We won't hear President Kerrey babble on about Vietnam!?!

I get a vision of Owen Wilson's character in Shanghai Knights, as he looks incredulously at his partner and says: "What in our history together makes you think I'm capable of something like that?"

What, indeed. I understand the impetus to look at 2 sucky candidates and tell ourselves they will have to do the right thing. You know what? They absolutely don't. Look at Europe now, or look back into human history - endless illusion is an option, and some leaders and states will take it.

The only explanation I can find for people who believe a Kerry Presidency would not be Carterite to its core is sheer wishful projection. His positions on issues like Iran are clear, and so is his long record in the Senate.

I'm sorry your choices aren't ideal acoss the aisle, either, but the evidence says, strongly, that what you're looking for in this post will not come from a Kerry Presidency.

But it IS possible for a major party to change its stripes, and restore a situation whereby both major parties can once again present themselves as trustworthy security options for the nation.

If you want to look for that, look to Britain in the 80s and 90s. The Labour Party platform, full of outright Marxism at home and surrender abroad, was accurately being described as "the world's longest suicide note." The party itself was the home of a seemingly infinte stream of borderline lunatics and people who clearly hated their own society. Trusting the government to them would be sheerest fantasy, and election after election proved that the British public knew it.

A little while later, many of the lunatics and haters had been purged from the party. Labour's economics would remain left-leaning, but it conceded at last that the terms of debate had changed, and adjusted itself accordingly. Its foreign policy stance had been radically altered as well. Tired of being pummeled at the polls, it had rallied behind a new leader, a serious leader whose hand could be seen in many of the changes within his party, and who faced more than one tense moment as he worked to transform it.

Some guy named Blair. And you know the rest of that story.

I've watched Tony Blair for a decade now. I've watched Kerry, too.

John Kerry ain't no Tony Blair.

But it's possible that his successor could be.

Joe, Do you think Hillary can be Tony Blair in drag? :)

Cicero, ditto me.
But when I look at the world, Bush's black and white Manichaen vision seems far more likely to result in a positive outcome on this iteration.
It is not safe for us for Kerry to be president. Look at the Clinton legacy. We have yet to pay the piper over NK's nukes.

I've rewritten my comment into a fuller article now, right here.

In answer to your question, Jinnderella, my mind is open to the possibility that Hillary could do it. It sure ain't gonna be Edwards, and while Biden has a sensible head on security issues he doesn't have the personal force to pull that off.

I'll say this, too. Stepping up in this way and forcefully putting her party in line on this issue would be hugely useful to her, immediately turning one of her big personal weaknesses (the bossy, bitchy image) into a big "gotta have it" strength. It would also confound many members of the VRWC.

Hilary might do it, simply because that's the way the winds are blowing in the U.S. That was the main reason for Labour altering its image so drastically. All it takes is someone with the ability to see it, and the willpower to adapt.

I was going to mention Tony Blair. After watching the debate on CSPAN.org I watched Blair's one hour address to his party last week. What an inspiration. Here's a liberal who can articulate the liberal platform, one that includes justification for the war.

I know that Blair has a lot of internal opposition in Labor; there are still a lot of loonie leftists he must manage, such as Red Ken. But unlike Bush, he can communicate the value of fighting terrorists in Iraq. Unlike Kerry, he can link the war to preserving liberalism.

Perhaps it was an Englishman named Churchill who dragged an American president to fight the good fight, starting with Lend Lease; perhaps now its Blair and the next president. Perhaps not.

I can certainly see that whoever wins in '04, the real soul-searching will be in '08. Eight years of Bush will leave no heir-apparent for the Republicans in '08. Four years of Kerry in the midst of global chaos will cause a purge in the Democratic party.

I feel quite fatalistic about it all. I would rather I didn't.

Cicero,

Your complaints are misplaced. The problem is not personal (Bush, Kerry) it is historical.

Re-read my 16 May 03 guest blog here at WoC.

Circumstances have changed. A party re-alignment was (as the Marxists say) inevitable due to the inherenent contradictions brought out by the war.

Kerry in fact best represents the contradictions of the Democrats. He, in so far as that is possible, is their perfect candidate for their current condition.

Bush has papered over the Republican contradictions til after the elections. The Rs are headed for a crash as well.

Lieberman was the correct resolution of the Ds contradictions. He didn't have a prayer.

I'm voting for the President because he appeals to my basic, cave-man instinct for picking a leader in a jungle rife with vipers and tigers: I think Bush is out to save my bacon more than Kerry, who is out to save his cherished, cultivated ideals from getting besmirched by the demands of the 21st century.

Cicero, You are on fire today. Well done. Those 'cultivated ideals' are philosophical perspectives that sound terrific in a classroom at Brown and often flop when exposed to the light of day. Great in theory, but terrible in practice = bad theory. As much as it offends my civilized and tolerant liberal ideals to take it to the level of violence- a fight has been brought to us. I can no longer tolerate gay-hating, democracy-hating, woman-hating Islamo-fascists. And in this post 9-11 world, I think that makes me a great liberal.

Seeing John Kerry sweat and writhe by actually attempting cogency and commitment will give me no end of satisfaction. And some hope.

That sweating and writhing costs lives here and in the ME. I agree with Joe. History shows that humans will settle for hand-wringing over action, generation after generation, at the expense of entire nations of people.

I am close to not believing that my cherished country can address the deadly threats that lash its shores and metastasize in its cities.

Me too. In my heart of hearts I think that materialism has become our worst enemy. I actually think that many Europeans and North Americans would happily appease Islamo-fascists as much as they could, even if it means more Madrid-type attacks would continue. I think many feel those attacks will just be a reality we'll have to accept, because actually doing something to stop it would mean real sacrifice on our part.

_Fatalistically, I have less faith in Kerry than Bush. What I don't want to lose faith in is our whole civilization. And that's what's at stake.

Yup. It sure is.

Last week Karl Rove said

"We've got a couple of surprises that we intend to spring," Rove told ABC radio host Sean Hannity while explaining that he intends to wage an aggressive campaign no matter what the polls show. "It's 34 days [till the election] and that's a long time in politics, and when you get complacent you lose," the top White House adviser said."

The October suprise is coming and Kerry just helps things along by getting caught cheating during the debates.

Maybe Hillary's 2008 campaign will have a new incumbant Vice President to deal with. This election is too important to all of our futures to not consider the possibility of a new VP that is well liked and not Cheney. Have you noticed that Cheney has been looking kind of haggard lately?

SBD

SBD

"The October suprise is coming and Kerry just helps things along by getting caught cheating during the debates."

Cheating in the debates? Want to explain that one to me. Seems I missed out on something here.

SBD,

Unless Cheney is shot, dies, or is medically incapacitated, he isn't going anywhere.

As for Rove's surprises, anyone in his position still has a few cards up his sleeve at this point: ad campaigns, new issues, endoresements, dirt you're waiting for the right time to drop, etc. Carville has some October surprises too. That's normal politics, and doesn't have to refer to earthshaking events.

In other words, I don't expect to see Osama bin Laden appear on CNN in handcuffs. Though a strike on Iran, after Kerry has made his toothles alternative clear, could be a freign policy splash (I wouldn't bet on it, alas, but it's possible). So could some sort of mission to the Sudan - Britain is interested, and there have been quiet discussions. What would be really funny (but peripheral in a strategic sense) would be some sort of deal with Putin re: securing nuclear materials over the next 4 years. After Beslan, that could be on the table too.

This capability is a major advantage of any party in power in an election where foreign policy matters. The chalenge is in the timing, of course, as knowing that any of this can be completed in a specified amount of time (even if you start long before the elections) is damn-near impossible. Which means luck usually matters more than planning for this stuff.

I have been too embarrassed for too long to admit my feelings to anybody, but this blogger has it! Is it reasonable to vote for one person but secretly wish for the other to win? I live in California and work within a prominent university. I would never describe myself as conservative, but neither am I the rabid elitist anti-American deconstructionist intent on driving this country into a nihilistic frenzy of self-hatred as many of my colleagues on campus are. Republicans are no longer fellow citizens with a different perspective, but rather evil in our midst that must be "struggled" against. I am afraid of them, because their cosmology has gone beyond paranoia into pure psychosis; if polls show Bush ahead, then the pollsters are fundamentalist Christian corporate puppet right-wingers. If Michael Moore gets protested, he is being "censored" by a John Ashcroft honing his Gestapo skills. Talk of violent "resistance" is common on campus when the possibility of a Republican victory is raised. I know for a fact that after 2000 they will never simply accept the democratic process in this country and wait 4 years for another chance; rather, they will do all they can to de-legitimize the entire American process itself. And as philosophers have understood for a long time, the power of any institution can only remain in power as long as it remains quasi-mystical in the minds of its subjects. That is, as soon as the democratic process is questioned, it no longer works. We used to tolerate being governed by those we don't agree with because of the legitimacy conferred upon them by democratic elections. The fact that we are appealing to the UN, the organization with Libya and the Sudan on its human rights committee and Syria on its security council, to monitor OUR elections, in the country where modern democracy was born, terrifies me. Once our process has been besmirched, why should we be content to remain within the system? The hate-filled ideologues at my university gain self-satisfaction by thinking of themselves as "dissidents," and I know several who intend to bring anarchy if the election doesn't go the way they want.

Which brings me to my point. In a way, I don't much care who wins (I think they both suck), but I think I prefer a Kerry victory. But what's most important to me is that the winner wins BY A SIGNIFICANT MARGIN. After the trauma of 2000, only a clear victor will be able to restore our faith in the democratic process in this country. If Bush wins by a small margin (and especially if he loses the popular vote), the people I know will become violent and will never accept the results, and elite liberals will give the violence legitimacy. If Kerry wins by a small margin, on the other hand, Republicans will groan and bitch but they won't levy "revolution." I live in California where a Kerry win is a given. My single vote will not change the outcome. But I can add to Bush's popular vote and the legitimacy of his election overall with my vote, in my little way deflating the grievances of the anti-Bush demagogues. Therefore, I will vote for Bush while hoping for Kerry to win. So is it ever reasonable to vote for one and wish victory on the other? I think so.

I think the ideal scenario for our own political reform would be a non-{razor thin} win in the Electoral College for Kerry but a popular vote win for Bush.

1.) We Democrats would feel like we'd got ours---"Now, how does it feel, Blue Boys?," and be less angry.
2.) Many of us Democrats, including some in government, are on record backing electoral college reform, so it might be harder for our people to back away from it, because...
3.) Now that the Republicans' ox has been gored, all of a sudden we see reform measures gaining support among Republicans.

What would I like? Well, I'm a left Democrat, so I'd like a Colorado proportional-plus-winner's-2 formula used in all the states, preferably with instant run-off voting, but I won't get that latter because its explanation won't fit on a yellow sticky.

But just getting any half-way decent reform in would go a long way toward gaining greater legitimacy for the government, which it will need both in the Struggle Against Terrorists and for the leaner welfare state we're going to have sooner than you'd think (there are very many Boomers, and roughly half of them are worse-than-average investors).

Is electoral reform the most important issue at stake in 3 weeks?

First answer: no, but since I think another Bush administration would be even more disastrous than the first, that's sneakily covered by my scenario.

Second answer: maybe; if we have three elections in a row whose results aren't gut-level believed by most of the populace, the level of cynicsim will grow so high that the government may get away with just about anything. Although a little native cynicism is a good idea, too much is corrosive of good governance because it sets the bar very low: I once knew someone who "liked Jim Trafficant because he shook people up in Congress"; when I pointed out to him how blatantly and recurrently corrupt J.T. was, he replied, "Oh they're all corrupt, but Trafficant is at least entertaining." Maybe that's so, but his attitude gives no-one in government any incentive to be any less corrupt.

Similarly, a loss of confidence in the electoral process among a large number of people who don't think it will get any better invites even greater abuses.

Sorry but I cannot agree with you all, I'm voting against Bush because he has proven himself to be a blustery incompetent when it comes to running a war. Throwing away fifty years of leadership in international law so that we could use ineffective torture techniques was stupid. Engaging in a war of occupation without allocating adequate resources to carry it off smoothly was even more stupiid. Engaging in a preemptive attack in an unstable region in a manner that legitimizes the actions of Al-Quaeda in the eyes of the rest of the world was so unbelievably, colossally stupid that it should be regarded as treasonous.

As for Gonzalo's fear of what his 'liberal' colleagues might do in the face of another Bush victory that looks even less legitimate than the 2000 imbroglio. There are elements of the Republican party who are more frightening and have greater reach and fewer compunctions about openly calling for violence.

I ask that all of you try an experiment, the next time you read an article by Ann Coulter or listen to Rush Limbaugh; mentally substitute the word "Jews" for each instance of the word "Liberals", it will sound eerily familiar.

The Republican party's embrace of dirty politics under the guidance of Atwater, Ailes and Rove is leading to it's inevitable counterreaction. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind; live by the sword, die by the sword. The best that the Republican party can hope for is that they are granted the opportunity to clean their own house of corruption rather than to have it cleaned for them.

One of Gonzalo's points is rather crucial; a government that is no longer legitimate in the eyes of the majority of it's citizens can not be said to have "the consent of the governed", and cannnot maintain law and order. It is incumbent on every one of you to denounce actions that bring doubt upon the fairness and rectitude of our political system, whether it be the destruction of voter registration forms gathered under false pretenses, attempts to limit the voter turnout in any way shape or form, or even attempts to dominate the conversation or the airwaves. All the more so if the perpetrator is one of your partisans.

In this election the nation will be best served by an election that is both believed to be fair and seen to be fair.

For too long since 9/11 the Democrats and so-called liberals have occupied the peanut gallery, mocking and judging every move the President has made from their velvet armchairs.

Uhhh... White Water, Vince Foster, Travelgate and who could forget Monica

The Republicans hounded Clinton ceaselessly and now cry foul when we serve them up a plate of the same.

"Ooooh, it's unamerican!", they cry.

"Under our leadership, things would be quite different," they chide as they strike yet another pose.

It's been different all right, since Bush took over.

Ooooh, but 9/11 changed everything", they cry.

Yeah, thanks to 9/11:

Wrong is Right

Lies are Truth

Bad is Good.

Pull the other one.

Otter, in other times, it wouldn't matter. When the nation is at war, and partisan vindictiveness is placed above success in that war, and you have a party that sees bad news from the war as good... yeah, it IS different.

There were ways the Democrats could have gone after Bush on national security, and hit just as hard or harder, without being defeatist. That hasn't been the path they've taken. It has hurt them, and it is hurting the nation.

At some point, I hope the Democrats feel enough pain that they'll change. Once they do, the task of inflicting enough pain on the GOP to make them change will become a lot easier.

Joe,

So what you're saying is that, once a president is elected, his best option is to start a war. Then he will be 'safe' from partisan politics and automatically get 2 terms.

And he doesn't even have to do a good job on the war part.

Bush has given us a tax cut and FEAR and nothing else to speak of.

And I'm still in more danger from drunk drivers than I am from terrorists, but terrorist rate $120 billion dollars and a pile of corpses a thousand deep.

If Kerry openly ran as a socialist, I'd still probably vote against Bush.

Yes, Otter. Because of course Bush was behind 9/11, as French authors will tell you. It's all a political trick designed to start a war that would raise fear, and the idea that there's a real threat out there or people who wish to escalate the harm of 9/11 exponentially is of course just the BusHitler's evil proganda.

We're sorry this NUISANCE inconveniences you and costs so much money.

Thanks for being an example of the very dynamic I'm talking about.

Joe,

I never accused Bush of engineering 9/11.

But it might never have happened.

Clinton might have taken care of Osama if he hadn't been busy with Ken Starr.

Bush might have listened to the outgoing Clinton people on the importance of Al-Queda, except all thing Clinton were to be discarded, besides 'missle defense' would generate more revenue for Cheney's defense contractor friends.

And, if you hadn't heard, Iraq and 9/11 are entirely unrelated.

Or are you saying you'd be just as gung-ho for Bush if we were only occupying Afganistan and had never gone into Iraq?

Iraq is a PNAC war and 9/11 was the 'new Pearl Harbor' they had been hoping for since the 90's.

Karl Rove said that 9/11 was all they needed to put Bush back in office all the way back in 2002.

Bush hijacked out grief and flew it into Iraq.

I want the defense and oil interests out of the white house, especially in a time of war in the middle east.

Babies Found in Mass Graves
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm

Iraq Mass graves
http://massgraves.info

URL Says it all
http://iraqiholocaust.blogspot.com

And more and more elsewhere

Mass murder and the left, they go together
http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_totals.html

And what side of the Killing fields are the
democrats ? or should i say Marxocrats

Well Saddam was Baath socialist wasnt he

and mass murder and socialist are hardly ever
parted

Hitlers National socialist germany has its proper
helping of world disgust.

Now, just who opposed toppling saddam ?

Which party embraced Moores potemkin village
vision of Saddams killing fields ?

The democrats will not go down in history
favorbly. The begrudging admission that yet
another megamurderer was "a bad man but"
will not save you.

There is no "but" after you find mass graves.

Mass graves, holocaust, is the one thing above
all else that defines evil and seperates fame
from infamy

On what side are the Marxocrats ?
On the wrong side naturally.

Mass Graves ... Historys memeory has a particular
way of remembering. Mass graves full of helpless
women shot in the head as they begin to weep
for their just murdered infant and buried
in a ditch with the small fist still griping
his toy will create a particular kind of
memeory

The fake news in the leftist media will not help
the democrats, because iraq will tell it story

The morally obtuse democrats who delayed these
poor peoples rescue even by a day will not
be looked upon favorably.

Their logic free leftist mantra of "no blood
for oil" will not ring favorably in the display
in memorium of mass death.

There is no "but" after mass graves are found.

The left have murdered 100+ Million for
egalitarian utopia, so perhaps yet another
incarnation of socialist killing fields has
no affect on their blind bloodstained socialist
faith.

But History will not look back on you favorably

Mass graves .. all over Iraq.
Mass graves full of children with bullet holes
in little skulls

That will paint a rather indeleble picture on
the works of M Moore and his potemkin village
depiction of Iraq. It will also stain all the
others who praised him.

Evil again stands naked before the world.

And look what side, very publically and loudly,
the democrats are on ..

Mass graves ... mass graves full of children
still clutching their toys, murdered by the
people the democrats objected to removing.

Murdered by those who paid bribes to Germany
France, Russia and China.

They exchanged their compilcity in holocaust
for bribes, bribes handled by the son of Kofi.

They got money, lots of money.

What will the democrats get in return for
supporting saddam ?

In their kneejerk reflex to oppose anything
right or wrong, they found common cause with
the bribe takers and the child killers and
rapers.

Mass Graves, Mass Graves in Iraq, full of
Children.

There are no "Buts" after you find mass graves
like these.

On what side of History are the democrats ?

After we found mass graves. mass graves of
children. nothing else matters, the old arguments
are irrevelant, are absurd, are disgusting, in
light of mass graves of children.

How morally obtuse are the democrats.

Your inability to adjust your rabid foamy mouth
bush hate after finding mass graves full of
children creates a stark and horrid picture
of the postmodern marxocrat mind.

There are no "buts" after you find mass graves
and find children, with a bullet in the head
and a rattle in the hand and his mothers arms
still around him ..

Your revisionist history will not protect you,
from the judgement that is comming.

Raymond

Like the mass graves of the crusades?

Or how about Dresden?

Or the one the Republican funded Contras made in Nicaragua?

Hypocrite!

Democrats supporting Saddam!?!?!

You're deluded.

The US helped put him in power in the first place.

The US backed him in the Iran-Iraq war.

They didn't think he was a bad guy then.

>Like the mass graves of the crusades?

The crusades to turn back the islamic invasion
that took half of france and vast areas
elsewhere by the sword and the flame ?

more Marxist self-hate postmodern revisionist
history.

>Or how about Dresden?

Ah, sympathy for the NAZIs who gave Hitler 90%
of the vote and continud to provide bombs and
tanks and even new SS collar badges for the
uniforms of your beloved "freedom fighters"
i suppose.

> Or the one the Republican funded Contras made
> in Nicaragua?

Ahh the Communist Sandinistas also have your
sympathy.

No doubt the democracy and freedom that exists
down there now in place of another communist
dictatorship has your scorn and contempt.

> Hypocrite!

Ohh the irony.

totaly morally obtuse, these Marxocrats

Leftism has Murdered over 3 times the 43
Million Combat killed of all wars

Leftism stands alone, by order of magnatude
above all other examples of mans inhumanity
as the most evil force on planet earth.

To have the idology that created the largest
and incomprehesable pile of murdered innocents
even to presume to offer advice for the free
worlds imperfections is an insult to thought
itself.

And we have yet another socialist, Baath flavored
socialist, mass grave full of children with
a bullet in the little heads of kids with toys
still in their little hands.

Ands all you can do is kneejerk blurts of
examples of wars against evil.

Raymond

I have sympathy for all the ordinary people killed in all the rich men's wars.

If you're so enamoured with the war in Iraq, then go fight it.

Back when Reagan was supporting Saddam, for whom I'm pretty sure we had a soft spot because one of the first people he murdered was the head of the Iraqi Communist Party, and his Ba'athists later wiped out the rest of them, I was against this support for a murderous dictator. I wanted the Iran-Iraq war to reach whatever conclusion was natural for the two nations' relative power, in the absence of any external (that is, Soviet) involvement---either way, a strong anti-Communist would win. But I didn't want any part of supporting a man who was killing a lot of his own citizens, and I thought Iran the lesser of two evils; at least the mullahs recognise some sort of law, and nothing removes the gloss from a moral authority than letting him actually try to run things. Iranians have a couple of millennia loving wine, music, hashish, u.s.w., and the mullahs hate all of it; Saddam was smart enough to let his people have their alcohol, at least until he tried playing the Islamic card, and that was well after the period in question.

Back when Reagan was giving money and arms to both secular rebels and religious fanatics to kill Russian soldiers in Afghanistan, I supported the ends but thought supporting the religious guys stupid, because these guys hate the Enlightenment, and so eventually have to hate America---since their god is a universal god, anyone, anywhere, who disagrees with what they think is his will is an eventual enemy. I wanted us not to give arms to religious nuts who think God loves them and hates everyone else.

And, yes, when Reagan's contras and the Guatemalan government killed a few Sandinistas and an awful lot of peasants who happened to be around and were easier to kill, I was against that. When the born-again Guatemalan government started creating their own mass graves, I was against it, and wanted us to stop helping them.

When the soi-diant "socialist" Slobodan Milosevic was slaughtering his people's cousins, I was against that, and wanted our armies to intervene while there was a chance.

To take every single opinion with which you disagree, say they all belong together, give them a playground-quality name, and say that they're all equally guilty for what the worst of them have done, is exactly as stupid as saying that everyone who worships a god a little bit differently from the way we do is actually...a Satanist! If you follow that course, eventually you will class nearly every human being in the world with your Enemy, decide it's o.k. to kill them, and wind up with mass graves of your own.

> If you're so enamoured with the war in Iraq,
> then go fight it.

http://www.blogsofwar.com/archives/2004/10/15/the-toast-of-history/

Been there, done that. and damn unhappy with the
leftist media that i see is deliberatly working
to prevent victory and create defeat by
undermining with everything from selective
reporting to outright fabrication.

And the picture of reality that is offered is
corrupt and malignant

And i look at the marxocrats, who also seaze
on every item of news that can be twisted into
bad news to defeat this country and undermine
everything i was sent there to do
as well as put in jepordy the hopes and dreams
of a long abused people.

Thankfully, nobody is better equiped to see
to see this reality perversion by the left and
the leftist media than the people of iraq who
see what is selected and how its presented on
the western news.

You see, the sat dish is rather popular in iraq.

How do you think they reacted when the man their
representatives elected as an interim leader
was insulted by the Marxocrats when he came
here to give thanks to America ?

My tour of the desert is done, but it appears
America has enemies here at home.

Perhaps when i took an oath to defend the
constitution against all enemies foreign
and domestic people like you was what the
latter term referenced.

Course, it probably a mistake to attempt
to appeal with reason to indoctrinated
marxocrats that folow the idology that invented
the Gulag the Purge and the Progrom.

Mass graves full of children, shot in the
head still holding their toys.

To a normal person, the moral certainty
of that finding would render all the smaller
queastions moot .. to a normal person, there
are no more questions after you find that.

But the blood stained left, with their mountain
of 100+ Million Murders to show as result
of attempted utopia, that are dismissed with
a shrug.

Welp, it does offer a lesson from where evil
comes.

Your ability to skip past a pit full of murdered
kids, you ability to still second guess the
motives to take down a regime that used the
local schools as a stable of 14 year old girls
used for sex toys and tiger food.

Your ability to just whistle past mass graves
with not even a shrug

Your ability, knowing this, to embrace commie
Moores potemkin village depiction of an iraq
that fed people feet first to plastic shreader
machines.

Your unblinking ability to then do everything
to undermine and sabotage the only hope of
an existence without fear for 25 million
people in your blind rabid quest for power.

Perhaps now we know where people like Stalin
Mao KimJong Hitler and Saddam, could find
morally obtuse thugs to man the machine guns
macheties and pistols used to send innocents
to the bottom of a long fresh ditch.

Raymond

Ah yes, the Crusades...

All of us remember the Republican rush to war in the 11th century.

All of us remember the Republican rush to war in the 11th century.

No, but I can recognise a Republican rush to the 11th Century in the Iraqi war.

I'd rather have a President chosen by a clear majority of the American People than by such a disreputable figure as this "God" guy.