier this year, and I'd love to see that excitement come out of the pen when we're in need of it come 5th or 6th inning.

I was at that game tonight, getting my first taste of Citizens Bank Park. Its a nice place but the food is not so good. I think he should have gotten to at least finish out the season. It's a bit of a black eye for the Phillies locally I think because even though Philly ain't happy with the Phillies, Bowa was still theirs, and the the Phils did get hit hard with injuries this year.

This Newsweek poll is too late. Remember? Kerry is finished! I know it's true, cause I read it like three threads ago.

Carter lost because people were not satisfied with his governance. Bush 41 lost for the same reason. Carter isn't going to call his own presidency an abject failure. SS2k4: I'll agree with you about Iran/Contra and Bush. There's more there than we know - but the actual four years he spent in office - I think he generally did honorably, even if he did lay the Somalia landmine for Clinton.

The difference was that Rather didn't make stuff up. In a rush to scoop, he went public with unvetted documents - which were, if anything, more of a sidebar to the general story to begin with. CBS didn't make this stuff up. Their source did. By the way, the news.com.au portal that Apu quoted is a Rupert Murdoch controlled news outlet, the same Rupert Murdoch at the helms of FOX in the USA. If that source has a story placing another Murdoch property in a poor light, chances are it's true.

Jimmy Carter, even though he was an abject failure. George HW Bush had his moments but was generally honorable in intentions. His lies seemed more accidental than well-placed. Bill Clinton was a liar, but a bad one - and the non-stop investigations of his administration made it one of the most transparent ones since before FDR. I don't expect100% honesty - but when it comes to the big stuff, I want the damn truth. Shutting off government reports that say violence in Iraq is increasing because it doesn't fit with the spin is not being honest. Talking about bringing a terrorist network to justice when not a single person in this network has been killed, prosecuted or otherwise not pardoned (e.g. AQ Khan) is not being honest. Lying about a blow job is not being honest. Lying about setting up a shadow government to sell arms to rogue states in order to fund covert operations in Latin America is not being honest.

Grad student in Poli Sci? What are you studying right now?

This is not stupid. Bush promised to return honesty and dignity back to the White House. He won in 2000, in part, by painting Al Gore as a liar. If you can't hold your President to a higher standard, then you don't have a lot of respect for the traditions of your country.

Let's just cancel the election now then. :rolly If Bush loses PA, OH and FL - he's done. If he loses two of the three, it's very difficult for him to win. You're right, I'm biased. I hold the President of the United States up to a higher standard. I didn't realize that was a bad thing. So Kerry said that we were spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a project that we've only spent 35 million dollars on. We've only set aside 500 million dollars for the project so I guess that makes him a liar. The degree to which the President has bent the truth in the debate exceeds that of his opponent.

Nuke, you didn't answer the question - how is it to Russia or France's advantage to not go along with an inevitable war to save billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq, which they could have saved had they gone along with the war? First it was economic advantage to argue why they didn't go along with the war, now its just simple braggadocio? And you also haven't answered the question of why it is acceptable for someone in an American company to do business with Iraq when they are not allowed to by US law?

How is the current Vice President, a chief advocate of isolation and invasion of Iraq, running an American company, just four years earlier, which used back channel subsidiaries to do business in a market it should have not accessed irrelevant? If Halliburton was doing business in Iraq, it was part of the Oil for Food program. Or else Cheney's company was just there illegally You sit here and argue that Third World corruption isn't common. Like it never happens in the developing world. What happened in Iraq with the Oil for Food program was bad, there's no denying it... but to sit there and say that Russia had no economic interest in a liberated Iraq is ridiculous. Agreeing to give verbal support to the Bush plan would have guaranteed that Russia could have kept its oil contracts with Iraq. Russia could have gotten a sweet deal with the U.S. Much better then the few billions they could have hoped for with another couple years of a Saddam Hussein regime.

Oh yeah, wasn't this the same Oil for Food program that Halliburton participated in through a France based subsidiary of the company, while Cheney was CEO? Just asking...