The Moderate Republican

directx - disegni - divx - dolci - download - downloads - edonkey - emoticons - emulatore - emulatori - fiat - firewall - ford - frutti-mare - gastronomia - gemello - getright - giochi - gioco - grafici - henne - hummer - humor - icona - illusioni - insalata - jeep - kaspersky - kazaa - lamborghini - letteratura - libri - manuale - manuali

solutions - soupe - spybot - spyware - svcd - symantec - tablature - tablatures - tarot - tarte - tartes - tatoo - -

please donate your used clothing to help the poor for a list of used clothing centers http://pused.webhostzero.com/

i love your site http://dishtv.freehomepage.com

Nice Blog!

"inflammatory"?

This administration's reponse to 9/11 is inflamatory.

We share the planet - we don't own it.

Are you a politician? You simply made up a response that was purposefully inflammatory. Again, emotions vs logic.

Your response is, in fact, so inflammatory that I dont even have to break it down to point it out, just put it next to my statements.

This is what I said, and below the line is your response.

--------------------------
1. establish a base of intel operations right in the heart of the middle east. if you dont think this was critical then you disagree with the 9/11 commission report. i dont think we could reasonably depend on the intel agencies in Saudi, Jordan, etc to provide reliable info to us.

2. establish a base of military operations in an area near our potential enemies. if we did not do this we would risk being caught in a situation where we needed our military to be in place in the middle east and not have them. remember that the deployment time was around 4 months or more to stage military there. this has proven to be an excellent strategic move with Saudi stability being questioned and Iran producing nukes. I suppose the UN would have been able to negotiate the terrorists out of power once they took over Saudi Arabia and 20% of the worlds oil.

3. WMDs - I would never want a president who decided to ignore intel and risk WMDs being circulated to terrorists. if you do i question your sanity and judgement.

--------------------------

1). Arabs attacked us on 9/11
2). Iraqis are Arabs
3). We can kill whomever we want in Iraq and still expected people in the Middle East to say no to Quida's recruitment efforts? That we can still expect help from the world when talk as if we can't tell the difference between a Pashtun, Arab, Kurd, Turkoman, Persian, Suni, Shia, ...

"logical reasoning"

What's the "logical" reasoning Mike

1). Arabs attacked us on 9/11
2). Iraqis are Arabs
3). We can kill whomever we want in Iraq and still expected people in the Middle East to say no to Quida's recruitment efforts? That we can still expect help from the world when talk as if we can't tell the difference between a Pashtun, Arab, Kurd, Turkoman, Persian, Suni, Shia, ...

It's the rhetoric Mike - this rhetoric kills Americans with every Quida it helps recruit.

The rhetoric needs to end.

Stick to "spreading liberty"

you may decide to minimize the first line in the post but i did back it with what i consider to be some fair conlusions based on logical assertions.

i dont see how your answer, largely based on emotions and feelings, counters my logical reasoning.

"The war in Iraq has been a huge advance in fighting terrorism"

Mike that sort of rhetoric, if it's allowed to continue, will eventually doom the mission in Iraq.

When the President and Rumsfeld state with PRIDE that we are fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here they doubtless don't realize it, but they make us look like we are some of the most callous SOBs on the planet when large numbers of Iraqis are being killed (including children).

We are pretty much scum right now in the minds of most people, especially people in the Middle East.

If Iraqi's knew that 42% of Americans still think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 they'd at best question our credentials as stewards of democracy and at worst be insulted (and if it were Iraqis thinking similar thoughts of us - we'd tell them to f..k off.)

The rhetoric of this administration is poison. It empowered the abuses at Abu Gharib by giving a license to dehumanize anyone we encounter there.

People who support this president find it hard to believe that any president could convince more of the world to help out. And perhaps no one can at this point.

But these same people also seem willing to tolerate the poison this administration dispenses, so perhaps they're simply pessimistic when it comes to diplomacy.

Hi,

I wanted to give you a heads up on a compelling new ad featuring a group of women who are calling themselves the "Band of Sisters", whose loved ones are currently deployed or were killed in Iraq. The ad is an immediate response to the clash over Iraq in yesterday's candidate debate. Last night in New York, members of the Band of Sisters came together from around the country to view the debate, and the ad records their reactions

You can view it here:

www.SistersSpeakOut.com

The ad was produced by Win Back Respect, a new campaign group that has been assembled to rapidly respond to Republican assertions on Iraq and national security in the final weeks of the campaign. The group is backed by George Soros and Moveon.org, and advised by foreign policy experts including Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake. The women are on a national tour with Wes Clark which was launched in Green Bay, WI on Sept. 14. The Band of Sisters and Clark will tour battleground states through the election, holding events near military bases and targeting military families and other undecided voters.

The spot, which will air in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico, powerfully underscores the perception that the president is out of touch with reality, as he showed in last night's debate . Please take a look, and feel free to get back in touch if you have any questions about the campaign.

Best wishes,

James Murray

I watched it live and it was clear Kerry really scored points.

When he said "you can be certain and still be wrong" it hit home with me. That does describe Bush well. We all know he's been wrong, but he never admits it.

When Bush once again equated 9-11 with Iraq instead of Osama Bin Laden I really felt like he was lying directly to me again. Kerry called him out on it and then Bush had his WORST moment of the debate when he said "I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us". He really looked childish. Everyone I've spoken to about that agreed with me. It was a bad, bad moment for the President. If it gets replayed over and over - that could be the "MOMENT" we look back on.

Kerry was much more Presidential by comparison. Prior to the debate you could not say that seriously.

This could change the election over the next two months as Bush's poor performance sets in. Also, expect Kerry to do even better in the domestic policy debate in a town hall forum.

Finally, many (most) conservative bloggers and watchers were very disappointed with Bush's performance. Even FOX had a hard time with Bush's performance... Bill Kristol withheld judgment while everyone else gave the nod to Kerry. Brit Hume even said this debate could change the election. I can't think of anything more revealing about how bad that night really was for the President than the reaction on Fox.

For me, the most significant moment of the debate was Kerry quoting George H.W. Bush's own book, regarding why the U.S. should not have and did not invade Baghdad in the first Gulf War. Everything that Bush Sr. had predicted would happen, has happened.

I watched more, of course, but that moment captured the whole tone of the debate. Kerry scored and Bush couldn't respond.

The war in Iraq has been a huge advance in fighting terrorism. I believe that on 9/12 the president and his advisors set out to repair some of the problems highlighted in the 9/11 commission report. They only were ahead of congress by about 2.5 years.

Iraq was more than a target because of WMDs, it was also a target of opportunity that allowed us to

1. establish a base of intel operations right in the heart of the middle east. if you dont think this was critical then you disagree with the 9/11 commission report. i dont think we could reasonably depend on the intel agencies in Saudi, Jordan, etc to provide reliable info to us.

2. establish a base of military operations in an area near our potential enemies. if we did not do this we would risk being caught in a situation where we needed our military to be in place in the middle east and not have them. remember that the deployment time was around 4 months or more to stage military there. this has proven to be an excellent strategic move with Saudi stability being questioned and Iran producing nukes. I suppose the UN would have been able to negotiate the terrorists out of power once they took over Saudi Arabia and 20% of the worlds oil.

3. WMDs - I would never want a president who decided to ignore intel and risk WMDs being circulated to terrorists. if you do i question your sanity and judgement.

Perhaps if Kerry has attended a few more intelligence committee meetings he would have a clue.
-------------------------

read this link published today. especially the part where al-Qaida discussed being devoured.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6148985/

the multi-pronged strategy that the predident employed has them on the ropes!

I dont care if Kerry speaks better than Bush. You dont debate with terrorists.

Talk is cheap. Senator Kerry's ever morphing "strategy" on Iraq is an example of that. If elected Kerry will turn Iraq into the next Vietnam. If we lose the will we will lose the war! It isn't a stretch to see Kerry leading a swift boat outta there!

If you're going to attack Kerry for repeating himself over and over again, then you must have noticed that Bush did the same thing. He managed to work either criticism for Kerry's supposed lack of resolution, or praise for his own clear message into nearly every response he gave, regardless of whether it was relevent to the original question. He even continued to do so after Kerry made it clear that he did have an absolute and unwavering opinion and plan.

Furthermore, Kerry's assertion that we need more allies regarding Iraq and his statement that we should go back to bilateral talks with N. Korea are on completely different planes and should not be mistaken as a contradiction. We are fighting a war in Iraq, and in war, especially a war such as this one, where countries other than ourselves have a stake in the outcome, you need allies to remain strong and to win. The situation with N. Korea is not a war yet, and hopefully it will never become a war. Kerry is interested in negotiations and agreements with N. Korea, not bullying and intimidating the country into submission. And there's no reason why China and other countries can't continue to be our allies in that endeavor.

Our great power (the army) is bogged down in a war sold to us by people with ulterior agendas. By that I don't mean oil. I can't bring myself to reasonably conclude that a president would take us to war for oil. I do however believe that self serving Iraqi's (Chalabi et al) duped willing ideologues into fighting their war for them.

After all, Saddam was more a threat to the Iraqi exiles , the Chalabis et al than he was to me in my little corner of America.

Kerry did not say he wanted only the US involved in talks with Korea, he proposed that we have bilateral (US and N.K) talks to go along with the multi-lateral talks which the US is not currently a part of.

Even though I am not a fan of Clinton, as Kerry pointed out, his administration negotiated us into a position where we could survey and curtail N.Korea's activities even though they did still sneak around enriching plutonium. We however had an eye in the room, that would have caught on eventually.

But now, from a strategy of surveillance and curtailment 4 years ago, over the term of this presidency, the N.K's have actually gone beyond sneaking around trying to make 'gun-powder' while the 'cops' patrol to manufacturing Uzi's (my own analogy). All because we don't talk to evildoers.

In my own estimation, it's much easier to confiscate gun-powder than it is to get rid of the Uzis.

The emperor has no robes.

it was amazing. midway through the debate, once the "on message" slogans ran out, it was a debate between john kerry and PORKY PIG!!!!!!
hum, i would like to uhum, say that, uhum, i would still, uhum, invade iraq, umhum , umhum , uhhhhhhhh, even though they do not have weapons of mass distruction, no al queda, no connection to 9/11, uhmmmmmmmm.
bedep, dedep, dedep, i'm going to get that waskally wabbit.
this is the dumbest president that i have ever heard in a debate.

I was eager to watch the debates tonight to hear Bush's vision for the future. I cannot express how dissapointed I was to hear him say so little, and come off so uninformed. How can Bush actually think things are going so well in Iraq when his own staff say otherwise. I'm starting to think it was about the oil and it makes me sick. Kerry actually sounded very clear and rational. Now I'm starting to think he would make better decisions for the country. Sorry Bush, you just lost this republican's vote.

Kerry won because he came across as Presidential, an image he has not managed to get across (to say the least) previously, particularly during the 3 or 4 weeks. His slide has stopped. Bush appeared tired and irritable and just a bit confused. However, I don't think Bush lost a vote from his base. Kerry has begun to interest the independents and undecided. Kerry hasn't won the election with this. Indeed,he many not have turned many votes. BUT, people are thinking about him in a positive fashion and that means everything.

P.S.

McCain was asked to comment after the debates (on ABC? - I was channel surfing so I'm not sure which network had the good fortune to secure his comments.)

He did Republicans proud.

This country is facing some very tough choices. McCain is man we can trust.

Don't forget this moment.

Unfortunately, I feel like a flip-flopper tonight. I was convinced that Bush had it right on the war on terror and the focus of our military machine. Kerry came across very confident in having a concise plan that he was committed to and solid on the facts. Kerry indicated he would talk to N. Korea directly as a first attempt, then involve others. Bush doesn't seem to want to talk to anyone, just do what he wants, how he wants. I'd like my voice heard and I think Kerry is listening.

I think Karl Rove, a brilliant strategist, said it best--if you defend, you've lost. Bush mostly spent the night on the defensive. He also spent a lot of time like a deer in headlights, apparently trying to marshal his thoughts. What's up with that? It's not leadership; it's not presidential. In fact, in these troubling times, it's downright scary. Bush also sounded too much like a political ad--repeating shopworn attackson Kerry. He never said flip flop but I got really tired of "diversion," "mixed message"--it sounded too much like "nyah, nyah, nyah. Not good in a day when 32 schoolchildren in Iraq were killed. Kerry gave us substance, Bush gave us spin. I Bush talked about praying with a woman whose husband died in Iraq--sharing tears, prayers, smiles, etc. Earlier in the war, that would have been effective. Now he needs to be praying for the men who choked and struggled as they were being beheaded for the crime of trying to rebuild Iraq. He needs to share a tear with the Iraqi parents who lost those kids today. Kerry won this debate, but the debates seem surreal when you look at the hideous news from Iraq and other parts of the world each day. We're in such a hopeless mess that winning the debate is like moving deck chairs on the Titanic. Kerry won the debate, Bush lost. there's no question. The real question is how do we (America) win, or even survive? Bush didn't give any answers. His hokey story, his sneering remarks, the staring into space--not presidential, not a man who can get us out of the mess we're in. How will America win? There's no way to watch what is happening in Iraq and think that there are easy answers or that we can go it alone. In Iraq, we're pretty much going it alone. Only Tony Blair supports his country's involvement in Iraq. Great Britain the people are pretty solidly against their country's involvement. They are a shaky ally at best. Despite Pres. Bush's insistence, I'm going to have to discount Poland. Our troups are stressed beyond recovery. Without the support of other countries, we'll never have a successful exit strategy. We owe the Iraqi people, who were largely victims of Saddam better than making them victims of massive and vicious civil war. Even if that's the only good point Kerry made, it is a solid point. Bush didn't make any good points. Kerry 1, Bush 0 America ? --the jury is still out.

Kerry & Bush both did a decent job. This was a much more substantive debate than I ever imaged we would have.

Details on the DPRK negotiations were discussed. Many details on Iraq. I wish that there had been more discussion on Iran.

But this was a wonderful debate - and I hope that a lot of Americans were watching.

And if this could be the norm in how public debate was conducted in this country, I wouldn't fear for our Democracy.

I didn't see the debate in full, had to work tonight later than usual teaching English 1101 how to search the library databases. So I caught the replays on the cable news and on the Daily Show (which proves I'm smarter than O'Reilly's audience, but I digress). From what I saw Kerry was dry but solid; Bush stammered a bit too often, seemed to trip up on perhaps two points of his presentation, but stayed on message. There didn't seem to be any major mistakes. If anyone won it was Kerry: he was defensive but maintained his poise and deflected the Bush-imposed image of being a flip-flopper.
Actually, if anyone won it was Jon Stewart. He had better helmet hair than anyone else tonight. Heh.

No question Kerry won this one folks. He was calm and articualte, Bush was defensive, uncomfortable. Like someone on CNN said, he commanded the debate, Bush reacted,

The polls will change

Stan,
The Italians were contributing... Besides, the French, German, and Russians were the countries who were benefiting most from trade with Saddam's Iraq. They were making large amounts of money and profitable oil and weapon deals, and certainly that was a large part of their objection to change the status quo. They had a lot to lose with an Iraq war. (At least in my opinion.)

I don't think anybody 'won'. I think both candidates did a decent job of presenting their philosophy ... no big gaffes, no big triumphs. I'd say the voters won.

Re: Kerry, yes, he presented a vision, probably better than he has ever done in the past. The big question for people is whether you agree with that vision.

Dennis, I agree. Kerry was better able to stay focused and on message than is typical for him. Bush seemed VERY uncertain.

I watched the Daily Show wrapup, but otherwise didn't watch the talking heads analyse it. I've come to the conclusion I'd rather watch these things on CSPAN, then come to my own conclusions, rather than listening to the blather of the talking heads.

How can you say Kerry presented a clear vision on foreign policy? All he can keep repeating is that he'd do a better job.. over and over and over, and he never defines HOW he's going to do that job. I think one of the blatant contradictions he made during this debate was on the issue of N Korea. For the Iraq situation, he kept trying to say that the US doesn't have enough allies, and that we're not working with the world. But when it comes to N Korea, he only wants the US involved. The president is right about getting China, S Korea, and Japan involved in this. N Korea is a very real threat to them too. Especially when N Korea is launching missile tests right over Japan. Kerry also forgets that N Korea got it's nuclear technology because the Clinton administration (believe it or not) actually trusted the promise of a communist dictator, and gave it to them.

I agree. Bush must have been told that repeating "mixed messages" over and over would win him points. It didn't with me. Kerry scored with his comments about how the war was a mistake to begin with and how the coalition is hardly a global enterprise. Despite the inclusion of Poland. I appreciate the contribution by the Poles but if the French, Germans, Italians, Russians, etc had joined, it would be a much more meaningful, broader coalition.