muddysmind.com

Let me be clear why I say this:
#1 every political analyst I've heard - which is quite a few - says that the only way John Kerry can hope to win, is by avoiding national security as an issue. Attacking Bush on his strength which is his own weakness is the wrong move.

#2 He has every member of Clinton's campaign staff except for the one who is no doubt the reason Clinton was re-elected: Dick Morris.

#3 Dick Morris says so, and I've never heard him make an incorrect prediction. In fact, he said when Kerry got the nomination, watch, he's going to hire or try to hire everyone from the Clinton Staff except me. Wow, right on.

And just to be clear, I'm not positive that he is trying to lose it. He may very well be trying to win. But, it would not surprise me if he were trying to lose. Without a doubt though, the Clinton staff is a trojan horse to ensure he loses.

Jus tlook at Clinton's actions? He releasedhis book at a time that hurt Kerry, he was doing book signings during the DNC.

Then, they hooked Ted Kennedy on board to campaign. What an idiotic move. The only people Ted Kennedy attracts are people who are already on board the Kerry band wagon. But he will repel a lot of middle of the roaders.

I can't blame them too much though.
Nobody would enjoy having to correct the mess left by GW Bush ...
The 500 billion deficit. The ongoing asset economy... Afganhistan and Iraq on top of it.
Kerry is too mild anyway.

Baby boomers start retiring in 2005-6 ... by 2008 it will be a completely different world. Better put the blame for the fall on someone else.

IT has nothing to do with blame, it has everything to do with Hillary Clinton's stated goal of being president.

Baby boomers are already retiring,t hat's why our income statistics are down and poverty statistics are up.

IT has nothing to do with blame, it has everything to do with Hillary Clinton's stated goal of being president.

Baby boomers are already retiring,t hat's why our income statistics are down and poverty statistics are up.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-22

I thought you might read this ... I've seen so often posts on how kerry changed his mind so frequently ... What about bush then ?
1st we love saddam (irak iran war), even though he kills kurds (who cares ...)
2nd we hate him, lauch a war
3rd but ... lets not let the shiites overrun him, better abide international law...
4th we control him and we don't believe in nation building. let's not commit troops in a foolish way.
5th is dangerous
6 well in fact he was not but then he was a tyran and we believe in nationbuilding ...
7 mission accomplished
8 well ... Catastrophic success ...

I bet you :
9 there will be elections in january.
10 ... oops there's too much disorder ...

Besides Hilary seems a great woman, tougher than her husband.

You would like hillary, being that you're both socialists, though she has submitted plans that are more like fascism than socialism.

I'm green remember : nader.
And according to yourpoll, I'm a centrist ...

The green party is a socialist party.

You're probably a centrist due to your stand on social issues.

It is the current REPUBLICAN regime that is has used the resources of the USA in an UNPRECIDENTED way as a unilateral, international socialist force.

"The world is better off without Saddam..."
that is very clearly a facist-socialist statement and one Bush himself will continue to repeat and repeat as a sound bite to describe his term of office and his socialist mission of military hegemony.

This statement like many of the things a liar will repeat, is false. Oratory Liars repeat false things in the belief that repitition somehow will translate to veracity. This works against the weak minded ("These are not the droids you're looking for, move along") and the undereducated/underinformed (the US spends more than 5x as much on war vs. education and pro wrestling gets much better ratings than CSPAN)

If you think the world is better off now without saddam, consider how many terrorists were in Iraq before (0) vs. now (enough to kill the best fighting forces in the world). Before, WMDs were (maybe) in the hands of Saddam, now any WMDs are likely held by fanatic terrorists (who now don't have much left to lose). Saddam did what the US has not yet been able to do, control the 3 main groups of Iraqis and keep Al Quaeda OUT of Iraq.

It is pure fantasy to think that the mid-east was somehow stabilized by his removal. Yes he was a 'bad' man. No, the world is not better off. Ask the 30,000+ dead if they are better off.

"Yes he was a 'bad' man."

Just not bad enough, huh. Am I safe to say that you never lived in Saddam's Iraq? I like the way you can speak for the Iraqi's, How long did you live there?

"No, the world is not better off. Ask the 30,000+ dead if they are better off."

Or ask the hundreds of thousands victims in the mass graves (over 250 found so far) if they are better off. But I guess that is some sort of media propaganda or just another one of those republican lies, right?

"We must endeavor to permanently imprint the memory of those killed by Saddam and his regime in the hearts and minds of generations to come in order to prevent such human catastrophes from being repeated."

http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php

Just another oratory liar repeating false things in belief that repitition somehow will translate to veracity. I wonder how the republicans can get these Arabs to lie about these graves?

They must pay them.....