KrustyKidd

Great! So they have a roadside test for impairment then?

Uh? The article said So that means that there is, in your opinion Nukes, or the Wahington Post is lying and there is?

Is not.

No, they voted the way they did from Intelligence that they were all given. The Senate Intelligence Committee is Bi Partisan and run by both a Republican and a Democrat. Incidently, the Democrat who is Vice Chair actually withheld vital intelligence in order to use it against Bush. Rockerfeller. Look it up sometime and you will understand that the intelligence is not simply something that Bush has access to, they all do. Hence, they all voted with the same intelligence whether it was infected by the Democrats or not. As for your comment on security at home and all, I suppose you are in favor of the Patriot Act then?

Kerry voted for the war as well. if that is your only reason why, then good thing you can't vote. Same with WMD and Regime Change, on those points they were the same. On remaining in Iraq now, they are also of the same principal. Better find some other points like economy, abortion whatever, the war doesn't do it.

Build the wall within Israels origional borders. OK. Good plan. Let's sit down with somebody that can stick to a plan and has the authority to speak for everybody. It sure as hell isn't anybody that has come up so far from the Palestinian side. When they demonstrate the ability to exert control over the people and terrorists then you never know, Israel might actually be willing to listen. This time, they don't have to. I like it, they like it, Palestinian mothers should like it A lot less death will be going around, and to change it, all we need is a legitimate control over the Palestinian people by a legitimate Palestinian Authority. Tim McVeigh and your crappy example Let's see, 300 million people and one terrorist act, 3 million people and a hundred terrorist acts. A slight disproportion to your example. Try it again please. As for occupation, if I remember right, the Israelis gave the PA guns and authority, and were failed by them. But we won't go into that right now as you are going to get back to me with a more realistic example.

Krusty kidd Black Dog So you have no problem burying others' children? krusty Kidd (from above quote) I don't feel great about it but a hell of a lot better than I would burying a child. Hmmmm, ever think that possibly there is nobody to negotiate true boundaries with? If Palestinians had a government that could control their people ie terrorists then I am sure Israel would be more than happy to discuss international boundaries with them. In the meanitme, taken from an Israeli perspective, 'they hate us anyways, so who cares.' As I said, with the wall up, lives saved on both sides, the only option for Palesitnians is to get their act together and negotiate. As one voice that can hold a bargain. You can only hate an Israeli so much and want them dead so much. It's a signal that Israel has given up trying to be friends, slapping the Palestinians in the face as they slam the door shut. Bye bye homeland. Stew and fume all you want, let Yasser rule over dung. When you guys get your act together we may negotiate, not until. Don't bother looking to the UN to do anything but make rulings, they don't back them up as we all know. Don't enforce their own embargos and there are lots of willing companies out there to do a flourishing business with them. Sure it's wrong but it's perfectly understandable. You all can quote Biblical passages and history but it is the here and now people are interested in, with a wall they are ten thousand times safer than they would be with a handshake from Yasser Copone.

I put myself in an Israeli postition. I have the power to safeguard my children and will do whatever it takes, whatever the discomfort or harm it does to anyone else on earth. I do it. I don't feel great about it but a hell of a lot better than I would burying a child. A Palestinian doesn't want the wall, it is not formed on his or her precieved boundaries, they have no way to stop it and any negotiation that will stop it is thwarted by terrrorists in their midst. Rational voices are listened to but the terrorists are strong and beyond the law. This inability for Palestinians to be able to make a true peace is not an Israeli problem. Soon they will have a wall up, and if that is breached, they will do something else. The Israelis hold the upper hand and thier main concern is the lives of their citizenry, not UN law, condemnations or Palestinian welfare. I don't blame them one bit. You can go on and on about historical and biblical promises but the concern is the here and now. An Israeli wants security and nothing else. They hold the power at this time.

That's easy, they are not bound by UN resolutions, part of which are to destroy those WMDs. As well, the difference between them and Israel is that in Iraq's case, getting rid of WMD was part of a ceasefire agreement, along with them having to make war repayments, repatriation of Kuwaiti Nationls and to make substancial human rights improvements on it's own population. None of which they ever did. They may, I know they did have some shells. I know they were in breach of the UN resolutions when they submitted their declaration as Blix himself said pages were doctored and renumbered. I, like Kerry, Kennedy, Chirac, Clinton and Gore along with a host of others believed at one time that they had many weapons. But Ceasar, the legalities for the war did not hinge on fiding large smoking missiles in the Iraqi desert. Rather, Saddam had to rid himself of any and all delivery systems, WMD material, reasearch, resources, equipment, documentation and dual purpose equipment. He did not. That's OK, I'm not offended. I know you are just flailing around without a real argument anyhow.

I know you didn't ask me Stoker, but if you did, I would note the fact that there is voter apathy in this country and that people begin retirement planning at age 18 thinking that for fifty years at a time, things will just be hunky dory. That is frightening. All it takes is an event and the wrong person at the wrong time with the right message. All the Hobbits would lay down.

This, I assume is your main point? Your point is valid but scince the threat of ICBMs as pointed out in your link can change withing five years most unknown to us, I see no reason to not go ahead with a program such as this. Do you have costs and all for this program? I assume that it will cost a lot with much of the money going back into the economy as jobs and technology developments as well. Many of the develpments will have a winfall in the computor, space, transport and military sector. The whole world will benifit from this in those aspects. You then spoke of Aliens and all forgetting that there are far more countries that could have the potential to launch ICBMs within five or ten years then there are Aliens. Matter of fact, there has been no verified recorded contact with aliens. I know that the USA can do many things at once. They can do this as well as fight a war on terroism, provide aid, diplomacy as well as muscle. They can provide security internally as well as working on this, it does not mean that everything else falls by the wayside. You feel that things will always be the same, you are wrong. Just the fact that they are working on it and it MAY be viable possibly minimizes attemps to try to develop ICBMs by countries. To me, I see nothing sinister in this. I did. You have flimsy proof, give us something to sink our teeth into. If you are right there are lots of sites out there with stronger arguments that can give us the cost versus payoff.

The Declining Ballistic Missile Threat That's your link Black Dog. And here are some quotes from it; That certainly sounds like somethng worth protecting against, wouldn't you? You said I did, and it blew your argument out of the water. During several of those years the U.S. might not be aware that such a decision had been made. Wow, does that sound like something not worth protecting against? If that doesn't make you wake up and smell something you are out to lunch. No, you pointed out that you THINK it is not viable. Good! That should make SDI much less challenging to work against threats then wouldn't it? And you said it wan't viable. If that were your opening statement, I would ask for proof. As it seems to be your closing, your argument does not even reach the 'SISSY' level on the 'Ol' Arguementer.' Please report back when you have somethig to support your contention.

That's your supporting arguement to how the war is ilegal? No laws, no logic, just a rant? I think Ceasar that if you believe something and cannot substanciate it with logic or proof that can withstand logic or counter-proof, then your belief may possibly be mistaken. And if you cannot understand that, then you are the one who is brainwashed. Have you ever for a moment considered that you are wrong? That Bush and all may be right? If you have never seriously gone through that thought process then you are an idot. In order to formulate sound arguements, you have to understand the whole arguement, both sides. Know what makes it all tick, wiegh the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. It is a lengthy process that is ongoing but first, you have to let go of preconcieved notions of black and white within the political process. All parties and politicians are primarily out for their survival. It is your job to see through all that and make calls on right and wrong, not what you are told. I know you have not done that for if you had, you would not give up, but rather come back with something that I can use to question my own beliefs. I shoot back with some pretty basic stuff that you cannot refute and you come back with 'brainwashed.' Why not read the legal arguements themselves before you make staements like 'the war is illegal.' Within the laws are food for your arguements and food for mine. And you don't even know what the heck I'm talking about do you? Just walking around with your sandwhich board on chanting the same old stuff. And when hit with a point you don't have a ready answer for, you use the standard 'brainwashed' comeback. Origionality eludes you. And you know the truth, that Yet with every legal applicatin at your fingertips, you cannot prove that. Some truth. And I am supposed to think that you tell me the truth when you cannot even back this up? What other little tidbits of disinformation do you trow out from time to time, or all the time, or none of the time save this time?

So in effect you say that there is only one leader with no chain of command. And that one guy should throw a country of two hundred fifty million on the line so you can see his mug on TV. Wow. And as for SOPs, you figure that they don’t mean squat. Are you any higher up than a shoveller in some company someplace? If so, how do you operate without SOPs? What do you do when your boss is gone, hope you are doing the job right or is it so simple that only one or two movements is all it takes? Or if you are leader, do your followers all connect with you by telepathy when you are not there? Or do they use SOPs and throw them out the window whenever the shit hit the fan. The time they are most important, the time that they have been written, and re-written, and re-analized, and re-written for? OK, Bush is where? LA, the White House? What is he doing? On TV telling us that the nation has been attacked and he is trying to figure out what the heck is going on? How reassuring. And even more reassuring is if the place gets taken out by an Aircraft. Wow, you rock. Cheney in charge! And for what, so Bush can tell you he doesn’t know? Or is it the mud on the face as he pulls a body out that would do it for you, while the potential for the leader of the USA to get taken out exists you need to see him doing that. I wouldn’t. I would assume that at all times there is command and control in America, in fact, if I were a US citizen I would question anything or anybody that prohibited that. Guilianni rules an enclosed geographical area. It’s marked by bridges and water. He didn’t run over to the Pentagon, he didn’t run off to Jonetown, he controlled his turf. Good for him. I would have done the same thing believe it or not as I was the same way. I did not see, nor ever did see anything extraordinary about his actions. They were the actions of an excellent leader. That's why he was elected and re-elected. Bush did not have home turf to protect nor manage. His was the entire country. Tell me where on that day, pretending you were him, what and where another strike was gong to happen and tell me where you should be. Make sure you take into account that if you fall, the country will most likely go into mass panic. Where should you go? NYC? Washington, the site of a possible attack? Where? Moore could make a movie showing Ghandi as a power hungry egotist influencing brainwashed followers to sucumb to beatings and death to fill his ego needs. Moore does fiction/comedy in order to make money and provoke thought, not report impartially. Bush to me, showed remarkable steel by not freaking out. As I stated before, he knows he has people doing whatever needs to be done. They told him what they knew, advised him in their realm of specialties, he had confidence in his people, took their advice and allowed them to do their jobs Got to hear what you would have done so I can poke so many holes in it you will sink bad, hard and fast. Please, open up. ***** I never got the quotes. I must have missed them or never recognized them for what they are - separate quotes from the argument. Yes indeed. It is only two separate groups vying to control. Not much would change for sure. Kerry would get in, and the first thing that would happen is that a third of his voters would hate him. I have no fear of Kerry, the war on terror will continue. Minor changes is all. I would just get off on all the leftists that would waffle without a common cause. I would actually enjoy to see him get in for that alone.

And the US just got off the turnip truck. Better tell the Bush administration that, they might be thinking about forgetting all about terrorism. He is about to transfer Tom Ridge from head of homeland security to head of 'Unemployed Ex Al Queda Job Finderes.' Now that you have provided that news flash, they had better rethink it. LOL, like they were concentrating on fighting the Spanish in Iraq right? Nobody can afford that luxury. Well, Mr Farris can, he figures that terrorists only attack targets that we don’t really need. He figures that we can take chances with the key elements of the USA like the president and such. It’s good to know that some leftists like yourself know how important it is to NEVER let your guard down. Please provide the exceptions to Resolution 678 in which the US in para two was given the responsibility and authorization to ensure Iraq complied with all previous resolutions pertaining to the cease fire. Other than that, it’s all supposition and banter with no legalities. And you are talking about legalities so better come up with some proof in the form of laws that cancel out the laws that I spoke of. As well, in the second sentence, you say it was devious and around laws. I never said it was fair and square, just that it was legal. Prove me wrong. BTW, there is a close argument but nobody here has ever hit on it. Try and find it, I’ll helpo you a bit, it’s in every resolution in which the US is given the right to take action to ensure Iraq complies with the conditions of the cease fire. Conditions which include WMD matters, human rights towards Iraqi citizens, war reparations and return of POWs. Only part of the resolutions that put Iraq in violation and subject to invasion were WMD related. It still does not make it illegal though. Well, those guys are getting theirs. Cigarette Girl is going back on trial. You think that if there is something to come out that 60 minutes won’t broadcast it? Cum cum pussycat. Does a dog have fleas? Of course you think Saddam never had any WMD related material too right? And there are no Kuwati POWs with bullets in the back of their skulls in any of those mass graves too right? And Saddam can come up with the reciepts for the money he supposedly repaid Kuwait for the damage done during the invasion too right? All legal grounds for the US to take action.

Let's see, terrorists sworn to attack America like never before and not one attack. He did good. Al Queda leadership over 80% gone or in prison, he did good. OBL living in a stinking urine soaked cave in Pakistan probably dead, whatever. Kim doesn't live in the Middle East. You know, the place that most of our terrorist problems come from. You don't see that connection? Kim - Far East. Saddam - Middle East. Memorize that, it becomes rather importent in the next paragraph. Saddam provided a doorway into the Middle East. He was a legiteimate, legal target that nobody in their right mind would miss. He was taken out so that democracy would be replaced in his stead. Terrorist invaritably come from countries with terrible human rights records, not democracies. With democracy it is hoped that Iraq will be free. But that is not the aioverall aim as Iraq really was never a hotbed of terrorism anyway, hence, the doorway. See, with lots of buckaroos from oil, the Iraqis should be able to build a fairly self sufficient existance for themselves. One in which a guy who had his ear amputated by the former Regime and whos wife was raped by the chief of police might have a job and buy a car and even a house if Allah wills. He is far less likely to strap a sucide bomb on his ass if he has something to live for. It is hoped that Iraq will trade and through that, culturally spread their new, and just human rights and freedom throughout the neighboring countries. Making some inroads in terroist harboring countries. You know, show them what life is like when there is hope, make people understand that life does not have to be maryterdom. No, they are dying for the freedom of the Iraqi people. If they are dying for oil, it is French and Japanese oil. Check out the shipments and purchaes to date, 85% non-US. Sure wish you would get less rhetoric and more facts. Didn't see you trying to assasinate Bush or strapping on a belt bomb in any newsreels. I served twenty years in the Army. Four Un tours and three years in Germany. Seven with the Airborne and was always ready to be the pointy end of the sharp knife. Get stuffed.

When the US is under attack, the last thing we need is for it’s command structure to be under attack. Are you telling me that the US would have been better off with Bush under attack? Are you saying that the US can afford to take that chance? A good leader does not chance the command of his whole structure to suit vanity. Do you take your life savings to Vegas to show how cool you are? Why not, it landed on black over eighty thousand time yesterday, yet, you didn’t take that chance? Could it be you couldn’t afford the loss for your family:? Coward. They would have? At the time the President left Washington they were just getting up or standing in a ticket lineup. The night before they were getting drunk in a strip bar. When did they get their final briefing? Over a week before through an anonymous internet connection. The aircraft that crashed south of Jonestown was headed for the White House or Washington. It was on the flight path. If they wanted Bush himself and had intelligence, they would have headed for the school. Are you telling me that they only wanted to hit buildings and had no aspirations of killing Bush? Bush, the man that even a good percentage of Americans from the left would like to see dead? Where was the plane that crashed south of Jonestown headed? Was it the only plane that had hijackers on board that did not have a target? After years of planing, months of rehearsals, they still had no target. Hmmmm, good theory. President of the most powerful country on earth. And you work on assumptions of his safety? Don’t ever look for a job in security or investment, you assume too much for things that have to be 100% sure.. LOL, first you say they wouldn’t know if he was there, now you are saying they knew he was not there. You sure give them credit and at other times give them no credit, which is it? Where is Air force one at this moment? You don’t know do you? How many aircraft accompany it - right now? Who is on board it? Is it Air force two right now and Air force one is a Black Hawk on the lawn at the White House? Common, you know and just are not telling us. You say the terrorists knew, so you must know a little. Here, make it easy, deal with the past. Which aircraft was Airforce One yesterday? Where was it, not where it will be but where it was at say ....... two pm Washington time? Get back in less than five minutes after I post and I might say you are not out to lunch. And don’t forget to include where Asirforce two was, you know, the back up incase there is a problem with Airforce one. Which types of Aircraft were they at two pm yesterday? And where? And there is no denying the fact that most of them had no respect for him in the first place. As well, he also gained a lot of respect so your statement is bullshit. How do you know he was concerned for his own life? How do you know that his first reaction was not to fly Air force one into a ....... into a ....... into well ..... well ....... hmmmm..... sit back and find out what the hell was going on while ensuring that the head of the most powerfuo country on earth was not in danger? And which raging river did you dive into on Sept 11? LOL, you didn’t did you. You sat by the radio, tv whatever and watched in horror as Bush flew around getting intelligence briefings to understand what was going on long before you had an inkling. Long before you booked your ticket to ..... to ..... to ....well, whatever place you were going to go to do something like dive into a river to save ...well, somebody. You are so full of shit and frustration that it makes me laugh. What is Air force One? I think it is the command center for the US government in transit. The Command Center when the White House is under attack. Are you telling me that the Aircraft that crashed in Pa was no threat to the White House? And, are you trying to tell us all, here, that you knew that it was never a threat at all with enough fuel on board to fly to anywhere withing a two thousand mile radius? What does a prize fighter do when he is against the ropes? He covers up and protects himself and his assets with gloves over the face and arms and elbows against the sides. He doesn’t open up and walk over to the coach and wipe the sweat off the coaches face while his opponent takes him out, he recovers and strikes back. You feel that America would have been better served by the head of state endangering himself? And what if an aircraft had taken out the president if he had returned to Washington? That would have served what purpose? The country under a new president in the middle of an attack. Wow, you have balls or else you are one big idiot.. Got to hear your version of what you would have done. Give it to us and I will give you reasons why you should not have. Should be easy to make you look like the most ineffectual, yet bravest head of state scince Joe Clarke. Lay it on Rambo.

The wall is wrong only in the location. However, given the rash of suicide attacks, the Israeli government would be irresponsible to not continue with it, no matter what ruling is made by an world body. It's first responsibility is to it's own citizens protection. Working under that fact, the world should sanction Israel in trade and such, with the US ceasing all aid and funding. Simultanious ceasation of all aid and funding to the Palestinian Authority who have not stopped these attacks.

I know he didn’t. If the SOP for attack on the US is for the president to run to take on the attackers personally then he did not follow SOPs. SOPs are in place for the unexpected so that people have some point to start from. And if he didn’t then he is stupid. Should the president put himself in danger when the situation is unknown? You listed Churchill, did he know what was going on when he flew? In the case of 911, if you knew what was going on and how many planes were involved on that day, you were the only one. If your SOP is to immediately place your highest piece in danger when an attack occurs, thank God you are only a poster on an internet forum and not in charge of anything. I can picture it. “Mr President, we have no way of knowing what may be the next target, possibly it may be you in the white house or they may be tracking this Air Craft specifically. I recommend we go to the nearest, yet least occupied airspace available. North Dakota or whatever (insert remote space.)” Bush - Looks around at three or four staff members who are discussing this matter and gets their view on it. All concur. “No. I have no idea of what is going on yet feel that we have to go, ah, ..... go ..... go .....Well, go somewhere,. I got it! Let’s fly this puppy to NYC, they like planes there today. With any luck, there will be no more aircraft attacking and I can tell everybody that I have no freakin’ clue of what is going on. Or better yet, the White House, let’s go there just in case another aircraft hits there. If it doesn’t then once again, I can get on TV and tell everybody that I have no freakin’ clue of what is going on” Well, good ones in your book. If that were the case, the President would be handed a 45 and a few grenades on his inaugeration. Using the CEO analogy again, where does the CEO belong when there is trouble on the plant floor? With a wrench in his hand, wringing his hands while he watches maintenance crews work, or in his office getting briefings from section heads to analize the problem, co-ordinate resources and then issue orders for the whole company to rectify it? Now picture the head decision maker dodging bullets and God knows what else while he is trying to get briefings and make an unemotional decision, can’t be done. The days of leading from the front at a senior level went out with the Charge of The Light Brigade and non sight based communications. Especially when we are dealing with and UNKNOWN. Remember, an unknown? That is the key word. If Bush knew there were only four planes I am sure he would have done something different. You may or may not be right. I said he was a slacker in the 70s and probably afraid to go to war. That does not mean a lack of courage but rather a lack of self control. Courage is something you cannot predict and if you are not afraid to go to war then you need your head read in a serious way. If courage is determined by throwing your life away when the whole country depends on you then I call it foolhardy at least and grossly irresponsible. You seem to think that high level leaders are dispensable, I don’t. Especially in times of confusion. When the dust settles a day or two later sure, but in the heat of battle they are better protected leaving trained people in charge. As for courage, if you associate nerve with courage, he laid his whole career on the line, twice. The results are still to be seen and judged. That takes a lot more nerve than you or I will ever have to face hopefully. Still didn’t get your quote.

No, I'm right. He is given an agenda each day and he adheres to that schedule. If he doesn't then he is not fit to own a bycycle repair shop much less occupy the office of President. BTW, there are lots of options there for him to change, he is under no obligation to follow it to the letter. Like a doctor's secretary making appointments. His time is valuable and if he is ging to meet with some Ambassador at 9:15, he had better be shaved and dressed in time to make it, othwise, he sets the whole day off with sucessive appointments. Of course not. However, Bush is a politician, not a security specialist. He went along with the 'suggestions.' To tell me that Bush physically made every decision in the USA that day would be stupid. Which ones did he make and which ones were those of his specialitsts or those assigned for security of his person? If he made the decisions to fly to ND then I would doubt his ability to handle any situation. Things that must be delagated are usually the PResidents own security. Otherwise, he would be walking around with a freakin' 'Tommy Gun' in his hads. I wrote that with the lowest common denominator in mind. As an illustration do you know what city and town you are flying over when you travel from Montreal to Vancouver? Of course he knew, but at best, he was given the general idea, not the actual play by play details. He had other things to do like try to find out what was going on and direct things. And they also had the luxury of time to think. This was a very confusing day (unless you were in on the attack) and so to say that his first instinct was this or that is BS. Maybe it was, maybe his handlers had to tie him up and drag him to the plane. I doubt it but if you were a security specialist confronted with this unique problem what would your advice be? Mine would be to get the main man the hell out of there. His job is to listen to experts, not fight them. No, of course not. That situation does not arise though as there are SOPs in place so as few decisions as possible have to be made on the fly. And that is what happened here. A state of national emergency, suddenly, without warning. Not seen creeping towards us like Nazi Germany. As for Guliani, he is Mayor of NYC, not president of the United States. If Bush had gone to NYC what would you say if there was an attack on Seattle? Easy, you would say that he didn't do his job as president of the USA and make the observation that he is not the Mayor of New York. I don't know either. I'm sure that his fifty or so advisors were working on it as he got briefing after briefing afte briefing to find out what the hell was goin on. He wouldn't get that information sifting throug wreckage with a hard hat on. And who would you have in charge while he manned a shovel? Your link was a pay site. Is there another or can you quote the part you are putting forth for discussion? If it is news we can find it somewhere else after. Thanks.

Situation? You don't even have the right situation. The whole house is being cleaned here and Iraq is only the spot where the vacum cleaner is being set up. As I told you before, stop drawing cartoons and drooling on the chessboard, or at least, get your checkers off it so we can discuss the actual 'situation.'. We all know that Iraq had little actual terrorist ties, we all know they had little or no actual WMD, we do know that Saddam was a very bad man who sooner or later would become a Major problem. We do know that there was a legal opportunity to take him out, we do know that he would not be missed, we do know that the world would be a far better place without him, we do know that the Iraqi people would not miss him, we do know that the oil in Iraq would make any democratic change easier,. We do know that Iraq will trade and influence other countries, we do know that terrorists are comming out of the woodwork and are attacking Americans - not in America but in Iraq and the places they used to call home, and safe haven. We do know that no terrorist attacks have occured in America scince,. And that is with every terrorist willing to give his life to do it. Does that not tell you something? They are fighting for their very survival and the US is winning. But of course, I don't understand the situation.

There are enough flagrant abuses of journalistic integrity in the movie to preclude it from being a factual documentary. If a hole can be found here and there, which other points he is making that are false? If it is that good of a work then it must be iron clad, not swiss cheese. Read the link provided above, if, afterwards, you find nothing sinsiter or questionable in Moore's movie that makes you think his agenda is anything but the truth, then I will know why all the leftist arguments on this subject are weak.

Not rationalization Ceasar, I just know how authority is delagated in organizations. For example, the President and CEO of GM does not begin his day by scrubbing the lunch room toilet in the assembly plant. He leaves that to others while he goes over reports on profit and loss. If he is inspecting one of the many plants and there is a fire alarm, he probably does not even know where the assembly area is and would have to follow the plant managers direction on that. Same as if Paul Martin came to your home town to do a visit, does he pull out a street map and tell his driver where to go or does he do everythng by memory, a photographic one at that of a place he has never heard of? I was a radioman for the Brigade General duing my carrear in the service, when we went out to visit units he concentrated on the overall situation and left details to myself, his assistant, Brigade Seargeant Major and bodyguards. He never once drove the APC or Jeep, never once passed the ammo, never once stood in line waiting for coffee, in short, he did his job while we took care of all the details to give him unfettered opportunity to do his job. They are? Never once have you touched on the violations Iraq made in the human rights portions of the UN resolutions nor have you mentioned that they never provided a complete accounting of their WMD programmes. Instead, they violate UN law by submitting a report that Dr Hans Blix himself acknowleged was incomplete and doctored with pages photocopied and renumbered to pretend they were origional and even used the word 'deception.' If anybody had told me a year and a half ago that Iraq would have it's own transitional government toda, passing laws that are unpopular with the US y I would not have believed it. You are more optomistic than I ever was. Kudos!

I see science and the Hubble looking at solar systems. The planets they have seen so far ar large and highly suspect in their ability to sustain life much less intelligent life. Maybe there are more live friendly planets but none have been seen. No signals with the SETI program, no real indications of visits. I don't think that we are the only intelligent life form in the Universe but will state that I firmly believe that we are an exception rather than a usuality. What are the odds? A planet this close to the right type of sun, the right mix of chemicals and age of the planet to be the proper temerature and gravitational field? Coincidence? If the odds are one in a trillion, then would that make the odds of there being a God 999,999,999,999:1?

Got that right. He took us into the air campaign in Serbia without a UN or legal mandate yet stays out of Iraq to play footsies for public opinion while ignoring legalities. However, as for a scum sucking bastar*, he was still an amatuer compared to Mulrooney. as for America, the best thing that could happen is for Bush to pick rice or Powell as his running mate. Give the CIA to Cheney. The rreasoning - needs to groom the future Republican President for 2008. It would fly, get the black vote, the womans vote (in Rice's case) and send all these Haliburton haters into a nose dive.