Rex Kickass

I'm curious. What did you think his motives were?

The reason more people weren't out there is because they were scared. Regime change that come swiftly and violently has its own problems in the end. It takes time for the people of a state to digest what's happened.

I hope the Iraqis do find Bush and co. to be heroes in their mind. I hope things go just swimmingly in Iraq. Respectful disagreement with policy does not mean wishing ill will on millions of people. Today is a great day for Iraq. Never disagreed with the Ends, just the motivations and policy behind the means.

Can I make a request? Can we refrain from the term draft-dodger when describing Clinton, cause then I'll have to refer to Bush as AWOL which we was from 2 years from the National Guard. DeLay, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and most of the architects of this war never served in the armed forces. There are draft dodgers all around. And if we're talking about policy, could we leave the blowjobs out of it? Please?

Point 1: The FAA could have simply mandated the strengthening of cabin doors, improved airport security and installed bomb screening machines at airports across the country. They didn't. The airlines, knowing the bulk of the cost would be theirs, lobbied against extra security regulations. The congress did not allocate funding to improve airline security. The entire government has failed since skyjacking became a problem 30 years ago in this respect. BTW: Delta runs that program now. Has run that program since before September 11. Airlines can't afford to install it if they don't already have it. Point 2: Clinton wasn't the only failure in the fight on terror. He deserves a lot of the blame. But what I'm saying to you is a Republican Congress that spent the better part of the Clinton presidency questioning his legitimacy rather than serving the American people, a Bush administration that squanders what goodwill we have in the regions which trouble us, and a willingness on the part of the US to do what is easy rather than what solves the problem is just as much to blame. The blame doesn't fall squarely on one or two people's shoulders. The blame lies on the entire US government. The problem has been systemic. And it is still not being adressed.

Al-Qaeda is not a state. President Bush couldn't have taken preemptive action against Al-Qaeda. It is a stated enemy of our people, by their own statement. They declared war on us. They attacked US interests. There was a world community looking to defeat the Al-Qaeda network. There are many differences between a war on terror and a war on Iraq

Mooch: The anti-terror initiative was drafted in 2000. Completed in Dec 2000. My point is this: The Bush administration deserves some of the blame. The Clinton administration deserves some of the blame. The Congress deserves some of the blame. I'll even go as far as to say the media deserves some of the blame for underreporting the terror threat rather than the untrue scandals and obsessing over oral sex in the oval office. I don't want to defend the Clinton administration. I didn't vote for it. However, Bush is no saint. In many ways, the things he's done pre and post September 11 have been more discomforting and concerning than anything the Clinton administration did. Bush has buoyed his approval ratings with fear. How many Iraqis were involved in September 11? 0. Every attempt to attach Iraq to the attack was debunked. The money came from Saudi Arabia, an ally. The hijackers came from - to a larger extent - Saudi Arabia, an ally. Yet, we threaten Iraq on a hypothetical threat.

Evidence showed, that at a certain level, Clinton indeed tried. In 2000, the Clinton administration developed a counter-terrorism plan that was unable to be administered because of time constraints. That completed plan was given to the Bush administration with the proviso from outgoing NSA Sandy Berger "This is the most pressing issue facing the security of the United States today." It sat on the Bush administration shelf. A panel of former senators, congressmen and intelligence experts advised the Republican congress that the threat of terror in this country was high and that the US was extremely vulnerable to it. The Congress ignored that warning. Within the first six months of the Bush administration, the government removed itself between any dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis, angering Arab sentiment and aligning itself completely with Sharon. The Bush administration sought to end the sanction regime as we know it in 2001 and deal with Iraq in a much lighter way. The Bush administration sought to give the Taliban aid during the first nine months of his administration. Human rights abuses didn't mean as much then, cause they weren't growing Opium anymore. The USA knew of an Al-Qaida terror camp in Iraq in an area Hussein did not control and in an area where the US owned the skies. Yet nothing was done until this war. Terror camps have shown signs of reforming in Afghanistan because the US has forgotten its reconstruction promises already. On September 10, 2001, the Bush administration threatened to veto a bill because it took a couple billion dollars away from an unproven missile shield program to fund counter terror measures. Today, intelligence reports have said that the pressure on Al-Qaida has weakened some of its ability but it remains as great a threat today as it was on September 10th. Firefighters who helped save lives on September 11th are being laid off because the economy is in the toilet and promised federal aid to cities to deal with security measures needed in the face of terror still hasn't made its way to cities and states. The government adopted an anti-terror act without reading it and now allows the government to track what anyone reads at a library or buys at a bookstore without telling you, the library or anyone else. No warrant needed. The attorney general wants a sequel and in a draft leaked out to the press, it included a provision for the government to strip a person's citizenship if he/she is suspected of being in a terror organization. No proof necessary. I'd say this issue is a little more complicated than Clinton didn't fix it. There's plenty of blame to pass around.

Jim Parque is gay?

Apu, Yes those were powerful. But it was also so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

As much as I hate Oakland, I gotta give em their props. They know how to run a low budget, mid-market baseball team better than anyone else.

I wish we'd see more of Robert Fick against us at Comiskey. He ain't that hot and hes fun to heckle :-)

I don't think Jordan is terribly good in the front office. The best thing hes done for the wizards is bring more people in the stands... cause he went back to being a player. He'd be a good PR guy for the Bulls or even the Sox. Or for that matter any pro sports team. But I wouldn't trust him to make important player related decisions.

I won't get into the double talk of Tom Daschle. Don't like him much. However, I will say that five years ago the world landscape was markedly different. Our intelligence showed that the situation in Iraq had not changed. One would argue its the right war at the wrong time. In fact in 2001, the Bush administration was seriously considering scrapping sanctions against Iraq. In 2000, before his nomination to the VP, Dick Cheney was lobbying the UN for the elimination of sanctions on behalf of Haliburton. In 2001, the Bush policy against Iraq was not one of threat and the necessity of invasion. In the last three years, the situation did not markedly change on the ground. Yet the policy, inexplicably, changed radically. Double talk is everywhere.

Frank knocks another one home.

4-3 good guys! yes!

Wish I could watch the game. Stupid work.

1441 was not a trigger to war. If it was it would not have passed. John Negroponte, UN Ambassador for the US assured other Sec.Council members that it would not be a trigger for war. Indeed, all it says is that the Security Council would remain seized of the matter. It would also say that Iraq wasn't yet in breach of 1441 until the time of US attack. The Al-Samoud missiles, which did violate cease-fire terms were in the process of being destroyed and no other discoveries of assets violating the terms of the cease-fire were found. In fact, since the start of the invasion, nothing has been found to prove 1441 in violation other than the use of the munitions slated for destruction prior to the start of military action.

The Washington Post reports this afternoon that the suspected chemical weapons were not in fact chemical weapons at all. Which is what the generals on the scene had been trying to say for 24 hours, but Fox/CNN/MSNBC/everyone else seemed to try and bury.

Yeah cause deciding to send American troops into war is an off-the-cuff decision. It's not an off the cuff decision. It's a calculated one. But there were other options. He didn't exercise them, explore them or for that matter seriously consider them.

Actually Apu, this is Clintons fault. If he had just wasted Saddam's regime when they kicked out the inspectors in 1998, this would be overwith. Instead all that Clinton did was hit them with a few dozen cruise missles. By the way, we should have precedence over anything the UN charter says. We are the fricken spine of that whole orginization. Like it or not Apu, the US has to be the world's super power or else anarchy would rule. Without us the UN would be some fat old men trying to intimidate countries with threats. Because of the US, the UN actually has firepower to have some influence on the world. And then the UN turns its fricken back on the US. Some balls those UN diplomats have...they park where ever they want in NYC without getting fines because they are diplomats, and then they act like pricks. The U.S. is supreme Apu, and it is nice to see we are finally taking charge and showing the rest of the world what happens when you dick around with the US Actually, this was something that Clinton considered in 1998. However, it would not have gotten the support it deserved from the Republican congress. It would have been wagging the dog according to them. Hell, just look at Tom DeLay's comments about our intervention in Kosovo, one now used by the current administration to justify this military action. He talks about how the President has no idea what he's doing. And that wasn't giving aid and comfort to the enemy too? Clinton couldn't have done what Bush did in 1998. He didn't have the collateral because the Republican party was hellbent on limiting Presidential power as much as possible during the last three years of his presidency. By the way, Apu, please do us all a favor and knock off the Nazi comparisons. It hurts your cause... and its patently false. Although there may be a few similarities, you can not teach history by analogy. Bush is like Hitler like Saddam Hussein is like Hitler. Which means neither are like Hitler at all.

actually thats not true. We barely have 300,000 now. The number then was more like 150,000 troops. However, this would have been a good time to realize the effectivenes of a choking inspections regime. There could have been ways to play this out into a peaceful situation... but that's hard. The Bush administration doesn't often like doing things that are hard.

didnt help madux,glavine,johnson in there games. Weren't they pitching in warmer weather? Like Atlanta? Big difference from Turner Field to Comiskey.

That could be fixed, if the right people do the right things... public opinion is fluid.

I predict Cuse by 3