George Bush, Arrogant prick or Demon from Hell?

[songsmith]

I personally believe Bush isn't acting in our best interests, and Kerry would probably be worse. Once again, we get to select the lesser of two evils. I would have voted for McCain, I think, or Condi Rice (very good under pressure) or Colin Powell (very reasonable), but not either of the current choices. Political moderates no longer get asked to this prom, my friends. You either need to be a Bible-thumping, power-hungry rich guy, or an ACLU, give-the-store-away, um, rich guy. Expect more of this until the Baby-Boomers, well... get old and die. Old people vote in huge numbers, so they get the most say. Only 30 or so more years, y'all!
I can see a few things on the horizon. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Osama bin Laden "suddenly" gets captured or killed, late-summer or early-fall. Al Qaeda will at least try to hit the USA again, to destabilize the elections, which would guarantee a GOP win. Kerry will wither in the jaws of a pretty major scandal... if they don't have anything against him, they'll find something, everybody has skeletons, especially in politics.
I've been listening to Rush L. a bit lately. What a boob. What an egomanaical, oxy-tweaked, doctor-shopping little Hitler he is. I used to listen because I thought he was playing a character... nobody thinks like that for real. Nope. He really IS a d*ck. I have to listen to the NPR hippies just to get back to center! I DO NOT listen to Michael Savage (despite the fact that he has the best bumper music in talk radio... old school Metallica, Motley,etc.) because he is nuts. In a bad way. He needs a little vacation... nice private room, lots of padding, close-fitting jacket with sleeves that tie together, you get the picture.

Good thread... we disagree on political stances (Americans should!) but no name-calling or attacks. We'd be better politicians than them! (Couldn't be much worse ) ----->JMS

[FatVin]

I had no problem with ousting Saddam. My problem with Ol W. is that he didn't have a plan for what happens after that. It's one thing to go get a bad guy and Sadam was a VERY BAD GUY but ya gotta have a plan for what happens after and we didn't and that's why our brave Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines are dying because W. and company didn't think the matter through all the way.

That's not the only thing that got bungled, Not only do our guys have to deal with Arab extremeists setting off bomb every 6 seconds but they shoot the bad guys around the fleeing troops of our so called allies. One little train explodes and the Spanish don't wanna play anymore. Sure, the French and the Germans and the Russians want to be in on the pie but they can't get their hands dirty, the diplomacy of the thing was mishandled from jump street by the Bush administration. Everybody knew that W. was bound and determined to go to Iraq no matter what the UN inspectors found. Don't get me wrong toppling Saddam was a good thing we just should have done it in the 90's.

Now we're kind of trapped, We can't just leave Iraq, as much as we want to and as much as the Muslim extremeists want us gone, we have a responibilitiy to these people to leave them with some kind of structure, but I think a western style democracy in that part of the world is far too much to hope for. Worst case we get someone wrose than Saddam, best case we get another Iran and a so called Islamic republic. But Iran at least is behaving itself for the moment.

I just don't get these people, they WANT to live in the 7th Century. and that would be fine except that the world too small now, isolationist policies effect not only an individual nation but the community of nations, the world is now a village and dog crap in my neighbors front lawn stinks up my house and that's unacceptable.

Look, world politics is a contact sport, we stayed out of the conflicts in Europe and Asia in the 20's and 30's and it bought us Pearl Harbor, We stayed out of the Arab-Israeli thing (We tried to make peace and be friends but for the most part we stayed out of it) during the 70's 80's and 90's and it bought us 9/11, we're gonna have to get in the middle it from now on, for our own sake, and that's just the way it is.

The middle east is the elephant in the tent of international politics, everyone knew it was a problem but nobody wanted to do anything about it, well now that elephant has taken a giant dump on us and somebody has to clean it up, The rest of the world can't be bothered but they don't like it the way we take care of it, but of course, when they want they want or need something like protction or trade goods or technology, something they come running to good ol Uncle Sam for help it's bullshit. and has been that way since the late 40's, nobody has an answer that will make everybody happy.

I hate to say this, liberal that I am, but W. for all his faults, and there are many, is at least experienced at dealing with all this crap. If I thought Kerry could pull it off, He'd have my support and unless I learn something between now and election day to make me think different (and I sincerely hope I do) I gotta vote for W.

Oh and by the way I don't think it;'s unpatriotic in the least to criticize the sitting president, as Americans, it is our privildge and, some would say, our duty to question Washington, but I'm an American citizen sitting on American soil. Were I say, On tour in London, Like 3 country hose beasts I can think of, it would be utterly out of line to be critical of national policies.

[byndrsn]

I don’t remember voting for god in any Presidential election. Now all of a sudden GWB is god’s other son and claims to get guidance to go to war. God must have had sand in his eyes when he told Bush to invade Iraq seeing as how there were no WMD’s. But hey….god said it so it must be ok, right?
!

Cayden,

I would have to investigate further before I comment on any of your other allegations, but I would at least like to comment on your first paragraph.

Why are all the liberals so interested in the weapons of mass destruction? That was Bill Clintons screw up!! Billy allowed the UN to tell us what to do which gave time for the WMD’s to be moved, hidden, sold, who knows!!

This war has nothing to do with those weapons!! We didn’t ask for war. We were attacked on 9/11!! Don’t forget it!!

This may be a stupid analogy, but just suppose you are out playing some night and some asshole, whose upbringing taught him to hate your style of music, starts cutting your mic cables. Would you be pissed? How about if you found out that this idiot was sent to destroy your equipment? What if you found out there was a business who was funding training and transportation to those who would be willing to come and destroy your equipment? What would you do?

Yeah, it is a stretch – but it is what we are talking about. There are people that are willing to give their lives to kill innocent Americans. They are trained to do so. The training is being funded by people like Suddam Hussein. We didn’t start this war, but if we sit and allow the terrorism to continue (like Bill Clinton did), then your freedom (like so many are mentioning on this thread) won’t mean shit.

Urbs

[lonewolf]

He's been costing us Americans jobs since day 1

1. Presidents and politicians don't create or eliminate jobs--employers do--don't let any politicians talk you into believing otherwise.

2. The job decline numbers you see are the elimination of the pseudo-jobs that were created by the internet stock bubble. Those 10 million or so jobs were only there as long as there was enough cash in people's IRAs or 401Ks to keep them afloat. Then the bubble burst. Most of that fiasco happened under Clinton's watch. The snowball was already rolling when Bush took office and nothing was going to stop it.

3. After the 1-2 punch of the internet stock bubble burst and 9/11, we are DAMN LUCKY we are not in a FRIGGIN' DEPRESSION right now.

Personally, I have never had it so good.

[byndrsn]

Oh yeah, there is something else I wanted to say. I saw a couple people elude to problems with jobs and the economy - I found the story that is quoted below on the internet. (I didn't write)


<b> <i> "You probably haven't heard about this yet ... but do you realize that the federal budget deficits are now about $100 billion lower than previously estimated? That's right ... $100 billion lower. Some non-government economists are suggesting that we're about to enter a period of economic growth that rivals the growth we had through the '80s and '90s. Jobs are being created (by private businesses, not by government) at a rapid clip ... and you haven't heard the news. And why not? Because that news doesn't serve the ends of the mainstream media, that's why.

Some mindless people are saying that the only way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is to pull out of Iraq, now. Yeah ... leave Iraq to suffer a bloody and brutal civil war. That's how you win hearts and minds. Cut and run, as America has done so many times in the past. Great idea." </i> </b>

Economic growth that rivals what we had through the 80's and 90's!! That is great news!! For those of you that remember - that was Reganomics at work.

I also want to say - good for you!!! to those who realize Bush is doing a decent job. I don't agree with everything he does (I'm a registered Democrat), but I vote the issues, not the party! I would not have wanted to see Al Gore in office during this time and I really don't want to see Kerry in office who wants to run directly to the U.N.

Okay, I could go on but you all heard more than enough and my lunch break is over.

Urbs

[Imgrimm01]

neither Iraq or saddam had anything to do with 9/11 again just another excuse to cover W's stupid war. If you want to talk scenarios how bout this one.. A country for argumnt sake lets call em ' " NOSEY " decides that we are not treating our people right and they believe we have dangerous weapons that are a threat to them marches down our streets toppling our monuments ,bombing our buildings , killing civilians as well as military personnel, Then they capture our Pres. take him to the city of " NONE YA BUSINESS " and hold him for trial for and all for what ? well they just thought we could be better to our peoplpe and we shouldn't have weapons. You people who are defending Bush would be ready to Kill everyone with a towel on his head and ya know what I would think you were within your rights, BUT that's what we have done in Iraq no if's and's or buts that'e what we ( well not we ) Bush has ordered done. WE HAVE NO REASON OR RIGHT TO BE THERE !!

[byndrsn]

neither Iraq or saddam had anything to do with 9/11 again just another excuse to cover W's stupid war.

You are WRONG! Saddam funded terrorist training. Bottom line.

He funded groups whose only purpose was to kill innocent Americans. That is what terrorists do - kill the innocent (incite terror in the people).

Wake Up!!

[FatVin]

Bobby, C'mon, Everything is just an excuse if you don't like the reason. and I don't wanna kill everybody with a towel on their head, just the ones who want me dead or living in the stone age. Just the ones who insist that they know what I should be reading or thinking.

if a government official or a churchman came to you and said "you're not allowed to read anything but what we say is okay, you can't think anything, say anything, or play your music unless we get approval first" you'd be the first guy grabbing a shot gun and you know it.

If the house across the street is burning do you not try to put the fire out? If you don't, pretty soon your house is on fire. Do you send in someone else's kids to put that fire out ? Yeah, Why? cause the people in the house are someone else's kids too.

Peace for the sake of peace alone and staying out of your neighbors yard is what got us into this mess. your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

The whole "The US can't be the world's policeman" arguement will hold a lot more water when there is another cop on the beat. The other nations won't take out the trash so we have to, else the world will fill up with garbage.

People from other countries come here to make America better and stronger and kinder all the time, They are called immigrants.

[lonewolf]

Can somebody please explain to me the difference between invading Afhanistan who was purported to have al-quaida hiding in their country

and

invading Iraq who was purported to have WMDs and al-quaida hiding in their country?

also

Can somebody please explain to me why all of a sudden countries like Libya, who support(ed) terrorism, are suddenly bending over to kiss our collective ass?

[RobTheDrummer]

You guys are missing the point about Iraq. Saddam has used WMDs on Iran and his own people in the past. They found links to terrorism and even some terrorists were trained in Iraq. Just imagine if we would keep appeazing Saddam. He would eventually get terrorists certain weapons that we would not want them to have. Saddam also broke 18 UN resolutions and what did they do about it? That shows that they are worthless. Another reason, which is a huge reason is to establish a democracy right in the middle of the middle east. In between Iran and Syria. Democracy is the best thing for these people, and it will only spread once the rest of the M.E. sees what it can do for your country.

Ok, now we know Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11. Well, if I understand correctly, the Germans didn't attack us in WW2 either. But guess who we went after first, the Germans. Then we got the Japs later. If we sat back and beat the Japs and let the Germans do whatever they wanted, every europian nation would be speaking german now. And we get no thanks from any Europian Nations.

Bush has done nothing but help out the economy. He was litterally handed an economy that was falling apart from Bill Clinton and also handed a huge terrorism problem. Now if you ask me- if you don't have a job, then you aren't looking hard enough. I was laid off from work from Clinton's NAFTA agreement(which is one reason we lost so many jobs) and I went to school. I got out of school and found a job right away, it wasn't in my field, but I took it because I had to get by. I quit that job and got another job(in my field) immediately. Didn't have to go on unemployment or anything. Come on people, it's all about being lazy or disabled if you don't work. One thing I hate the Libs saying is that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's BS! Did you ever watch the History Channel? Ever see any footage of what it was like during 1929 and early 30's? God, we don't know how good we have it in these times of depression. It makes me laugh for crying out loud! The economy right now is doing great. Norfolk Southern is starting to do some hiring. Jobs are coming back. I hate when Libs start comparing things that are not comparable.

[bassist_25]

The problem with the economic crisis, is that people are looking at it from a purely stastical point of view. Let's face it, the 55 year old who lost his/her job is in deeper shit than the 25 year old. That 25 year old has plenty of time to go back to college and start a second career. The 55 year old isn't so lucky, and will probaly finish out his remaining years working fast food because it's an industry that isn't ageist. (or racist, or sexist, or nepotistic like so many other businesses are) We can sit and bitch about manufacturing moving to third world countries, but at the end of the day, we have to face the facts; and the facts are that the economy is shifting from manufacturing to service. That's all well and good for younger people like myself, or even people in their 30's, but middle aged and older people are probaly going to have a hard time with the transisition.

There's really no easy solution. Imposing tariffs/embargos on products made abroad is just going to drive up the price of local products. Preventing companies from outsourcing would destroy free trade. I'm opposed to subsidies because they show favortisim and destroy competition. Though I wouldn't be opposed to subsidies in an extreme emergency. (i.e. to stimulate an economy headed towards a depression, or to stimulate manufacturing during war time) I think it comes down to supporting small business.

[lonewolf]

One thing I hate the Libs saying is that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's BS!

This isn't even the worst economy since the last worst economy, which is what they were saying with Bush Sr. in 1992. Both the Bush's "recessions" only lasted the bare minimum of the definition of a recession...2 quarters.

The unemployment rate in the post-Vietnam 1970s was generally above 6.4% and the BEST it ever got was 5.6% for a brief moment. During the ensuing 1981-82 recession (16 months long), unemployment jumped to 11% yeah, thats right...11%

By comparison, the recent 2 quarter recession resulted in a peak unemployment rate of 6.4% for a brief moment and it has returned to a modest 5.6%. Where'd I see those numbers before?

Oh yeah, CNN reported that 5.6% was LOW unemployment...in 1996 when Clinton was running for re-election against Bob Dole. Hmmm I wonder why they think 5.6% is high now?

In my experience, we haven't had a truly bad economy since 1982.

[tom]

Bush....an arrogant prick??? Sure he is... Because that is what is required at this point in time. Like him or hate him, you have to admire a person who says what he means, and means what he says..

I am amazed at the level of hatred people have for Bush. They would vote for Osama, or Saddam if they thought it would get W out of the White House.

I do not think that all republicans are evil puppets controlled by big business, or that all democrats are socialist tree huggers....

Like Vin said you can control the outcome on election day... Just vote with your minds, not with your emotions

[SMFreak]

Rob... think about what you said...not everyone has your luck in the job department...First of all think about your age when you got laid off, where you were living, how much were your monthly bills & mortgage payments, did you have to support a wife and any kids,(no reply necessary). All I'm saying is it's not always as cut and dry as in your situation. It's not always about being lazy or disabled...It's about being qualified for the position you're going after more than the other 150 people applying for that same position

[songsmith]

NAFTA was a gift to the Republicans, to try and get a healthcare plan in return. NOT ONE single ranking Republican politician has complained about it, even a little. My job at C-Cor in Tipton went to Tijuana, MX... for about a year. It helped a guy named Juan buy a tin shack, paid him $2 an hour, then closed when it was found that Chiang, a guy in the People's Republic, would work for $.80 an hour. And I've heard rumors that Awapinda in New Delhi will work for $1.20 A DAY. No way I could compete with people eating rats and living in cardboard boxes, man. But hey, the CEO needed a new yacht, so the Central PA work ethic be damned. I feel sorry for my friends over 50, who, 3 years later, are still out of work. Much of the Official unemployment numbers are misleading because they only count people ACTIVELY LOOKING for work. As an employer, would YOU hire someone who's just a few years from retirement, who worked the same job for 30-odd years, and therefore has limited experience in anything but building products? The problem with a service economy is that not everyone can be servants. Somebody has to buy something, and somebody has to make something. And rich people stay rich.
The biggest glaring flaw I see with Reaganomics, the "trickle down" theory, is human nature itself. Trickle down was based on the idea that if the rich were given certain benefits and tax breaks, they would create more jobs, and stimulate economic growth. But it sidestepped a huge problem: greed. Rich people get to be rich and stay rich by hanging on to their moolah. They will not pay you anymore to do a job that the least amount you are willing to take for that job. To someone in the upper 5% of income, the people in the middle are both the biggest resource (they buy most of the goods and services) and the biggest threat (they expect to be remunerated for the work they do, at a fair rate... poor folks take what's available, and try to live on that) For this system to work, rich folks gotta stay rich, or get richer. That's greed. The same reason Communism didn't work. You can't have a utopian society, working towards a common goal, because it's really every man for himself, when it's all said and done. It's biological, it's in our DNA... in order for the strong to survive, somebody has to be weak, and nobody wants to be the weak one.
Wow... was that a diatribe? I must be getting old, I've never done a political diatribe! ----->JMS

[bassist_25]

John, those are all great points. My father was one of the casualities of the C-Cor outsourcing. He was probaly 50 or 51 when the axe came down, and he experieced all of the trials you spoke of. He even went out to Hazleton (a place in PA that still has a sizable manufucturing/warehouse industry) and was turned down for jobs there. (and he has years of manufucturing and forklift experience) He finally decided to say "Screw it" and is starting his own business. The problem with this area, is the two industries that propped it up, coal and railroading, have since dried up. State College's economy is held up by the school and some tech industry, but other than that, there's nothing else much around here. There's an industrial park in Philipsburg that, to my surprise, has a few fledgling factories/warehouses. I would go to guess that each probaly recieved over a thousand resumes when they opened.

Any respected economist will tell you that supply side economics don't work. Which is why I kind of rolled my eyes when I heard about the tax breaks. (I believe in a flat tax rate, but I wonder if that will be possible with the current deficit) Communism isn't fair because people are never paid "what they are worth", and cannot take charge of their destiny. Capitalism isn't fair because payment is not based on skill level, but on availability and demand. I'm a big fan of capitalism, but there really does need to be some reform to preserve the integrity of free trade. Personally, I wonder what it would be like to use socialistic means to achieve a capitalistic end. By that I mean, free college for everyone. Where would the money come, you ask. Simple, let's get rid of some asinine laws, such as imprisonment for minor drug offenses (where it cost roughly 25,500 a year to keep someone in prison, and in some states it is more) and invest that money into free education. I know what you're saying now, "But Paul, mostly anyone can get grants and Stafford loans to go to college now". Yeah, but try going to Princeton or Harvard on some grants and a Stafford loan. If you go to an ivy league school, you are going to have more oppurtunities than someone who went to a small university. Why should those born into wealthy families be given privledge by recieving a more prestigous education? Free education would limit exclusiveness on schooling, provide a quality education to those who deserve it, and therefore they will become an asset to the capitalistic system.

And I know it sounds like typical libby rhetoric, but I think it's true; maybe we should look into why the terrorist hate us so much. And don't give me any of that "They hate us for our freedom" crap. They hate us because we kiss Israelis' ass. It's almost like that father who raises a bully son, but really doesn't care. When that son comes home suspended from school for fighting, he doesn't get punished. Palestine isn't a saint by anymeans, but quit acting like Israeli is the "good son". I'm just waiting for the time when Saudia Arabia stabs us in the back. (and they will, if given the chance, trust me)

Well, enough of my diatribe.

[lonewolf]

Any respected economist will tell you that supply side economics don't work.

Only liberal economists will tell you that. It is unfortunate that supply side economics have never been completely and properly employed. The spending side eventually has to be cut along with the taxes. It is no coincidence that we haven't had a serious economic downturn since 1982.

Pennsylvania industry is dying because of the 10% corporate state income tax. Ask US Steel, Gulf Oil, well, you get the idea--all gone. No corporations want to relocate or even stay here with that kind of punitive taxation. Its always worse here than just about everywhere else.

Anytime you get government out of the way, the private sector will be more efficient.

[FatVin]

We work with Israel because for the duration of the cold war, they were the only friend we had in the region, the despots who ran the middle eastern nations couldn't give a rats ass about Communism vs. Democracy as long as they kept power, Saddam, the Shah, the Egyptians, all those guys were lining their own pockets, You know what happened to Saddam, The Shah was over thrown in '79 and Sadat was killed in 80 (I think), not because they supported the commies or dealt with us but because the people who are in charge there now wanted power, just power, naked power,

They all screamed like stuck goats (Muslims don't do pork) when Moscow invaded Afganistan and they all secretly helped the US because it was in their interest to do so. The Saudi's too and you're right they've alrealy shanked us a couple of times and they will again, not because of oil, or us interfereing or Islam, or even Israel really, Israel is just a convenient target,

what it's really about is riling up the masses to distract them from the fact that the sheiks and mullahs are living like hip-hop stars and the average Abdul doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

Th Governments of these nations didn't want communism in, any more than they want democracy and for the same reason, loss of personal power,

They know what it'll mean when Iraq is a true republic and it scares them shitless, that's why the Governements of Libya and Syria and the Saudi's are secretly funding OBL and these other nuts, they were happy to see Saddam go, casue he was dangerous but Democracy out where their starving masses can see it, they can't allow it. That's what the Muslim fundamental movement is really all about, greed.

It IS about freedom but with an agenda

[songsmith]

I'm all for a flat-rate income tax. Everybody pays the same percentage, say 21-22% like I pay, NO loopholes, NO shelters, not even charity breaks... give from your heart, not your accountants. Anyone who does not pay gets stripped of their assets and starts the game over. On the plus side, once you pay this tax, that is ALL you pay on that money. You don't get taxed again because you banked it. You don't get taxed again because you spend it. Everybody pays, even the wealthy.
As to the original discussion, of course an election year brings both undeserved kudos and undeserved attacks on all candidates. The Bush campaign has double the financial resources of the opposition, and sure can whip up an attack ad, but the Kerry group kinda deserves some of it, I just don't think he's the cat to be president.
Speaking of which, who would you all vote for, if you could choose anybody? Now don't let this devolve into votes for Pamela Anderson, seriously speaking, who do you think could really lead the USA to victory in the War on Terror, and help solve our economic and social woes?--->JMS

[FatVin]

Seriuosly? Colin Powel for Pres and Condoleeza Rice for VP, that outght to piss off the KKK but really these are good smart people who have the sense NOT to run

[bassist_25]

I'm all for a flat-rate income tax. Everybody pays the same percentage, say 21-22% like I pay, NO loopholes, NO shelters, not even charity breaks... give from your heart, not your accountants.

Speaking of charity, that kind of reminds me of ultra-libertarians such as Robert Nozick who believe a country can be run without taxation and all public services should be financed through donations. The thing he's forgetting though is, often times the reason an organization donates money to charities is for the tax write-off.

I agree though, I seriously don't think Kerry is the man for the job. It's a pretty grim election, and I'll probaly wind up voting for Nader. If I could vote for anyone, I would have to go with the Colin Powell card also. I really wish he would run. I just wish that people would get their priorities straight and base their voting on real issues; not on who's a veteran or irrelevant stuff like that.

[byndrsn]

Even though I said earlier that the WMDs should not be an issue - the real issue is taking down the terrorists... here is a web site you should visit regarding the WMDs.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/s ... sp#photo01

Also, the last line of the article says it all:
"the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

[esa]

I don't claim to be indepth with anything political or anything like that. But I do have my own opinion about all of this.

I think that George W. Is doing the best he possibly can under circumstances given. I think he's doing a helluva better job than then Clinton was doing. I'm not going to talk about his sexual affairs or what not. That has nothing to do with being a president. But I'm saying that he just didn't do justice to the job he was elected to have.

George W. has stood well on his feet for all the circumstances he's gone through since election. How would you or any other person have acted if, shortly after you start an office, boom! People are trying to kill your fellow countrymen and threatoning your family, children and friends? I would have grabbed a shot gun and took a walk.

He's not the reason we have jobs or don't have jobs. I'm sorry, he's not a scape goat. You and I will go to Wal*Mart or K*mart or etc before going to Tommy Hillfigir or Calvin Cline for things. To save money. Who wants to pay $80 for the exact same thing you can get for $25? It's our whole perogative. Get the most bang for your buck. Employers are no different. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying...well, it happens. So, talk to your global job giants. See what they're going to do to raise job percentage in the area.

That's really all I have to say about this. The man is doing the best he can (he does not write his speeches, people are hired for that!). So back off and see the results. And before you start saying about him not doing dik about WMD or anything like that, read up on it and get some info to back your opinions. Don't vote a letter (D, R, or N), vote for whatever will better your nation. Go to rallies. Meet the people you want in charge.

[RobTheDrummer]

It's pretty bad when we cannot win a war because we have to please the media. I bet other countries are laughing at us because we are trying to win a war against a bunch of scum suckers and the media shows nothing but negative images and every slip up there is. We fight amongst ourselves because of this crap and it has to stop. Republicans or Democrats need to come together about the issue of fighting terrorists and taking the fight to their soil. We can argue about the regular old issues later, but not in time of war. We'll never ever win another war if the media continues to persistently bash every little thing..it's war man, it's tough and hard and hell. Lets let our military take care of it and keep the media out of it.

[songsmith]

I agree on that point, Rob. I'm already sick to death of the Abu Ghraib pictures. Yes, it happened, and should be brought to light, but the ENTIRE world has seen them now. The media doesn't appear to care how inflammatory the pictures are, considering we STILL HAVE PEOPLE on the ground in Iraq. Today there were even more pictures. That has to stop. National and troop security must trump the media's "right" to disclose... especially since CBS doesn't operate their news division for free, they get paid.---->JMS