[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I'm not saying it would shatter the economy, I just thought you were underestimating how much 7% of the economy really is.[/QUOTE]
Oh, sorry about that. I couldn't think of a word between hurt and shatter, I guess.

[QUOTE=ChounsMan]Bush is going to drive this country to war again & to the ground after that. He has already requested an addl [URL=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/26/iraq.spending.ap/index.html]75 bil[/URL] for the dept. of defense (DOD). What do you think this money is being spent on...? Special interests groups linked to the Presidents Admin. will indirectly see this money.

Did you know that the Saudis have 1 trillion dollars in our banks & if they ever decided to remove it our economy would be shattered. Call it what you want, but I call it extortion.[/QUOTE]


Regardless of the accuracy of this figure and w/out regard to the uniformity of these investments (i.e. assume "the Saudis" will w/draw or keep their investments as a unit and not act independently of each other) - Is it your contention that the Saudis are actually contemplating w/drawing these sums? Or are threatening to do so if we do not act in their interest? If so, what effect do you expect the election of Kerry to have? Will he a) continue to act under the threat of w/drawal? or b) refuse to do so and have the Saudis w/draw the funds, thus "shattering" the US economy?

As for the additional expenses, Kerry has promised to send an additional 40,000 men to Iraq. Hmmm, pay more to build infrastructure - Send more americans to be killed. Tough choice.

[QUOTE=That Guy]great post JR ;)

just like to point out as far as vietnam, we won militarily... it was a war where we weren't allowed to take out supply trails, weren't allowed to stop border crossings, weren't willing to fight (draftees forced to fight), etc...

When we went in i really thought it was rushed because bush had a vendetta against saddam (who tried to kill his father)... but i really believe he wanted to get rid of saddam for because of some moral sense of righteousness than any nefarious intents...

unlike korea, saddam had killed massive amounts of its own civillian population (with a potential WoMD (chemical gas), had invaded foreign countries, and had tried to kill foreign leaders... there were places in iraq that terrorist camps could exist, they (at one point) had a very very large military for the population and a massive system of secret police and toture, and had continued to buy military gear and support against sanctions... human rights and sanctions violations aside, they did possess a legitimate military threat to all neighboring countries...

they problem we have now is that rebuilding an occupied country is hard, especially without the support of the local population (and besides japan and the phillipines (both supportive populations), our track record is BAD)... and if we pull out now, there's a huge chance of anarchy followed by either another tyrant or a militant islamic state, both vitriolic in their hatred of the US... (ie, will have gone from bad to worse)... its not like we can just pull out and pretend it never happened.[/QUOTE]

in north korea, they are starving their ppl, most do not have electricity...the average height for a person is nearly a foot less than in south korea because of the malnutrition. all of the food goes to the army. the dictator there is arguable more insane than sadaam was. Also, people dont seem to get that sadaam and osama bin ladin are total opposites. sadaam is secular, and osama is a radical muslim. that is huge, because everything osama did was for his religion, and in defense of his god. one could argue that WE, america harbor terrorists, albeit unintentionally (by living in our towns, staying in our hospitals, etc.). Just because they are within borders, does not mean that we are supporting them...

[QUOTE=Big C]in north korea, they are starving their ppl, most do not have electricity...the average height for a person is nearly a foot less than in south korea because of the malnutrition. all of the food goes to the army. the dictator there is arguable more insane than sadaam was. Also, people dont seem to get that sadaam and osama bin ladin are total opposites. sadaam is secular, and osama is a radical muslim. that is huge, because everything osama did was for his religion, and in defense of his god.[/QUOTE]

Like someone else said, N Korea is being backed by China, who just happens to have a few billion people right next to N Korea, along w/ weapons. If something happens there, that will be a huge mess (exponentially worse than anything you could imagine Iraq being at the moment).

[QUOTE=Big C]one could argue that WE, america harbor terrorists, albeit unintentionally (by living in our towns, staying in our hospitals, etc.). Just because they are within borders, does not mean that we are supporting them...[/QUOTE]

We are actively trying to catch the terrorists, while Saddam was not.

[QUOTE=Big C]in north korea, they are starving their ppl, most do not have electricity...the average height for a person is nearly a foot less than in south korea because of the malnutrition. all of the food goes to the army. the dictator there is arguable more insane than sadaam was. Also, people dont seem to get that sadaam and osama bin ladin are total opposites. sadaam is secular, and osama is a radical muslim. that is huge, because everything osama did was for his religion, and in defense of his god. one could argue that WE, america harbor terrorists, albeit unintentionally (by living in our towns, staying in our hospitals, etc.). Just because they are within borders, does not mean that we are supporting them...[/QUOTE]


And your point about N. Korea is ...? They are a threat to world stability b/c of their horrible economic conditions? That we should invade even though the country is incapable of supporting any sort of sustained offensive?

Yes.. Saddam, originally and through the Baathists, was a secular ruler. In his final years, however, SH played heavily on his Sunni origins and invoked Allah as a political prop. Certainly, whether driven there by UN sanctions or through political opportunism, SH was beginning to develop contacts with Al Queada in the lead up to the US invasion.

Finally, it is absurd to equate the presence of terrorists in america as "harboring them". While SH may not have been an active supporter of Al Queada, he most assuredly did play the "hear no evil, see no evil" routine with terrorists living in his borders. Unlike most allied countries, SH did expel terrorists within his own borders or to prosecute them.

As a word of advice, I suggest that, if you do know the location of any al-queada operatives, you turn them over to your local authorities.

i was just saying that that guys' argument did not prove anything because north korea was just as bad in that regerd. he said that sadaam was killing his own ppl, and in north korea they are basically doin the same...thats my point

[QUOTE=Big C]i was just saying that that guys' argument did not prove anything because north korea was just as bad in that regerd. he said that sadaam was killing his own ppl, and in north korea they are basically doin the same...thats my point[/QUOTE]

Well, not quite... We said that SH had used WMD's on his own population which, to my knowledge and despite its otherwise terrible human rights issues, N.Korea has not done.

More importantly - the use of WMD's on his own population and lack of basic human rights was only one part of the equation presented by SH's Iraq. Importantly, prior to the invasion, SH had demonstrated his willingness to make war on other countries in the region. Further, in doing so, he was once again willing to deploy and use WMD's. As I said earlier, N.Korea has demonstrated none of these last characteristics.

So while, yes, there are similarities between SH's Iraq and the current situation in N.Korea - There are also significant differences as to the threat posed by each. To point to the similarities, while ignoring the differences, and proclaim our logic faulty is, itself, false logic.

All your post does is highlight Bush's diplomatic flexibility and his ability to deal appropriately with the threats presented by differing situations (LOL, Okay - I just threw that in there to make Matty and the rest of you lefties gag!):stop:

[quote]Did you know that the Saudis have 1 trillion dollars in our banks & if they ever decided to remove it our economy would be shattered. Call it what you want, but I call it extortion.[/quote]

you know who has even more of our money? the japanese... lots and lots of countries invest heavily in the US because of its stability... I don't really see anyone taking out that kind of money because they'd lose all the compounded interest collection, the transfer would be a total PitA, and there's no gaurantee the next holder will be any better...

the economy of such things as buying and selling goods would generally be unaffected, since this is bank money the most likely effects would be higher car and home loan rates (and could affect corporate borrowing, but companies operating on profit wouldn't be hit too badly)...

Big C, i never said osama and saddam were EVER in cahoots... and again, N korea is horrible on human rights, but it has not made war on neighboring countries or used WMDs, has not broken war sanctions to buy military equipment, and has not TRIED TO KILL AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT etc...

Saddam presented a much clearer and immediate military threat, whether the invasion was justified or not is up for debate, but iraq has been (in near history) a much greater overt threat, whereas korea has just talked the talk...

READ THIS & REALIZE
 

[B]READ THIS & REALIZE [/B]

Sage Francis - Make Shift Patroit Lyrics

Makeshift Patriot
The Flag Shop Is Out Of Stock
Hang Myself...Half Mast

Makeshift Patriot
The Flag Shop is Out of Stock
I hang myself...via live telecast

Coming live from my own funeral...the beautiful weather offered
a nice shine
Which is suitable for a full view of a forever altered skyline
It's times like these I freestyle biased opinions every other
sentence
My journalistic ethics slip when I pass them off as objective
'Don't gimme that ethical shit.'
I've got exclusive, explicit images to present to impressionable
American kids
And it's time to show this world how big our edifice is!

That's exactly what they attacked when a typically dark skinned
Disney villain
Used civilians against civilians and charged the trojan horses
into our buildings
Using commercial aviation as instruments of destruction
Pregnant women couldn't protect their children
Wheelchairs were stairway obstructions
Now I have to back petal...from the shower of glass and metal
Wondering how after it settles we'll find who provided power to
radical rebels
The Melting Pot seems to be calling the kettle black when it
boils over
But only on our own soil so the little boy holds a toy soldier..
And waits for the suit and tie to come home. We won't wait 'til
he's older
Before we destroy hopes for a colder war to end
'Now get a close up of his head...'

Makeshift Patriot
The Flag Shop Is Out Of Stock
Hang Myself...Half Mast

Makeshift Patriot
The Flag Shop is Out of Stock
I hang myself while the stock markets crash

The city is covered in inches of muck
I see some other pictures of victims are up
Grieving mothers are thinking their children are stuck
Leaping lovers are making decisions to jump
While holding hands...to escape the brutal heat
Sometimes in groups of the three
The fall out goes far beyond the toxic cloud where people look
like debris
But all they saw after all was said...beyond the talking heads

Was bloody dust with legs looking like the walking dead calling
for meds
Hospitals are overwhelmed. volunteers need to go the hell home
Moments of silence for fire fighters were interupted by cell
phones
Who's going to make that call to increase an unknown death toll?
It's the one we rally behind
He's got a megaphone...and he's promising to make heads roll
So we cheer him on, but asbestos is affecting our breath control
The less we know...the more they fabricate...the easier it is to
sell souls
An addictive 24 hour candle light vigil in TV's
Freedom WILL be defended...at the cost of civil liberties
Viewers are glued to television screens
Stuck... cause lots of things seem too sick
I use opportunities to pluck heart strings for theme music

I'll show you which culture to punp your fist at and what foot
is right to kiss
We don't know who the culprit is yet...but he looks like this
We know who the heros are. Not the xenophobes who act hard
'We taught that dog to squat.
How dare he do that shit in our own back yard!'

They happened to scar our financial state and char our landscape
Can you count how many times so far I ran back this same damn
tape?
While a camera man creates news and shoves it down our throats
on the West Bank
With a 10 second clip put on constant loop to provoke US angst

So get your tanks and load your guns and hold your sons in a
family huddle
Because even if we win this tug of war and even the
score...humanity struggles
There's a desperate need of blood for what's been uncovered
under the rubble
Some of them dug for answers in the mess...but the rest were
looking for trouble

Makeshift Patriot
The Flag Shop Is Out Of Stock
Hang Myself...Half Mast

Makeshift Patriot
The Flag Shop is Out of Stock
I hang myself, don't waive your rights with your flags

About Sage Francis:

"To understand the music you must understand him, and to understand him is something none of us may ever accomplish...but at least we can listen to his records, and what we get out of it is for us."

So what is it that you want us to realize?

[QUOTE=cpayne5]About Sage Francis:

"To understand the music you must understand him, and to understand him is something none of us may ever accomplish...but at least we can listen to his records, and what we get out of it is for us."

So what is it that you want us to realize?[/QUOTE]

Realize that no matter how tragic 911 was & is, the Bush Administration stands to profit from it. Profit like no other administration has or ever will.

[QUOTE=ChounsMan]Realize that no matter how tragic 911 was & is, the Bush Administration stands to profit from it. Profit like no other administration has or ever will.[/QUOTE]
Can you point out the part that talks about profiting from 9/11?

As far as profiting from a Presidency, I think the Clintons are doing pretty well with their book deals.

[QUOTE=cpayne5]Can you point out the part that talks about profiting from 9/11?

As far as profiting from a Presidency, I think the Clintons are doing pretty well with their book deals.[/QUOTE]
Or the part that infers it?

From Joseph Farah- who makes a very good point

I didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000.

Though faced with a dismal choice that year, I chose to sit out the presidential election – even though Bush's opponent, Al Gore, was part of an administration that spent years terrorizing me and other critics of Bill Clinton, using all the awesome power of the federal government.

In fact, ever since 2000, my news organization has been the target of a $165 million lawsuit by Gore's chief fund-raiser in Tennessee. It seems the former vice president and his supporters there believe a devastating 18-part investigative series on Gore's history in his home state contributed mightily to his defeat in Tennessee – and, thus, a loss of electoral votes and the White House.

Still, I couldn't support Bush in 2000 because I did not believe he would govern according to the limits of the U.S. Constitution. That is my minimum standard requirement for support of any candidate for federal office.

Until recently, I was planning to sit out the 2004 presidential election, too, for the same reason.

When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, Bush doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the strict limits on federal authority. He doesn't understand how this sets us apart as a free nation from all others in the world.

However, three years ago, this nation was attacked as it has never been attacked before. We find ourselves in a global conflict with a radical ideology of evil comparable to our titanic battles of the past with Nazism and communism. It's a fight to the finish. It's a fight for our lives. It's a fight that will never end until one side or the other is vanquished.

I have come to the conclusion that, like it or not, Osama bin Laden and his jihadist allies have one short-term goal above all others – defeating George W. Bush at the polls Nov. 2.

A victory by John Kerry, a lifelong appeaser of totalitarianism, would hand the terrorists their biggest morale boost since Sept. 11, 2001. If you doubt what I am saying, look no further than the "endorsement" of Kerry by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Arafat is the father of modern-day Arab terrorism.

So this election for me is not so much about Bush. It's about you. The election has now come down to something very simple. It is your chance to send the terrorists a message. It is your moment to make the terrorists hear from you.

A mandate for Bush will send the terrorists just such a message. It will tell them we have stood up as a nation. It will tell them we will continue to hunt them down – no matter how long it takes and no matter what the cost.

A close election – or, God forbid, a Kerry victory – will actually encourage the terrorists. It will send them the message that you are tired and weary and that your will to fight them to the death is giving out.

Ask yourself today: Will America be safer with Bush or Kerry in the White House?

That's how simple the choice is today. All other considerations merely muddy the water and complicate what is seen by our enemies as a clear choice.

If we were at peace, this might be an opportune moment to consider building a third party. It might be a great chance to protest the choices we have. But we are not at peace. We are at war.

A Kerry victory – or even a close election, decided days or weeks after the vote – will increase exponentially the danger our country faces, the risk to our children, the threat to our way of life.

That's what this election comes down to for me. It's not about Bush. It's not about Kerry. It's about you. It's about the message you send to the enemy – to the beast.

If we rise up Nov. 2 and send the beast a message, we will have taken our most dramatic step toward victory in this global conflict.

This is your moment to make your voice heard – all the way to the caves in Afghanistan, the terrorist cells in Chechnya, the dismal slums of Fallujah and teeming streets of Gaza.

It's time for you to be heard. It's time to fight back. It's time to make your stand.

Vote for George W. Bush Nov. 2.

the question is, does bush's pre-emptive war strategy endanger us more by over-reaching "taking a stand" to near insanity (at least to some people) ;)?

not voting for kerry, but just saying...

oh, and now the CIA thinks russia helped moved weaponry out of iraq before the war... (russia's always kinda thought or iraq as its red-headed step child in a way)...

[QUOTE=That Guy]oh, and now the CIA thinks russia helped moved weaponry out of iraq before the war... (russia's always kinda thought or iraq as its red-headed step child in a way)...[/QUOTE]

No wonder Russia's intelligence showed they had weapons!

That's almost as funny as the weapons (which Iraq claimed never existed) containers that had French and German writing on them. Imagine that...

[QUOTE=BrunellFan]From Joseph Farah- who makes a very good point

I didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000.

Though faced with a dismal choice that year, I chose to sit out the presidential election – even though Bush's opponent, Al Gore, was part of an administration that spent years terrorizing me and other critics of Bill Clinton, using all the awesome power of the federal government.

In fact, ever since 2000, my news organization has been the target of a $165 million lawsuit by Gore's chief fund-raiser in Tennessee. It seems the former vice president and his supporters there believe a devastating 18-part investigative series on Gore's history in his home state contributed mightily to his defeat in Tennessee – and, thus, a loss of electoral votes and the White House.

Still, I couldn't support Bush in 2000 because I did not believe he would govern according to the limits of the U.S. Constitution. That is my minimum standard requirement for support of any candidate for federal office.

Until recently, I was planning to sit out the 2004 presidential election, too, for the same reason.

When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, Bush doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the strict limits on federal authority. He doesn't understand how this sets us apart as a free nation from all others in the world.

However, three years ago, this nation was attacked as it has never been attacked before. We find ourselves in a global conflict with a radical ideology of evil comparable to our titanic battles of the past with Nazism and communism. It's a fight to the finish. It's a fight for our lives. It's a fight that will never end until one side or the other is vanquished.

I have come to the conclusion that, like it or not, Osama bin Laden and his jihadist allies have one short-term goal above all others – defeating George W. Bush at the polls Nov. 2.

A victory by John Kerry, a lifelong appeaser of totalitarianism, would hand the terrorists their biggest morale boost since Sept. 11, 2001. If you doubt what I am saying, look no further than the "endorsement" of Kerry by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Arafat is the father of modern-day Arab terrorism.

So this election for me is not so much about Bush. It's about you. The election has now come down to something very simple. It is your chance to send the terrorists a message. It is your moment to make the terrorists hear from you.

A mandate for Bush will send the terrorists just such a message. It will tell them we have stood up as a nation. It will tell them we will continue to hunt them down – no matter how long it takes and no matter what the cost.

A close election – or, God forbid, a Kerry victory – will actually encourage the terrorists. It will send them the message that you are tired and weary and that your will to fight them to the death is giving out.

Ask yourself today: Will America be safer with Bush or Kerry in the White House?

That's how simple the choice is today. All other considerations merely muddy the water and complicate what is seen by our enemies as a clear choice.

If we were at peace, this might be an opportune moment to consider building a third party. It might be a great chance to protest the choices we have. But we are not at peace. We are at war.

A Kerry victory – or even a close election, decided days or weeks after the vote – will increase exponentially the danger our country faces, the risk to our children, the threat to our way of life.

That's what this election comes down to for me. It's not about Bush. It's not about Kerry. It's about you. It's about the message you send to the enemy – to the beast.

If we rise up Nov. 2 and send the beast a message, we will have taken our most dramatic step toward victory in this global conflict.

This is your moment to make your voice heard – all the way to the caves in Afghanistan, the terrorist cells in Chechnya, the dismal slums of Fallujah and teeming streets of Gaza.

It's time for you to be heard. It's time to fight back. It's time to make your stand.

Vote for George W. Bush Nov. 2.[/QUOTE]
So Bush is our hero, our savior?

I think I'm gonna puke

Hehe, I think we've found Matty's kryptonite.

Bush is the biggest coward on the planet. Oh yeah, I'm gonna feel real safe with him in charge for another 4 years. No would dare bomb us with him in charge (oh yeah, I forgot they already did on his watch). I'm sure Osama and Al Qaeda will be real scared if Bush is still around. I bet they will just shut down operations and wait for a democrat to take office before they try something.

[QUOTE=That Guy]patriot act TIA etc is all crap, but i see nothing that would make me believe kerry would be any better on those fronts either... and that's been the problem i've been having... the things i personally care about that bush sucks at (science/tech laws, privacy), aren't really addressed (since for most people they're very minor issues sadly), and kerry hasn't done anything to make me think he'd be any better.

Whatever, it's all crap, let's bench them all, fire them and start again....[/QUOTE]

What science/tech laws are you talking about? I'm intrigued

[QUOTE=BrunellFan]From Joseph Farah- who makes a very good point

I didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000.

Though faced with a dismal choice that year, I chose to sit out the presidential election – even though Bush's opponent, Al Gore, was part of an administration that spent years terrorizing me and other critics of Bill Clinton, using all the awesome power of the federal government.

In fact, ever since 2000, my news organization has been the target of a $165 million lawsuit by Gore's chief fund-raiser in Tennessee. It seems the former vice president and his supporters there believe a devastating 18-part investigative series on Gore's history in his home state contributed mightily to his defeat in Tennessee – and, thus, a loss of electoral votes and the White House.

Still, I couldn't support Bush in 2000 because I did not believe he would govern according to the limits of the U.S. Constitution. That is my minimum standard requirement for support of any candidate for federal office.

Until recently, I was planning to sit out the 2004 presidential election, too, for the same reason.

When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, Bush doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the strict limits on federal authority. He doesn't understand how this sets us apart as a free nation from all others in the world.

However, three years ago, this nation was attacked as it has never been attacked before. We find ourselves in a global conflict with a radical ideology of evil comparable to our titanic battles of the past with Nazism and communism. It's a fight to the finish. It's a fight for our lives. It's a fight that will never end until one side or the other is vanquished.

I have come to the conclusion that, like it or not, Osama bin Laden and his jihadist allies have one short-term goal above all others – defeating George W. Bush at the polls Nov. 2.

A victory by John Kerry, a lifelong appeaser of totalitarianism, would hand the terrorists their biggest morale boost since Sept. 11, 2001. If you doubt what I am saying, look no further than the "endorsement" of Kerry by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Arafat is the father of modern-day Arab terrorism.

So this election for me is not so much about Bush. It's about you. The election has now come down to something very simple. It is your chance to send the terrorists a message. It is your moment to make the terrorists hear from you.

A mandate for Bush will send the terrorists just such a message. It will tell them we have stood up as a nation. It will tell them we will continue to hunt them down – no matter how long it takes and no matter what the cost.

A close election – or, God forbid, a Kerry victory – will actually encourage the terrorists. It will send them the message that you are tired and weary and that your will to fight them to the death is giving out.

Ask yourself today: Will America be safer with Bush or Kerry in the White House?

That's how simple the choice is today. All other considerations merely muddy the water and complicate what is seen by our enemies as a clear choice.

If we were at peace, this might be an opportune moment to consider building a third party. It might be a great chance to protest the choices we have. But we are not at peace. We are at war.

A Kerry victory – or even a close election, decided days or weeks after the vote – will increase exponentially the danger our country faces, the risk to our children, the threat to our way of life.

That's what this election comes down to for me. It's not about Bush. It's not about Kerry. It's about you. It's about the message you send to the enemy – to the beast.

If we rise up Nov. 2 and send the beast a message, we will have taken our most dramatic step toward victory in this global conflict.

This is your moment to make your voice heard – all the way to the caves in Afghanistan, the terrorist cells in Chechnya, the dismal slums of Fallujah and teeming streets of Gaza.

It's time for you to be heard. It's time to fight back. It's time to make your stand.

Vote for George W. Bush Nov. 2.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I am sick and tired or only reading about Bush and Kerry's different views on the freakin' war in Iraq. We should vote for our next president based on all the issues rather than just one. I think that the war and terrorism is a very important issue but it is not the only one. What about Social Security, Abortion, Gun Control, Health Care, Education (this should be a big topic), Drugs, Civil Rights, the Environment, Job Growth, just to name a few.

There is a lot more to electing a president than choosing who is for or against the war.

[QUOTE=redrock-skins]Bush is the biggest coward on the planet. Oh yeah, I'm gonna feel real safe with him in charge for another 4 years. No would dare bomb us with him in charge (oh yeah, I forgot they already did on his watch). I'm sure Osama and Al Qaeda will be real scared if Bush is still around. I bet they will just shut down operations and wait for a democrat to take office before they try something.[/QUOTE]
A Kerry administration would make it easier for them. They will enjoy the kind of existance they had under 8 years of Clinton. You should read some of Dick Morris' stuff on terrorism/Clinton/Bush.

chounsman, you must have one scourse for your misinformation. If we have control of all this oil why wouldn't all of Bushes so called oil buddies reduce their prices to make him look good.

[QUOTE=firstdown]chounsman, you must have one scourse for your misinformation. If we have control of all this oil why wouldn't all of Bushes so called oil buddies reduce their prices to make him look good.[/QUOTE]
The left's argument is flawed from the beginning. Take a look at the person they've heralded in their war on George W. Bush - Michael Moore. That should tell you something right there.

Cpayne if they enjoy the 8 years they had under clinton, I'll enjoy 8 years of no attacks on our soil and a strong foreign policy. I'm fine with that.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Cpayne if they enjoy the 8 years they had under clinton, I'll enjoy 8 years of no attacks on our soil and a strong foreign policy. I'm fine with that.[/QUOTE]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't we attacked while Bush was president...so eight years under him without any attacks would be incorrect....also, wasn't 9/11 the worst attack on our soil ever. Go figure. Sounds like a great foriegn policy to me.

[quote]No would dare bomb us with him in charge (oh yeah, I forgot they already did on his watch).[/quote]
oklahoma (not arab, still a terror attack), trade center (twice), USS cole... very very minimal retaliation made them bolder... clinton was handed osama bin laden and said no thanks, so they let him go... hmm, no thanks.

bush on science - I personally believe scientific positions should be chosen by merit, not political affiliation... bush disagrees, and he's replaced many positions with people that will support his dogma (ie, he makes a decision and they figure out a way to spin data to support it.. not very objective), that's what happened to stem cells, all the drilling/de-foresting stuff... i could find more specific examples if you want, but every time i go through some of the sh*t thats gone down i get kinda pissed off... Kerry doesn't promise to be any better on science, but it'd be hard to top what's already happened.

and btw, i think banning things like stem-cells and cloning before we even know what the really are is dumb... cause the rest of the world doesn't care about our ban (ie china which has opened a lot of labs since they found out the US gov isn't going to give money for such research to US schools)... and it could definately bite us in the arse... its not just science, eventually its economy too...

[QUOTE=Daseal]Cpayne if they enjoy the 8 years they had under clinton, I'll enjoy 8 years of no attacks on our soil and a strong foreign policy. I'm fine with that.[/QUOTE]

In fairness, we were attacked at the WTC under Clinton too. It just wasn't as catostrpohic. We will be attacked under any president regardless of party. The whole notion that we will "be safer" under either candidate is flawed.

"clinton was handed osama bin laden and said no thanks, so they let him go... hmm, no thanks"

So was Bush and he didn't finish the job of getting Osama and then focused on Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11. He was told from day 1 of his presidency, Osama was a threat, but Bush was too worried about his golf game and his ranch in Crawford. Now we get to watch Osama's latest video on TRL. But we do have Saddam and don't you all feel so much safer now? I was lying awake at night worried about a dictator who controlled only 1/3 of his own counrty, since we ONLY had the other 2/3 under the "no fly zones".

[QUOTE=Daseal]Cpayne if they enjoy the 8 years they had under clinton, I'll enjoy 8 years of no attacks on our soil and a strong foreign policy. I'm fine with that.[/QUOTE]

Here's a list of attacks against US interests attributed to Al-Qaeda under Clinton's watch.

February 26, 1993: An explosion in the basement of the World Trade Center towers in New York kills six people and injures about 1,000. The blast causes major damage to the buildings' foundations; some 55,000 people are working in the towers at the time.

November 13, 1995: A car bomb explodes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in front of a building of the Saudi National Guard where US military advisors work. Five US soldiers and two Indian nationals are killed and more than 60 people wounded.

June 25, 1996: A truck loaded with two tonnes of explosives destroys a building at the US military base of Khobar near the town of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia. Nineteen US nationals are killed and 386 are wounded.

August 7, 1998: US embassies in the east African cities of Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam are hit by near-simultaneous bomb attacks which kill 224 people, almost all of them Africans, and injure over 5,000. The toll in Nairobi is 213 dead and over 5,000 injured; in Dar-es-Salaam 11 dead and over 70 injured. Of the total dead, 12 are US nationals.

October 12, 2000: A suicide attack on the destroyer USS Cole kills 17 US sailors and injures 38 in the Yemeni port of Aden.

The research, communication, and planning for attacks on 9/11 were conducted for years prior to 9/11. The Clinton administration cut funding to the CIA, the FBI, and the military in general. September 11, 2001 comes and we're attacked. You can blame 8 months on Bush all you want, but you also have to blame 8 years on Clinton to be fair.

Louis Freeh, FBI director from 93-01, came to Clinton in the oval office one day during Clinton's second term seeking support in changing some restrictive laws. He found it wrong that if the CIA knew something about a terror plot it was legally barred from informing the FBI about it. Freeh wanted this wall to be broken. Clinton said there was nothing he could do and refused. Freeh then asked if there if he could make it so that the agencies could share information to stop terror plots, but just not be able to prosecute the plotters. Clinton also refused this request.

Under George W. Bush, this is no longer the case. Agencies can now share information. An example of this is the plot to blow up the Brooklyn bridge. The FBI heard some 'chatter' with Brooklyn bridge in it. It then informed the NYPD who put up 24 hour surveillance on it. The FBI in the meantime tracked down the guy who was going to execute the plot. He had aborted the mission because of the surveillance being applied by the police. The FBI found detailed engineering and explosive diagrams in the guy's apartment. If this had taken place in 2000 the person in the FBI who gave the order to inform the local police would have been charged and prosecuted with a felony. Kind of rediculous, don't you think?