McCain Commerical

[delayjf]

Not sure John McCain's campaign put this one together or not but it is one hell of a commercial from an Iraqi War Vet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

[Dick Schmidt]

Poor production values, almost amateurish, but the best ad I've seen from either side. You can't watch this and not at lease think. It may not change your mind, but if you stop and think for a second, it has accomplished more than just about any other political ad I've seen in years.


Dick

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mill

[bigmack]

You continually hear about all these ads, when in fact, most never see the light of broadcast. This was not from the McCain campaign. Most ads don't run a minute and 55 seconds.

The days of judging the effectiveness of an ad because of production values is over. Many agencies & production companies go out of their way to produce ads from looking slick or polished.

While a potent message, if I were the campaign director I wouldn't allow this to be used and trust the actual CD feels the same way.

[JustRalph]

got it in my email last week I think. In the email it said this guy made it himself

[Light]

Problem is that soldier is putting words in Iraqi's mouths. He asks "are Iraqi's better off today" and he answers his own question with"you bet". How about and independent study of Iraqi's themselves,like the Center for strategic and International studies which showed 90% of Iraqi's feel they were better off before the invasion, under Hussien. Only 5% thought they were better off today.

[bigmack]

Only 5% thought they were better off today.
You failed to mention that "today" was November of '06.

[JustRalph]

You failed to mention that "today" was November of '06.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[witchdoctor]

I had a chance to talk to the son of one of our docs who recently returned from his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq. He said it is amazing how thinks have changed. A couple of years ago, people were afraid to have anything to do with the US military as they were considered informants and the insurgents would deal with them harshly. This last time, people are turning in people who are arming the insurgents. He it is not unusual to get 1-2 tips a day that result in the capture of hundereds of weapons at each place. He said the amount of weapons his platoon has seized is worth almost a BILLION dollars on the black market over the last 6 months.

[JustRalph]

Try this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK4oWay1VbE

[Light]

You failed to mention that "today" was November of '06.

And where is the poll that proves otherwise?

[bigmack]

And where is the poll that proves otherwise?
Go find one, BuddyBoy. In the meantime, buzz off with your antiquated polls. Dig?

[Tom]

Let's see, a guy who has been there or a guy with a 2 year old poll.....hmmmmmmmm, who to believe, who to believe?

[Light]

Go find one, BuddyBoy. In the meantime, buzz off with your antiquated polls. Dig?

That poll was only a year and a half old. That's your answer to a poll that shows 90% of Iraqi's think they are worse off now? Sad.

Another thing about that one legged soldier. I'm supposed to feel proud of this guy while hundreds die in the ghettos of Iraq,unoticed. If he wants to be praised for his misguided heroic efforts that the Iraqi people never asked or wanted from him, he needs to go back to Iraq on his bended knee and beg the Iraqi people's forgiveness for helping kill the thousands of innocent men,women and children, that were their loved ones. At least he is still alive. Where's the glory for the dead. This country is so sick with patriotism,they wont even show the flag drapped coffins of their own servicemen who served in Iraq. With a chickenshit hypocratic policy like this, these kinds of videos has no credibility.

[richrosa]

That poll was only a year and a half old. That's your answer to a poll that shows 90% of Iraqi's think they are worse off now? Sad.

Another thing about that one legged soldier. I'm supposed to feel proud of this guy while hundreds die in the ghettos of Iraq,unoticed. If he wants to be praised for his misguided heroic efforts that the Iraqi people never asked or wanted from him, he needs to go back to Iraq on his bended knee and beg the Iraqi people's forgiveness for helping kill the thousands of innocent men,women and children, that were their loved ones. At least he is still alive. Where's the glory for the dead. This country is so sick with patriotism,they wont even show the flag drapped coffins of their own servicemen who served in Iraq. With a chickenshit hypocratic policy like this, these kinds of videos has no credibility.

This sounds like something Obama might say the next time they yank his teleprompter. Thankfully, this opinion is in the minority, just like Vietnam, except they were better rabble rousers than today's bunch which hides behind the internet, blogs and the media.

[46zilzal]

This sounds like something Obama might say the next time they yank his teleprompter. Thankfully, this opinion is in the minority, just like Vietnam, except they were better rabble rousers than today's bunch which hides behind the internet, blogs and the media.
what planet do you live on?

It is easy for all the history revisionists to change what actually happened, but YOU WEREN'T there to be able to make such a statement.

Minority? what a crock: it was the majority opinion and it destroyed two presidents who did not understand the reality of a total mistake.

[richrosa]

what planet do you live on?

It is easy for all the history revisionists to change what actually happened, but YOU WEREN'T there to be able to make such a statement.

Minority? what a crock: it was the majority opinion and it destroyed two presidents who did not understand the reality of a total mistake.

I can assure you my grip on history is absolutely sound. Obama is George McGovern all over again, who despite all the support of the media and your hippee peeps he was trounced soundly in '72. The emergence of a conservative in this race should give you a clue as to where the majority opinion really lies. Of course the experts on MSNBC will tell you different, much as Cronkite did 40 years ago. Enjoy that!!

[46zilzal]

All were a waste of time. lives and money and all accomplished NOTHING
Vietnam
Grenada
Iraq

take that back: they made a lot of armament dealers wealthy.

[46zilzal]

Here is that minority data
July 30 1967 Gallup poll reported 52% of Americans disapproved of Johnson's handling of the war; 41% thought the US made a mistake in sending troops; over 56% thought US was losing the war or at an impasse.

1968 August: Gallup poll shows 53% said it was a mistake to send troops to Vietnam.
1969 In October, 58% of Gallup respondents said US entry into the war was a mistake.
1970- A Gallup poll in May shows that 56% of the public believed that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake, 61% of those over 50 expressed that belief compared to 49% of those between the ages of 21-29.

It only degenerated from here....Since I LIVED IT, I KNOW your take is full of revisionist's holes.

[46zilzal]

When the public finds out they've be duped.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archivesiraq_versus_vietnam_a_comparison_of_public _opinion/

[NJ Stinks]

I can assure you my grip on history is absolutely sound. Obama is George McGovern all over again, who despite all the support of the media and your hippee peeps he was trounced soundly in '72. The emergence of a conservative in this race should give you a clue as to where the majority opinion really lies. Of course the experts on MSNBC will tell you different, much as Cronkite did 40 years ago. Enjoy that!!

Richrosa, did it ever bother you that Dick Nixon stretched the Vietnam War a few years so he could use the withdraw from Vietnam as his main tool to get re-elected in 1972?

It bothered me a lot at the time and I still find it sickning today.

[bigmack]

Super terrific. The now Canadian who never lifted a finger for this country is going to cut & paste the lot of us into enlightenment regarding Vietnam & various conflicts.

Anybody have a gas oven with no pilot? That sounds like a picnic next to the
cut & paste work this thread is about is to be inundated with.

[46zilzal]

It is astouding what they must be teaching youngsters these days.
However, time has apparently faded the memories of the Vietnam War -- at least slightly. While 70% of Americans acknowledge that the United
States lost that war, nearly one in five believe incorrectly that U.S. troops fought on the side of the North Vietnamese. Sixty percent correctly
say that the United States backed the South Vietnamese. It should be noted that an entire generation has grown up with little or no memory
of the war itself, and of those Americans aged 18-29, 27% say the United States backed North Vietnam, 45% say the South Vietnamese
, and 28% express no opinion. Americans over the age of 30, who likely remember watching television coverage of the war, are more likely
to place the United States correctly on the side of the South Vietnamese.


http://wdb.sad17.k12.me.us/teachers/bburns/com/documents/ttc/gallup_poll_on_vietnam.htm

[Light]

That ad has a nausiating air to it, as if Americans are the only ones who care about freedom and sacrifice. Yet they dont see how they are occupying a country that is sick and tired of their occupation and is asking them to leave.

America will never win the Iraq war,just like the Vietnam story.The surge has lowered the violence but will not last. The proof is that the same pattern emerged when "mission accomplished" was declared and the Taliban in Afghanistan suddenly became quiet.

What stupid patriotic Americans dont understand is that other people believe in their country as much or more than Americans believe in theirs. And they will die to keep the invaders out of their lands. They have as much tenacity and will power as Americans can ever muster, so if America thinks it can wave its flags and Palin can talk about Iraq as a "task from God" ,they will be have their world rocked again and again until they realize,they are above nobody and have no right to impose their values on others or occupy another country in the name of freedom.

[bigmack]

That poll was only a year and a half old. That's your answer to a poll that shows 90% of Iraqi's think they are worse off now? Sad.
Was that my answer? I had no idea I was posed a question. You're the one waiting for a poll to affirm the beliefs you already harbor.

Speaking of which, do you ever venture out of your harbor? By that I mean, you seemed boxed in a corner of a fairly narrow view. I know it seems to you that you are one of the few who feel or consider compassion & sympathy for people in other cultures, but you’re mistaken. Many have & do but find the world saying otherwise. Your hope for the world and how it should be is something we all felt and long to achieve. In the meantime, the joint is a messy place. Darn shame someone has to clean-up the mess. Ain't nobody else doing squat.

You continually posture as the guy on the sidewalk the next day after an event with a big clean-up and say: I told 'em they should have never done it in the first place & why can't they just let their trash blow into their yard

I agree. Sad.

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow, Light is really worked up...someone must be doing something RIGHT! :lol:

America will never win the Iraq war,just like the Vietnam story.The surge has lowered the violence but will not last.Is this kind of like your stance on the Iraqi Civil War? You know, a prediction that never came true?

This quote sounds a lot more like HOPE than FACT.

[hcap]

That poll was only a year and a half old. That's your answer to a poll that shows 90% of Iraqi's think they are worse off now? Sad.
Light is correct. Here is more recent data showing how Iraqis are feeling about our military presence.....

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/517.php?nid=&id=&pnt=517&lb=brme

Date of this article July 23, 2008

"I will start with the most recent polling. In March of this year ORB conducted a poll for the British Channel 4, asking Iraqis what they would like to see happen with the Multinational Forces. Seventy percent said they want the Multi National Forces to leave, with 78 percent of this group wanting them to leave within six months or less and 84 percent within a year. Thus about six in ten of the whole sample said they want the troops out within a year or less.

In a poll conducted in February of this year for a consortium of news outlets led by ABC News, 73 percent said they oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. Sixty-one percent said that the presence of US forces in Iraq is making the security situation in Iraq worse.

Iraqis have been asking for a timetable for withdrawal for some time now. At the beginning of 2006 WorldPublicOpinion.org found that 7 in 10 wanted US-led forces out according to timetable of two years or less. About a year later 7 in 10 favored a timetable of one year or less.

.....Here is my interpretation. There are two frames through which Iraqis view US-led forces in their country. One frame--the weaker frame--is that security in Iraq is still fragile and that the US may be able to offer some aid to Iraq.

The other and more dominant frame is that the United States has effectively occupied Iraq. As early as 2004 Gallup asked Iraqis whether they primarily thought of coalition forces as liberators or occupiers. Seventy-one percent said occupiers."

.................................................. ...............

Remember that crap about the Iraqis invited us in?
Well it seems that they are inviting us out.

[hcap]

BTW,
Back in the goog old USA...
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 5-7, 2008. N=1,133 adults nationwide.
"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

.............Worth It......Not Worth It.....Unsure


9/5-7/08.....36%...........61%.............3%

[JustRalph]

Too bad Johnson wasn't as strong as Bush.

[Tom]

Earth to libs....Earth to libs.

Breaking News......it is not and never was about what the Iraqi's think or want.

[JustRalph]

Earth to libs....Earth to libs.

Breaking News......it is not and never was about what the Iraqi's think or want.


you beat me to it. :lol: :lol:

[sammy the sage]

ACTUALLY...LIGHT...Your the one who NEEDS to post PROOF...""And where is the poll that proves otherwise?"" :lol: :D :rolleyes:

[Light]

Breaking News......it is not and never was about what the Iraqi's think or want.

Ah yes. The Bush Doctrine. Something Palin was not familiar with in the Gibson interview. Another example of how profoundly dumb people who want to "win" the war in Iraq are.

[Light]

ACTUALLY...LIGHT...Your the one who NEEDS to post PROOF...""And where is the poll that proves otherwise?"" :lol: :D :rolleyes:

Sammy..you're not so "Sagey".

[richrosa]

Ah yes. The Bush Doctrine. Something Palin was not familiar with in the Gibson interview. Another example of how profoundly dumb people who want to "win" the war in Iraq are.

and I suppose the Lipstick guy and the ask a wheelchair bound person to stand-up guy are the smartest amongst us?

Enlighten us with more of your excited hope for our defeat. If you move to Cuba, I hear they'll give you a free rice cooker.

[46zilzal]

Ah yes. The Bush Doctrine. Something Palin was not familiar with in the Gibson interview. Another example of how profoundly dumb people who want to "win" the war in Iraq are.
I think it goes FARTHER than that as even when the hard evidence is thrown in their face, these folks with intellectual blinders just follow "orders" from the Gubb-ment and never question a thing.

[46zilzal]

s?

Enlighten us with more of your excited hope for our defeat.
It is not a football game.

Make a inept blunder that kills thousands for no good reason and you get what you get out of it.

Come up with a new line other than the very lame love it or leave it malarkey

[Tom]

Ah yes. The Bush Doctrine. Something Palin was not familiar with in the Gibson interview. Another example of how profoundly dumb people who want to "win" the war in Iraq are.

Why should Sara care about the Bush doctrine?
She will be enforcing the McCain Doctrine.

Stupid question, of several, from a guy with and agenda. looking for sound bytes. That was obvious. How many uh, uh, uh's did she have in her reply?

[Tom]

Come up with a new line other than the very lame love it or leave it malarkey

YOU left it.
And we thank you from the bottoms of our hearts!

[richrosa]

Why should Sara care about the Bush doctrine?
She will be enforcing the McCain Doctrine.

Stupid question, of several, from a guy with and agenda. looking for sound bytes. That was obvious. How many uh, uh, uh's did she have in her reply?

Gibson is using the same old liberal playbook that is backfiring yet again. In the process they have created a lead for McCain that gets larger every day.

Let them keep asking about Iraq. That gameplan worked perfectly in 2004, and the environment is much better now.

[Tom]

Yes, Rich, I thought her answer was good. She asked him back, in what way, and HE was the one who stuttered. :D

I see we are now going into Pakistan after Bin Laden, so there is another talking point - OBama has already said he was in favor of going in, so he can't whine about it......

[delayjf]

It is astouding what they must be teaching youngsters these days.
However, time has apparently faded the memories of the Vietnam War -- at least slightly. While 70% of Americans acknowledge that the United
States lost that war, nearly one in five believe incorrectly that U.S. troops fought on the side of the North Vietnamese. Sixty percent correctly
say that the United States backed the South Vietnamese. It should be noted that an entire generation has grown up with little or no memory
of the war itself, and of those Americans aged 18-29, 27% say the United States backed North Vietnam, 45% say the South Vietnamese
, and 28% express no opinion. Americans over the age of 30, who likely remember watching television coverage of the war, are more likely
to place the United States correctly on the side of the South Vietnamese.

Do you honestly believe that this is being taught in Schools??? Wrong, this is rather the result of a education systems run by Liberals. I'll bet if Ho Chi Minh was gay they would have got all the questions right - at least in CA.

[Tom]

Most school systems are run by BCL's. Blue City Liberals.

[dav4463]

Liberals are squirming. :lol:

[delayjf]

That ad has a nausiating air to it, as if Americans are the only ones who care about freedom and sacrifice. Yet they dont see how they are occupying a country that is sick and tired of their occupation and is asking them to leave.
To the anti-American liberal left, I’m sure it is nauseating. I’ll bet guys like you actually miss Saddam, I’m sure if it were up to you he’d still be gassing Kurds, while his son tortures the soccer team.
What stupid patriotic Americans dont understand is that other people believe in their country as much or more than Americans believe in theirs.I don’t think anyone in Iraq is under the delusion that the Terrorists are not dedicated to their cause – least of all that soldier in the video. What Morons like you don’t understand is that it’s not a question of one person’s patriotisms trumping the other, it’s about stabilizing a country and preventing a Civil War / massacre. And while we are on the subject, patriotic Iraqi’s ARE fighting alongside the US for their country. Liberals fail to see the big picture in Iraq.
they are above nobody and have no right to impose their values on others or occupy another country in the name of freedom.
What are you talking about???? You poor misguided ****, we are giving them their country back. The easiest thing to do would have been to pull out and watch all hell break loose – I’m sure you would have like that as it would have given you another excuse to curse this country.
As far as polls go, I’m sure the Iraqi’s don’t like our presence there; neither did the Japanese, or the Germans. But I wonder what the polls would indicate if we did leave and a Civil War broke out.

[richrosa]

delayjf,

Just awesome.

[Suppositionist]

FYI
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

[ElKabong]

Ah yes. The Bush Doctrine. Something Palin was not familiar with in the Gibson interview. Another example of how profoundly dumb people who want to "win" the war in Iraq are.

The Bush Doctrine....How does one give specific answers to something undefined (as a Term). Weak arguement here, not to mention a hack job. I want to see Charlie ask Obama about Retzko, Ayres, his association with Reverand God Damn America....I want to see him ask Biden about his voting record, plagerism, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

"These principles are sometimes referred to as the Bush Doctrine although the term is often used to describe other elements of Bush policy and is not universally recognized as the single concept."

[Light]

The Bush Doctrine represented one of the biggest shifts in American foreign policy that sought to justify the invasions and pre emptive strikes on Iraq and Afghanistan based on possible threats to American security.

The Vice president,who is a heartbeat away from being the #1 commander in chief of this entire country is required to have basic knowledge of what to do in an emergency situation. To think that Palin,does not even know what Gibson was reffering to is proof of how unqualified she is. I'll bet the hockey mom knows what a hat trick is.I'll bet she knows alot about lipstick. But she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is? And she thinks she has foreign policy experience cause she's closer to Russia. And she asks in a recent you tube video "just what does the VP do". I thought they don't come dumber than Bush.

[Light]

I’ll bet guys like you actually miss Saddam, I’m sure if it were up to you he’d still be gassing Kurds, while his son tortures the soccer team.

Hey Delay. If you dont like torture,why do you support Gitmo? Its o.k. for America to torture people but not other countries? Go tell it to someone with a IQ lower than yours.

it’s about stabilizing a country and preventing a Civil War / massacre.

If you feel so concerned about them,why did you support the "shock and awe ".Why did you support 5 years of killing innocent men women and children. Your concern is hollow.

we are giving them their country back.

Then get the **** out.

[JustRalph]

The Bush Doctrine represented one of the biggest shifts in American foreign policy that sought to justify the invasions and pre emptive strikes on Iraq and Afghanistan based on possible threats to American security.

The Vice president,who is a heartbeat away from being the #1 commander in chief of this entire country is required to have basic knowledge of what to do in an emergency situation. To think that Palin,does not even know what Gibson was reffering to is proof of how unqualified she is. I'll bet the hockey mom knows what a hat trick is.I'll bet she knows alot about lipstick. But she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is? And she thinks she has foreign policy experience cause she's closer to Russia. And she asks in a recent you tube video "just what does the VP do". I thought they don't come dumber than Bush.

I suggest you read Krauthammer's take on it.........You are wrong and so was Gibson.........From the guy who coined the term

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

From the article
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not.

[hcap]

Krauthammer has zero credibility along with the rest of the Neocons.
You gentlemen are still whistling the same tune The USA and the rest of the world have moved on.

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.274/transcript.asp

April 22, 2003


"DR. KRAUTHAMMER: Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem. I don't have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They've obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are."

Why would any one trust this man?

http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2007/08/krauthammerdesksmall.jpg

[hcap]

http://tomdispatch.com/post/174974/andrew_bacevich_worshiping_the_indispensable_natio n

More from Andrew Bacevich....

"On September 30, 2001, President Bush received from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a memorandum outlining U.S. objectives in the War on Terror. Drafted by Rumsfeld's chief strategist Douglas Feith, the memo declared expansively: "If the war does not significantly change the world's political map, the U.S. will not achieve its aim." That aim, as Feith explained in a subsequent missive to his boss, was to "transform the Middle East and the broader world of Islam generally."

......."The goal of transforming the Islamic world was nothing if not bold. It implied far-reaching political, economic, social, and even cultural adjustments. At a press conference on September 18, 2001, Rumsfeld spoke bluntly of the need to "change the way that they live." Rumsfeld didn't specify who "they" were. He didn't have to. His listeners understood without being told: "They" were Muslims inhabiting a vast arc of territory that stretched from Morocco in the west all the way to the Moro territories of the Southern Philippines in the east.

Yet boldly conceived action, if successfully executed, offered the prospect of solving a host of problems. Once pacified (or "liberated"), the Middle East would cease to breed or harbor anti-American terrorists. Post-9/11 fears about weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of evil-doers could abate. Local regimes, notorious for being venal, oppressive, and inept, might finally get serious about cleaning up their acts. Liberal values, including rights for women, would flourish. A part of the world perpetually dogged by violence would enjoy a measure of stability, with stability promising not so incidentally to facilitate exploitation of the region's oil reserves. There was even the possibility of enhancing the security of Israel. Like a powerful antibiotic, the Bush administration's strategy of transformation promised to clean out not simply a single infection but several; or to switch metaphors, a strategy of transformation meant running the table.

When it came to implementation, the imperative of the moment was to think big. Just days after 9/11, Rumsfeld was charging his subordinates to devise a plan of action that had "three, four, five moves behind it." By December 2001, the Pentagon had persuaded itself that the first move -- into Afghanistan -- had met success. The Bush administration wasted little time in pocketing its ostensible victory. Attention quickly shifted to the second move, seen by insiders as holding the key to ultimate success: Iraq.

Fix Iraq and moves three, four, and five promised to come easily. Writing in the Weekly Standard, William Kristol and Robert Kagan got it exactly right: "The president's vision will, in the coming months, either be launched successfully in Iraq, or it will die in Iraq."

The point cannot be emphasized too strongly: Saddam Hussein's (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction and his (imaginary) ties to Al Qaeda never constituted the real reason for invading Iraq -- any more than the imperative of defending Russian "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia explains the Kremlin's decision to invade Georgia.

...Iraq merely offered a convenient place from which to launch a much larger and infinitely more ambitious project. "After Hussein is removed," enthused Hudson Institute analyst Max Singer, "there will be an earthquake through the region." Success in Iraq promised to endow the United States with hitherto unprecedented leverage. Once the United States had made an example of Saddam Hussein, as the influential neoconservative Richard Perle put it, dealing with other ne'er-do-wells would become simple: "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'" Faced with the prospect of sharing Saddam's fate, Syrians, Iranians, Sudanese, and other recalcitrant regimes would see submission as the wiser course -- so Perle and others believed."

.....In either case -- whether the strategy of transformation aimed at dominion or democratization -- today, seven years after it was conceived, we can assess exactly what it has produced. The answer is clear: next to nothing, apart from squandering vast resources and exacerbating the slide toward debt and dependency that poses a greater strategic threat to the United States than Osama bin Laden ever did.

In point of fact, hardly had the Pentagon commenced its second move, its invasion of Iraq, when the entire strategy began to unravel. In Iraq, President Bush's vision of regional transformation did die, much as Kagan and Kristol had feared. No amount of CPR credited to the so-called surge will revive it. Even if tomorrow Iraq were to achieve stability and become a responsible member of the international community, no sensible person could suggest that Operation Iraqi Freedom provides a model to apply elsewhere. Senator John McCain says that he'll keep U.S. combat troops in Iraq for as long as it takes. Yet even he does not propose "solving" any problems posed by Syria or Iran (much less Pakistan) by employing the methods that the Bush administration used to "solve" the problem posed by Iraq. The Bush Doctrine of preventive war may remain nominally on the books. But, as a practical matter, it is defunct.

The United States will not change the world's political map in the ways top administration officials once dreamed of. There will be no earthquake that shakes up the Middle East -- unless the growing clout of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas in recent years qualifies as that earthquake. Given the Pentagon's existing commitments, there will be no threats of "you're next" either -- at least none that will worry our adversaries, as the Russians have neatly demonstrated. Nor will there be a wave of democratic reform -- even Rice has ceased her prattling on that score. Islam will remain stubbornly resistant to change, except on terms of its own choosing. We will not change the way "they" live.

In a book that he co-authored during the run-up to the invasion, Kristol confidently declared, "The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there." In fact, the Bush administration's strategy of transformation has ended. It has failed miserably. The sooner we face up to that failure, the sooner we can get about repairing the damage. "

[Tom]

Hey Delay. If you dont like torture,why do you support Gitmo? Its o.k. for America to torture people but not other countries? Go tell it to someone with a IQ lower than yours.


That is the dumbest thing you have ever posted, and that is really an accomplishment! You see no difference is torturing a soccer team for losing and extracting information to save lives and stop a terror attack.
You are one sick, sick person.

[Light]

New flash...for Tom foolery. Almost none of the detainees at Gitmo have been charged with a crime and they are being tortured.That's less cause for torture than losing a soccer game.

[46zilzal]

QUOTE: In a book that he co-authored during the run-up to the invasion, Kristol confidently declared, "The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there." In fact, the Bush administration's strategy of transformation has ended. It has failed miserably. The sooner we face up to that failure, the sooner we can get about repairing the damage. "


The most informative post you have made in some time. I am beginning to read the Suskind book next week and I am sure many a similar quote is in the works down the line.

Putzes out for the old feeble and stupid idea of WORLD DOMINATION: hasn't worked once.

[Tom]

Flash for light - it isn't about crimes and courts - it's about war. We HAVE obtained information that has PREVENTED attacks. WE obtained valuable information from the the very architect of 9-11 via water boarding. To my knowledge, he never lost a soccer game.

Reducing terrorism to a police action is why 9-11 occurred - Clinton failed to realize he was in a war and dropped the ball big time. Had he had the balls to pull the trigger in spite a few civilian casualties and offending Saudi royalty, Bid Laden would have been dead in the 90's, and instead of national mourning on 9-11, only fans to terrorists like you and 46 would be wearing black armbands.

[JustRalph]

New flash...for Tom foolery. Almost none of the detainees at Gitmo have been charged with a crime and they are being tortured.That's less cause for torture than losing a soccer game.


I am proud of Bush for not giving in on Gitmo.......... we need Gitmo. And maybe three more in places like Canada and the Artic. You know, where it gets cold?

[JustRalph]

Krauthammer has zero credibility along with the rest of the Neocons.
You gentlemen are still whistling the same tune The USA and the rest of the world have moved on.

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.274/transcript.asp

April 22, 2003


"DR. KRAUTHAMMER: Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem. I don't have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They've obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are."

Why would any one trust this man?

http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2007/08/krauthammerdesksmall.jpg

Hcap, none of this post deals with the point.......... Krauthammer coined the term.......here is another opine on the Bush doctrine, you can call the Washinton post names too. They say the same thing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26687065/

From the Article:
Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war.

"If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it's one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine," said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. "But in fact it's not the only one."

The campaign of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama directed reporters to online commentary about the exchange. "What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues," journalist James Fallows wrote on TheAtlantic.com. "Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the 'Bush Doctrine' exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."

Conservatives ridiculed such reasoning. "What a bunch of nonsense," Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on National Review Online. "Peanut gallery denizens like me, who don't have states to run and who follow this stuff very closely, disagree intensely among ourselves about what the Bush Doctrine is."

Outside foreign policy experts offered different reads on the question. Richard C. Holbrooke, who served key posts in both the Clinton and Carter administrations, said he saw the 2002 National Security Strategy of the White House as the critical statement of a Bush doctrine. (The White House staff member who helped draft the 2002 document, Stephen E. Biegun, now serves as Palin's foreign policy adviser.)

End Excerpts

Once again the facts undo your theory HCAP

[richrosa]

New flash...for Tom foolery. Almost none of the detainees at Gitmo have been charged with a crime and they are being tortured.That's less cause for torture than losing a soccer game.

When has anyone discovered for a fact that Gitmo detainees are being tortured? With all the politicians and press given free access to case the joint, not one shred of evidence has ever been put forth that these detainees are being tortured. In fact, from all press accounts, it seems like their guards put up with what seems to be torture having to cater to these terrorists, or at the very least criminals.

[richrosa]

Reducing terrorism to a police action is why 9-11 occurred - Clinton failed to realize he was in a war and dropped the ball big time. Had he had the balls to pull the trigger in spite a few civilian casualties and offending Saudi royalty, Bid Laden would have been dead in the 90's, and instead of national mourning on 9-11, only fans to terrorists like you and 46 would be wearing black armbands.

I have NO DOUBT that these guys favor terrorists over the USA. These guys hate, hate, hate, so much that they'd like to give up the country so that their life's meaning could have validation. Luckily, they are ALWAYS in the minority, which is being proven by elections, yet again.

[hcap]

Hcap, none of this post deals with the point.......... Krauthammer coined the term.......here is another opine on the Bush doctrine, you can call the Washinton post names too. They say the same thing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26687065/

From the Article:
Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war.

"If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it's one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine," said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. "But in fact it's not the only one."

The campaign of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama directed reporters to online commentary about the exchange. "What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues," journalist James Fallows wrote on TheAtlantic.com. "Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the 'Bush Doctrine' exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."

Conservatives ridiculed such reasoning. "What a bunch of nonsense," Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on National Review Online. "Peanut gallery denizens like me, who don't have states to run and who follow this stuff very closely, disagree intensely among ourselves about what the Bush Doctrine is."

Outside foreign policy experts offered different reads on the question. Richard C. Holbrooke, who served key posts in both the Clinton and Carter administrations, said he saw the 2002 National Security Strategy of the White House as the critical statement of a Bush doctrine. (The White House staff member who helped draft the 2002 document, Stephen E. Biegun, now serves as Palin's foreign policy adviser.)

End Excerpts

Once again the facts undo your theory HCAP
I seem to remember that we argued the "bush doctrine" here on off topic many times. We all knew what it was. In fact it was used as a justification by the bush supporters here that "911 changed everything", and imminence was no longer a necessary test for preemptive war. Remember the whole point of the shift in foreign policy was the concept that "We cannot wait for the threat to become imminent"

President George W Bush, State of the Union speech January 28, 2003....

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Or Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio...

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

This is what justified the entire game. And what many objected to. For Palin to not realize the central point as presented by Gibson demonstrates a babe in the woods mentality. Here's Bob Herbert..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"The Bush doctrine, which flung open the doors to the catastrophe in Iraq, was such a fundamental aspect of the administration’s foreign policy that it staggers the imagination that we could have someone no further than a whisper away from the White House who doesn’t even know what it is.

You can’t imagine that John McCain or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman would not know what the Bush doctrine is. But Sarah Palin? Absolutely clueless."

[JustRalph]

Keep tap dancing..............

next thing you know you will be posting about Perch again

[bigmack]

Funny how some dilute themselves into thinking the more verbose their response, the more credibility they lend. hcap mired in classic soiled state. Somebody get him a candy striper.

Again, the stench from these dolts soiling themselves from the Palin pick & now scurrying around to draw attention to their nitpicking ways, reeks to high heaven. Somehow, it's a good kinda reek.

[Light]

only fans to terrorists like you and 46 would be wearing black armbands.

Conservatives say stupid things like this and say we fight for your freedom to say what you say. No you dont.The founding fathers weaved the right of dissent into the fabric of our laws to save us from people like you and the George Bushes of this country.

If you're not mature enough to understand someone disagreeing with a domestic or foreign policy without insinuating they are a traitor,you really are unqualified to be a citizen of this country.Your immaturity level would be better suited in a country where everyone thinks alike or is afraid to voice their opinion.Our right to question and disagree with our leaders is what makes us a democracy. Apparently you dont understand that.

[Tom]

Charlie was baiting, looking for a sound byte, not an interview. He comes off sounding like a simpleton. That may be because he is one. Lost in a flurry of words? Duh, Charlie, you could get lost in a men's room. Stupid question.
But she answered it very good, IMHO. hcap probably had the same trouble with those big words. Hard to do it in two-syllable words.
Z75QSExE0jU

[Tom]

Conservatives say stupid things like this and say we fight for your freedom to say what you say.

Bullshot. You don't see the difference between torturing soccer players and torturing terrorists - you are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than of innocent Americans. That is not dissent. And I would not lift a finger to protect you or your rights.

[Tom]

Keep tap dancing..............

next thing you know you will be posting about Perch again

1aMNz2KTjcE

[Light]

Bullshot. You don't see the difference between torturing soccer players and torturing

The problem is most in guantanomo are not terrorists. Just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time they lassoed a bunch of suspects that they still havent investigated. Furthermore,I'd rather be tortured for one day for losing a soccer game, than be tortured for 5 years,locked away,with no rights,no trial,no lawyer...nada...like your boy would say.

[richrosa]

The problem is most in guantanomo are not terrorists. Just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time they lassoed a bunch of suspects that they still havent investigated.


How do you know this to be true? What facts do you have to support this? Just because you read it in Daily Koz, like Matt Damon read the dinosaur thing, does not make it true. Or maybe you heard it on CNN or Al Jezerra.

I'd have to believe that if Obama (the guy with the faith needed to be corrected by liberal George at ABC) or Ruth Bader Ginsberg said they were terrorists, you'd believe that just fine.

[Light]

Charlie was baiting, looking for a sound byte, not an interview.

Dude,have you ever been on a job interview? You think if the drf interviewed someone for a job as a public handicapper and they throw some horseracing terminology out there, and the person balks,like they dont know what they're talking about,that they would hire them? This is their field of expertice,and if they're not thoroughly familiar with their field,its a no brainer,they're simply unqualified. And a vice presiden't job has much more at stake than a handicapper's.

This blip with Gibson is why Palin was shielded from public interviews by reporters since her inception as the VP. The longest shielding for any VP candidate in history.She's unqualified and will show her unqualifications when asked questions.

[Light]

How do you know this to be true? What facts do you have to support this?

And how do you know what I'm saying is not true? The bottom line is these people are being treated as caged animals rather than human beings. If they are guilty,why hasn't the government put them on trial? Are thet afraid of their innocence?

[wes]

The assumption by the democrats is that Palin is running for president. Not Obama.


What were the democrats thinking. If the selection of a running mate by McCain can derail the opposing candidates and party. What the HELL will happen if they were elected and a real crisis arrived that would require some real thinking and common horse sense.

Do we want to take the chance with such ill thinking and ill reasoning people in such a party? There may just be more hidden corruption in the democratic party. They want to Keep the heat on McCain and mask their own short comings.



wes

[JustRalph]

And how do you know what I'm saying is not true? The bottom line is these people are being treated as caged animals rather than human beings. If they are guilty,why hasn't the government put them on trial? Are thet afraid of their innocence?


When are you going to get it through your head that Bush doesn't want to give these low life scum a trial. That was the Democrat response to terrorism. Remember the blind sheik that Clinton put on trial 3 years after ? That stopped the terrorism in NY huh?

Bush is setting ole Obama or whomever up. He is going to hold those idiots in Gitmo until he is gone. If Obama wins, he releases them and they get caught performing acts of terror in the future (anywhere in the world) Obama looks like a fool. The Dems look worse on National Security and in 4 years Palin becomes president. :lol: :lol: Now if we can only keep McCain from letting them go............

[richrosa]

This blip with Gibson is why Palin was shielded from public interviews by reporters since her inception as the VP. The longest shielding for any VP candidate in history.She's unqualified and will show her unqualifications when asked questions.

So you hope!! I'm sure you think the community organizers qualifications can justify his excuses for his many gaffes and screw-ups when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him.

[richrosa]

And how do you know what I'm saying is not true? The bottom line is these people are being treated as caged animals rather than human beings. If they are guilty,why hasn't the government put them on trial? Are thet afraid of their innocence?

What's clear is you trust the words of the jihadists before you will trust the words of your government and fellow Americans. Very sad.

[Light]

Well if you call programs like 60 minutes and frontline "jihadist",then you are the sadly mistaken one.

[richrosa]

Well if you call programs like 60 minutes and frontline "jihadist",then you are the sadly mistaken one.

and just what proof did they come up with besides interviews with family members or other jihadists all crying that our detainee was a model citizen of the world.

The problem is that you actually believe this propaganda over the US Military who detained the jihadist, and the US Gov't and its intelligence services who continue to believe that the jihadist will join right back with the terrorists groups if released.

[Tom]

So you hope!! I'm sure you think the community organizers qualifications can justify his excuses for his many gaffes and screw-ups when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him.

So now we know who will get that call at 3am in the morning.....the guy who runs the teleprompter! :lol::lol::lol:

[Light]

and just what proof did they come up with besides interviews

The point is neither you nor the military have proof that these detainees are terrorists.

You are the one behaving like one of Saddam's son's. No trial,no proof,lets just torture them. Even the most notorious Nazi's had a trial at Nuremburg.

[Light]

So now we know who will get that call at 3am in the morning...

Just imagine Sara getting the call at 3.am. "Putin who"?

[richrosa]

The point is neither you nor the military have proof that these detainees are terrorists.

You are the one behaving like one of Saddam's son's. No trial,no proof,lets just torture them. Even the most notorious Nazi's had a trial at Nuremburg.

No, the military has proof. The current Administration does not believe they are subject to our laws and are considered military combatants. You just refuse to believe that these guys are actually guilty of something. You want to bake them cupcakes and let them work at your child's day care after Ruth Bader Ginsberg sets them free.

[bigmack]

Yo, Light, while you're playing nickel and dime operator would you like for someone to start outlining all the legislative votes that Biden was on the wrong side RE: foreign policy? He's a proven nitwit.

I said it before - I'll take Palin over his record of being wrong any day.

[Light]

No, the military has proof. The current Administration does not believe they are subject to our laws and are considered military combatants.

Unfortunately for you and Bush, the Supreme court has recently ruled against both of you on that point. I suppose the Supreme court is Jihadist as well...right?

You want to bake them cupcakes and let them work at your child's day care after Ruth Bader Ginsberg sets them free.

Actually my wife runs a daycare.They have very strict laws governing who comes in contact with the children. I had to be fingerprinted because I do come in contact with them. What you described would be illegal.

[Light]

would you like for someone to start outlining all the legislative votes that Biden was on the wrong side RE: foreign policy? He's a proven nitwit.
I'll take Palin over his record of being wrong any day.

Palin is pro life regardless of incest and rape. Palin thinks the war in Iraq is a task from God. Palin does not believe global warming is man made.I could go on but that's enough stupidity for anyone. Although I'm not a Biden fan,I dont think he's that dumb.

[JustRalph]

Palin thinks the war in Iraq is a task from God. Palin does not believe global warming is man made.I could go on but that's enough stupidity for anyone. Although I'm not a Biden fan,I dont think he's that dumb.

1st off, the "task from god thing" has been debunked and Charlie Gibson has taken heat for mis-quoting her on it. She actually explained it in the interview. I find the fact that you can't understand her quote, stupid.

She is 100% pro-life except for in cases where the mothers life is in danger. That is a Religious view, held by many. I bet you scream when people question religious views for Muslims............but not in this case of course, you refer to it as stupid. As usual, Duplicity reigns Supreme from the Left.

[richrosa]

Palin does not believe global warming is man made.

Ugh, don't you think the left has "jumped the shark" on this one. They're now starting the "Global Cooling Show" which is a repeat of the 1979 Time and Newsweek covers that started that hype in the late '70's and early 80's.

[bigmack]

Palin is pro life regardless of incest and rape. Palin thinks the war in Iraq is a task from God. Palin does not believe global warming is man made.I could go on but that's enough stupidity for anyone. Although I'm not a Biden fan,I dont think he's that dumb.
Imagine my surprise to learn that Mothership directed stories have reached your lightness. As you might well expect, it's more than likely that "Jane & Joe Undecided" aren't mulling this over in the old noggin tonight.

You are, & certainly the Mothership is. What's new?

See ya in a few days when you get more "dirt" that leads into a yet another cul-de-sac.

[46zilzal]

As usual, Duplicity reigns Supreme from the Left.
come up with a different line. Give me your address so I can send you a thesaurus.

[Light]

1st off, the "task from god thing" has been debunked... I find the fact that you can't understand her quote, stupid.


I understood her allright. When she's on a podium she'll tell you one thing. When you interview her about what she said, she'll tell you another.

[JustRalph]

I understood her allright. When she's on a podium she'll tell you one thing. When you interview her about what she said, she'll tell you another.


Why don't you go view the video. It's all over the net.

Here you go 46zil. they all describe the Dem party.........you choose and insert where you like................

[hcap]

Krauthammer has zero credibility along with the rest of the Neocons.
You gentlemen are still whistling the same tune The USA and the rest of the world have moved on.

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.274/transcript.asp

April 22, 2003


"DR. KRAUTHAMMER: Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem. I don't have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They've obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are."

Why would any one trust this man?

http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2007/08/krauthammerdesksmall.jpg

.................................................. .................................................. .....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/14/bush_doctrine/index.html

"In 2003, the American Enterprise Institute's Thomas Donnelly wrote an article entitled "The Underpinnngs of the Bush Doctrine," and argued that "the Bush Doctrine, which is likely to shape U.S. policy for decades to come, reflects the realities of American power as well as the aspirations of American political principles"; that it "represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies

.....A few months earlier, Norman Podhoretz wrote a long cover story for Commentary -- entitled "In Praise of the Bush Doctrine" (sub. rq'd) -- in which he argued that "To those with ears to hear, the State of the Union address should have removed all traces of ambiguity from the Bush Doctrine." He, too, pointed out the obvious: that from this point froward, the U.S. "would also take preemptive action whenever it might be deemed necessary."

The extreme deceit that lies at heart of neoconservativism is vividly illustrated by the willingness of their leading lights -- such as Charles Krauthammer and NYT "reporter" Michael Gordon -- suddenly to proclaim that the Bush Doctrine is far too amorphous for Sarah Palin or anyone else to be able to opine on it, even after their Godfather years ago declared that "all traces of ambiguity from the Bush Doctrine" have been removed for "those with ears."

.....That the Bush Doctrine is both clear and central had continued to be accepted fact into the 2008 election. In January of this year in New Hampshire, Charlie Gibson himself asked the presidential candidates about their views of the Bush Doctrine during the primary debates he hosted. Nobody had any trouble answering it:

GIBSON: Congressman Paul, let me ask you, do you agree with the Bush doctrine, or would you change it?

CONG. RON PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change; this is huge. This is the first time we, as a nation, accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this.

Earlier in the debate, Gibson had this exchange with John McCain:

GIBSON: Let me just ratchet up the question slightly and ask you if you believe in the Bush doctrine.

Because in September 2002 -- up for years, our foreign policy has been based on the idea that we form alliances, international consensus. We attack -- retaliate if we're attacked.

But in 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack; that we can attack if this country feels threatened. . . . Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN,(R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree with the doctrine. And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit, as we have this discussion. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the United States of America. There hasn't been.

The same night, Gibson hosted the Democratic candidates in a debate, and after Obama explained his belief that the U.S. should bomb locations in Pakistan if we know where Al Qaeda elements are and the Pakistani Government won't act against them, this exchange occurred:

GIBSON: I'm going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. . . .

It's certainly reasonable to argue that, in some respects, the Bush Doctrine has no precise meaning and is subject to debate, and Gibson provided some vague definitional parameters when asking the presidential candidates about it. None of that negates that Palin appeared quite clearly never to have even heard of the term "The Bush Doctrine" before ("His world view?"), leading one to wonder if she has paid any attention at all to the central foreign policy debates over the last eight years and whether she even watched or was vaguely aware of the presidential debates this year and many of the most critical expressed differences between the candidates -- including the one with whom she's running."

[Light]

SNL's excellent satire on Palin shows the whole country percieved her as not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is:


http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/

[richrosa]

SNL's excellent satire on Palin shows the whole country percieved her as not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is:


http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/

keep reaching. You wish that was the case.

[Tom]

Are you for real, Light?
SNL's parody showed it uses current topics for material, nothing else.
You are really reaching...and it shows. Same credibility as 46 quoting movies and songs.

Want some ice for your Kool Aid?

[delayjf]

Hey Delay. If you dont like torture,why do you support Gitmo?Hey light, if you don’t approve of US Policy why don’t you move.
Because that’s the kind of war this is, if the US's enemies will not follow the Geneva Convention, then nor should we. It’s obvious that you support the terrorist and are attempting to aid them by using the US constitution and the Geneva Convention to protect them. Oh and by the way, we’ve gotten good intel and saved lives and the man tortured is alive and well. Contrast that with US POWs who have been captured by the enemy – THERE AREN’T ANY, THEY’RE ALL DEAD, MURDEReD BY OUR ENEMIES.
If you feel so concerned about them,why did you support the "shock and awe ".Why did you support 5 years of killing innocent men women and children. Your concern is hollow.Because it was necessary to get Saddam out of power, remember he had the chance to leave Iraq. Because giving the intentions (America’s destruction) and the resolve and suicidal nature of the enemy, we could not longer take the chance that a Nation hostile to the US might arm Al Queda with WMD.
Why did you support 5 years of killing innocent men women and children. Your concern is hollow.
Are you of the delusion that the suicides bombing in Iraq are being perpetrated by the US. What other wingnut conspiracies have you masterminded today?
Then get the **** out.
Hey, we do what we likes and likes what we do. Why not send some of your anarchist buddies to Fayetteville NC (Fort Bragg) or to Jacksonville NC (Camp LeJeune) to convince us.

[JustRalph]

SNL's excellent satire on Palin shows the whole country percieved her as not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is:


http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/


with their performance the last few years, and the announcement that the messiah was going to be on, the only ones watching were the already converted.

You live in San Francisco.......when are you going to realize that is not America? You can't speak for it...........either :lol: :lol:

[46zilzal]

You live in San Francisco.......when are you going to realize that is not America? You can't speak for it...........either
A hell of a lot of good history cane out of that town and not the bowels of Ohio

[Light]

Hey light, if you don’t approve of US Policy why don’t you move.
Another schmuck who doesn't know that a democracy means more than one point of view.

Because that’s the kind of war this is

There was no war till the U.S. started it.

It’s obvious that you support the terrorist

Because I disagree with U.S. foreign policy doesn't mean I support terrorists

Because it was necessary to get Saddam out of power

Bull. He never was a threat. It was all fabricated lies for an excuse to invade Iraq. Everyone knows that now.

we could not longer take the chance that a Nation hostile to the US might arm Al Queda with WMD

You're an idiot. Saddam was the greatest detterent to Al Queda. He hated Bin Laden and never let him do anything there.
.
Are you of the delusion that the suicides bombing in Iraq are being perpetrated by the US.

They are the result of anarchy brought about by an idiot in the WH.

[delayjf]

Another schmuck who doesn't know that a democracy means more than one point of view.I never said you didn’t have the right to your own ideas – you have every right to be a gullible idiot. If fact you've taken it to an entirely different level. You are to be congradulated .
There was no war till the U.S. started it.
This really says it all. You don’t have a clue – seriously.
Because I disagree with U.S. foreign policy doesn't mean I support terrorists
Your rhetoric goes beyond disagreeing with Foreign Policy, like Palen said, you’re more concerned with reading a terrorist their rights and the whether or not the US is in compliance with the Geneva Convention than what the terrorists do. They purposefully attack and kill women and children and you blame the US. You see the moral equivilence of the triangle of asses at Abu Graib and the slow beheading of Americans on Al Jazeera. At least we take prisoners and so far I’m not aware of any American suicide bomber that has walked into a school or church or hospital.
Bull. He never was a threat. It was all fabricated lies for an excuse to invade Iraq. Everyone knows that now.
Do you listen at all when Saddam himself confessed that he was trying to deceive the US as to his WMD capabilities. Wake up.
You're an idiot. Saddam was the greatest detterent to Al Queda. He hated Bin Laden and never let him do anything there.
Saddam held conferences for Terrorists groups, he funded Terrorism. He sang their praises in the Bagdad newspapers. If there were no operational link, if left alone, just how long would it take for one to form? You’re willing to take that chance because you side with the terrorist.
They are the result of anarchy brought about by an idiot in the WH.
Yea that’s right, W made em do it. If they are so upset with the Americans in Iraq, why not just target the Americans instead of women and children?? Thank you for making my point. That your more upset about water boarding terrorist and stacking of ass as opposed to the targeting of innocent women and children says it all.

[Light]

you’re more concerned with reading a terrorist their rights.... They purposefully attack and kill women and children and you blame the US.

The ones in Gitmo have no charges against them. How many times do I have to repeat myself. BTW the recent U.S. bombings in Afghanistan just killed a bunch of women and children.At first the military denied it. Now they're backtracking cause they were caught red handed on tape. Excuse me if it's unpatriotic of me to point this out,but thats the facts Jack.



Saddam held conferences for Terrorists groups, he funded Terrorism.

Besides giving $25,000 to the families of dead Palestinians for fighting Israel,a nuclear superpower,that took away their land and used terrorist tactics to turn an entire race into refugees,who else did he fund? BTW,Israel uses terrorism every day against Palestinians in Gaza and the West bank. Where is your outrage?

That your more upset about water boarding terrorist and stacking of ass as opposed to the targeting of innocent women and children says it all.

Tell it to the Supreme court. They have recently ruled against you and Bush on this issue as I said before.

[JustRalph]

A hell of a lot of good history cane out of that town and not the bowels of Ohio

Good History? Get real. It's the most left leaning area of the country and single handedly responsible for thousands of deaths due to "the history" from the 80's. The city gets a pass because it is politically incorrect to criticize the gay community in San Fran.

Look up "bathhouse crisis" in Google and look at the damage "San Fran" did to the rest of the country and the world. That's some good history for you.

When Diane Feinstein was fighting to keep the bathhouses open, people were dying all over the country after visiting San Fran or having contact with both Homosexual and Heterosexual partners from San Fran. You think that History is grand? Not me. I worked at a hospital and had many days where I watched young men dying of Aids who told me about their trips to San Fran and other places. They regretted it. Most weren't aware of the full impact because they didn't live long enough. I had gay friends who walked around on pins and needles because they had visited San Francisco during this period. How much "good history" does it take to outweigh the 80's in San Fran? How much? Is there some magic scale?

You brought up history.............not me.

[Tom]

History cane? Is that like sugar cane? OLD sugar cane? :lol:

And Light, let me refreash your slecetive memory - there WAS a war befroe we started it. SH invaded Kuwait. Part of the cease fire of that war were certain condtions that he failed to meet, so going back in to finsih the first was war was wwhat happened.

[hcap]

More evidence we were led down the garden path. Too many nails in the coffin to believe this kind of justification for war....
Saddam held conferences for Terrorists groups, he funded Terrorism. He sang their praises in the Bagdad newspapers. If there were no operational link, if left alone, just how long would it take for one to form? You’re willing to take that chance because you side with the terrorist.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_anqVy8b414Q/SM9z5doijoI/AAAAAAAAAlM/N1YKgyqD8WY/s320/IMG_1376.jpg

A GOP congressional leader who was wavering on giving President Bush the authority to wage war in late 2002 said Vice President Cheney misled him by saying that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had direct personal ties to al-Qaeda terrorists and was making rapid progress toward a suitcase nuclear weapon, according to a new book by Washington Post investigative reporter Barton Gellman...

Cheney said, according to Armey, that Iraq's "ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear," had been "substantially refined since the first Gulf War," and would soon result in "packages that could be moved even by ground personnel." Cheney linked that threat to Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaeda, Armey said, explaining that "we now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al-Qaeda."

"Did Dick Cheney . . . purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" Armey said. "I seriously feel that may be the case. . . . Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."

.................................................. ......................................

Remember what the Kraut said.....

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,e.../transcript.asp

April 22, 2003

"DR. KRAUTHAMMER: Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem. I don't have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They've obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are."

[Tom]

Smart move by Dick. Got what he wanted. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[hcap]

Smart move by Dick. Got what he wanted. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:Good ole' rascal Dick. Tricked your sorry ass as well. I guess some of us drink the kool aid with gusto.

[Tom]

Didn't "get" me. I still say SH fired on US Airforce personnel and that was all we needed to take his ass out. End of story. Whatever we had to do to convince everyone else was fine with me. Looking back on it all, I still we were 100% right to go BACK in to Iraq and finish the job.

[richrosa]

Tell it to the Supreme court. They have recently ruled against you and Bush on this issue as I said before.

No they ruled against all Americans when they told us that they jihadists have rights that Americans have. Its a shame that you don't believe the government that these people are dangerous and want to take the side of a terrorist. Sadly Ruth Bader and the liberal boys on the court are tearing America apart, as people like you want it to happen. Thankfully you are in the extreme minority, and if most Americans were actually tuned in, they'd recognize that Obama thinks like you do, and the polls would tilt massively towards McCain, who despite his liberal flings, wants to protect this country from the likes of you, Ginsberg, and the jihadists in Gitmo.

[Light]

And Light, let me refreash your slecetive memory - there WAS a war befroe we started it. SH invaded Kuwait.

Let me refresh your memory cause we discussed this a couple of years ago. Saddam had relations with the U.S. at that time and requested approval from then ambassodor April Glaspie for Invasion. The U.S. gave him permission for the invasion. He was set up.

[Light]

No they ruled against all Americans when they told us that they jihadists have rights that Americans have. Its a shame that you don't believe the government that these people are dangerous and want to take the side of a terrorist. Sadly Ruth Bader and the liberal boys on the court are tearing America apart, as people like you want it to happen. Thankfully you are in the extreme minority, and if most Americans were actually tuned in, they'd recognize that Obama thinks like you do, and the polls would tilt massively towards McCain, who despite his liberal flings, wants to protect this country from the likes of you, Ginsberg, and the jihadists in Gitmo.

Wow. You're an extreme right winger to think the U.S. Supreme court sides with Jihadists. Most conservative Americans agree that detainees should not be held indefinetly without charges. That's the American way. I don't have any idea what your way is,but it's not American nor humane.

[JustRalph]

Wow. You're an extreme right winger to think the U.S. Supreme court sides with Jihadists. Most conservative Americans agree that detainees should not be held indefinetly without charges. That's the American way. I don't have any idea what your way is,but it's not American nor humane.


And they would be wrong. We can close Gitmo, get a box of ammo and start the executions. Anybody tied to terror in any fashion gets a bullet. How about that as a resolution?

[Tom]

Wow. You're an extreme right winger to think the U.S. Supreme court sides with Jihadists. Most conservative Americans agree that detainees should not be held indefinately without charges. That's the American way. I don't have any idea what your way is,but it's not American nor humane.

The American way applies to Americans, not our enemies. We kill our enemies. You piss off a bee, you get stung.

[Light]

You two need to go to a banana republic cause that's how they do things there. What made this country unique and strong is when they use to set the standard and example to the world. People like you two and Bush and Palin disgrace it with attitudes of a 3rd world butcher mentality. Palin has decided not to cooperate with the investigation into her abuse of power. Another who thinks they are above the law and in line for neoconism, further weakening this country's values.

[Secretariat]

The American way applies to Americans, not our enemies. We kill our enemies. You piss off a bee, you get stung.

That's the same kind of logic the Germans used.

[hcap]

Didn't "get" me. I still say SH fired on US Airforce personnel and that was all we needed to take his ass out. End of story. Whatever we had to do to convince everyone else was fine with me. Looking back on it all, I still we were 100% right to go BACK in to Iraq and finish the job.You and the other kool aid drinkers may believe anything your little heart desires. Without the bullshit about WMDs and terrorist connections, congress and the American people would have never bought the sick fable sold by bush and cheney. You also have bought into the rationalization that Saddam broke over a dozen UN resolutions, so therefore killing close to 1 million Iraqi civilians, and displacing a few million more is just ducky. Speaking of UN violations. The so-called NO-FLY ZONES..........

Just imagine George W Churchill addressing the nation telling them that our No Fly Zone overflights ( the same that were never authorized by the UN, and in fact in violation of the General Assembly ) were fired upon intermittently by a third world dilapidated army. But hey guys even tho' after a few 100,000 missions and loosing no men or aircraft but unfortunately killing a few hundred Iraqi civilians, we gotta defend our honor and salute the flag.

So bunky, 5+ years later, do you still think we would have invaded because of your kool aid drinking justifications?

[Tom]

Sec, if you don't know the difference, I really feel sorry for you.
hcap, of course we were justified. We did the right thing. We made a lot of mistakes doing it, the biggest one being Bush listened, and tried to work with the libs.

Light, out are just too far out there to bother with. We set the right examples on Germany and Japan in WWII. That is how you fight and win wars. You kill your enemies. Anything else is unacceptable.

[Light]

We set the right examples on Germany and Japan in WWII. That is how you fight and win wars. You kill your enemies. Anything else is unacceptable.

The difference today is there was a real threat in WW2. A fabricated threat in Iraq.A fabricated threat in Vietnam. This is why America is weaker in world standing today.

[PaceAdvantage]

People like you two and Bush and Palin disgrace it with attitudes of a 3rd world butcher mentality.Palin....:lol:

Palin....:lol: :lol: :lol:

You didn't even know who the hell Palin was until a few weeks ago, and now you're using her in a sentence....:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're nothing but a talking-points whore.

[Light]

No one else knew who Palin was either and everyone else is talking about her. Like Larry King said yesterday,"why is eveyone so obssessed with Sara Palin?" When McCain and Palin spoke yesterday,there were no empty seats in the house when Palin spoke. When McCain started talking,people started leaving and you could see alot of empty seats. Even though I disagree with her politics,I find myself interested in what she has to say. McCain is boring. Maybe its the "womans touch",but she's definetly been a political sensation. I think her effect will eventually wear thin the more people get used to her and she has to answer to reporters and the public. Her Popularity has slipped a bit recently. But I still pay attention to everything the media says about her.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx

[Tom]

Substitute Obama for Palin in your post, then talk to me. Who was he? Why was everyone crying and dropping at his appearances?

Let me clue you in, Sara was not unknown to many of us. Rush has been talking about her for months, and Beck actually interviewed he in, I think, February and asked her about a VP run.

Tell me where O'Bama has better credentials than she does. She is being honest and talking like a human, not a political robot. Of course she is going to draw attention. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people have no use for any dem, but were not thrilled about McCain. We are now seeing someone talk like we think, and we are getting energized about it. Not as much her, as what she represents to us. And the O'Bama camp constant attacks are playing into her - people are turned of by his cheap shots.

[lsbets]

I agree with some of what is is Light's last post (this lightning stikr is going to hurt) and also with a lot of Tom's.

Palin is interesting. She is also way too inexperienced to be VP, let alone Pres. She energizes McCain's base. Her ecord has been so distorted by the wacky left its ridiculous. I've seen more venom thrown at her in the last month than has been thrown at Bush in the last 7 years. They hate her, which is the biggest reason I like her. I might like her a lot more after she has time to grow up, but how can anyone honestly say she's ready for the job? I can't.

On the other hand, she has as much if not more experience than Obama. He is clearly not ready for the job and her emergence has revealed his biggest weakness - he cannot handle pressure. The man started to fall to pieces when she was on fire. Is that someone we want as Pres? Hell no. I would be a lot more comfortable with him if he were in the number 2 spot and would have time to learn and grow before heading to the WH. But, he's at the top of the ticket, and he is so woefully underqualified for the job it is insane that he won the nomination.

McCain is boring. But given the choice of McCain at number 1 with an unqualified number 2 vs. Obama as an unqualified number 1 with Biden as number 2, its a no brainer to me. McCain will be the next Pres, Palin will get 4 years to learn her job and then get a shot to run for the nomination because the old man won't be running again in 2012.

[RaceBookJoe]

I agree with some of what is is Light's last post (this lightning stikr is going to hurt) and also with a lot of Tom's.

Palin is interesting. She is also way too inexperienced to be VP, let alone Pres. She energizes McCain's base. Her ecord has been so distorted by the wacky left its ridiculous. I've seen more venom thrown at her in the last month than has been thrown at Bush in the last 7 years. They hate her, which is the biggest reason I like her. I might like her a lot more after she has time to grow up, but how can anyone honestly say she's ready for the job? I can't.

On the other hand, she has as much if not more experience than Obama. He is clearly not ready for the job and her emergence has revealed his biggest weakness - he cannot handle pressure. The man started to fall to pieces when she was on fire. Is that someone we want as Pres? Hell no. I would be a lot more comfortable with him if he were in the number 2 spot and would have time to learn and grow before heading to the WH. But, he's at the top of the ticket, and he is so woefully underqualified for the job it is insane that he won the nomination.

McCain is boring. But given the choice of McCain at number 1 with an unqualified number 2 vs. Obama as an unqualified number 1 with Biden as number 2, its a no brainer to me. McCain will be the next Pres, Palin will get 4 years to learn her job and then get a shot to run for the nomination because the old man won't be running again in 2012.

I think I have to agree with your whole post. 2012 might set up being Palin vs Clinton. That is HC's only chance at the white house i think. I have the negative jabs between mccain and obama but I see a huge difference between the two. When JM jabs its like here is what it is, when BO jabs you can tell he gets mad, just by the look in his eyes. To me BO is just not a likeable guy, and comes across as phony, but thats just me. rbj

[JustRalph]

I will take a sensible well grounded Mother of 5 who apparently knows how to stick to her guns, over these over-rated idiots who have been running our country the last 20 years. She has shown true leadership in Alaska. I like that. The fact that she has fought to give back to the Alaskan Citizens says it all.

I wasn't a McCain fan until he made this pick. I still don't agree with him on many many things. But if he wins he sets up Palin for the future. Which excites me.

When you make the comparison with Obama and his cabal of ex-terrorists and anti-American preachers by his side, how can you even consider Obama?

[wonatthewire1]

I will take a sensible well grounded Mother of 5 who apparently knows how to stick to her guns, over these over-rated idiots who have been running our country the last 20 years. She has shown true leadership in Alaska. I like that. The fact that she has fought to give back to the Alaskan Citizens says it all.


I like that she went to 5 different colleges over a 6 year period - that shows decisiveness, don't it?

Though I'm finding her selection to the cabinet posts in AK a bit strange, "I liked cows as a kid" running the agriculture dept?

[JustRalph]

I like that she went to 5 different colleges over a 6 year period - that shows decisiveness, don't it?

Though I'm finding her selection to the cabinet posts in AK a bit strange, "I liked cows as a kid" running the agriculture dept?


As usual you guys lock on to something and mis-represent it.

The lady owns a dairy farm with her husband and has been immersed in Alaskan Agriculture on a first hand basis since she left high school.

I know you Dems think that everybody must be educated in the Ivy League somewhere, but somebody with hands on knowledge and experience in the field in which she is actually being asked to Direct might be a good thing? You think? I know that might be a foreign notion to you, but it has worked. She hasn't had any complaints about her performance.

Keep picking these non-issues and hanging on to them. The more you pick up this kind of shit and run with it, the better Palin looks.


A note from a few websites that both are critical and complimentary of the pick:

Franci was fascinated with farms and particularly milk cows as a young person. After moving to the valley with her folks, she was immersed in a community filled with many farm families. Not surprisingly her fascination with cows and farms eventually introduced her to her future husband, the son of dairy farmers. Franci has seen, first hand, the challenges that Alaska dairy farmers experienced and wanted a change - a good and positive change.

[Show Me the Wire]

I believe Wall Street is filled with bright Ivy Leaguers!

[ddog]

I feel very sorry for Palin and her family.
They have now been dragged into the cesspool that is nation politics , populated by the scum of hell.

She will be transformed(it's already started) into just another one of the "talking points" who me crowd stay on message crowd.

This will happen and be over with before the election.

Rescindind her own investigation that she started on herself is the first indication that the "pros" have now taken over and she is being driven right down the same sleazy path they all end up going down.

Sad to see and I mean it really, worst thing that ever happened to her and her kids.

I pray she doesn't get elected, let the other scum that are hard core batttle it out over the trash.

I don't like to see what seem like good people be mangled by this worthless process anymore.

It isn't worth it.

[bigmack]

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3424061?fr=yvmtf

[JustRalph]

I pray she doesn't get elected, let the other scum that are hard core batttle it out over the trash.


We really need a Sarcasm smiley>>>>>>>>> ? Dog, if you are serious I feel just the opposite.

I hope she gets elected and takes on the sleaze. I think she has some unique qualities that would tie her to the people much like Reagan, and she could make progress. Either way, she may be president in 2012.

[wonatthewire1]

I believe Wall Street is filled with bright Ivy Leaguers!


Maybe we'll show you a pay check or two!!

:jump:

:ThmbUp:

[wonatthewire1]

As usual you guys lock on to something and mis-represent it.

The lady owns a dairy farm with her husband and has been immersed in Alaskan Agriculture on a first hand basis since she left high school.

I know you Dems think that everybody must be educated in the Ivy League somewhere, but somebody with hands on knowledge and experience in the field in which she is actually being asked to Direct might be a good thing? You think? I know that might be a foreign notion to you, but it has worked. She hasn't had any complaints about her performance.

Keep picking these non-issues and hanging on to them. The more you pick up this kind of shit and run with it, the better Palin looks.


A note from a few websites that both are critical and complimentary of the pick:

Franci was fascinated with farms and particularly milk cows as a young person. After moving to the valley with her folks, she was immersed in a community filled with many farm families. Not surprisingly her fascination with cows and farms eventually introduced her to her future husband, the son of dairy farmers. Franci has seen, first hand, the challenges that Alaska dairy farmers experienced and wanted a change - a good and positive change.


Thanks for the update - I have only picked up pieces from here and there (obvs). I guess there will be some that are completely immersed in the political process and will have every snippet.

However, most won't - just seemed like a few strange happenings...

I don't mind her but don't have a strong opinion of her either. I thought Lsbets made some good pts a couple of days ago. And Chickenhead's point that as soon as the announcement was made by McCain - everyone jumped on board within a couple of minutes seemed strange too - but I guess, to each their own.

[Show Me the Wire]

Maybe we'll show you a pay check or two!!

:jump:

:ThmbUp:

Happy to hear you still are employed. :ThmbUp: