Cassandra,

"...in order for there to be American 'will' for all the slaughter they intend, in order to secure the world's oil supply for the British and American oil companies that so lavishly support them."
Here we go with the it's all about oil charade. Saudi Arabia has over two times as much oil as Iran and Iraq combined. Kuwait and UAE have similar reserves as Iraq. If it was all about domination of energy resources, shouldn't we have invaded Saudi Arabia? Or at least Kuwait and UAE - they would would have been A LOT easier to do than Iraq. And i wonder if Canada, at number 2 on the list, is keeping one eye open at night?

PNAC says they want to do the following. How this translates to "toppling half the world's governments" is beyond me. PNAC is dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. As such, they believe:
- we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
- we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
- we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
- we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Strong defense, looking out for our self interests and trying to propagate freedom - what are they thinking!

Alan: I was not aware of the time required, and will give some thought to the DoD job with that in mind. The VP pick has me re-thinking also in that Va. will depend a lot on F/Gov. Warner, shoud John retire from the Senate, I think it is likely he will run for the Senate seat, otherwise I think the VP pick will be him or Byah. Gore would be a good pick for EPA, but I doubt he would be offered the job, much less take it.

Clark can't go to DoD. He must be out of the military for at least 10 years to become SecDef, and he retired in 2001.

If Clark's at the top of the ticket, he would definitely win a few southern states... in a similar manner as Jim Webb, who also sports hefty military credentials.

Lyle says "I cannot, at this time, see any of the southern states except Va. in the dem column."

and I reply - that's because your candidate does not have much appeal to white Southerners. Her husband did, but she's not her husband.

Stop the presses! Lyle is re-thinking his Cabinet picks. Candidates wait anxiously on the edges of their seats, hanging on all sounds and syllables lylesque so as to learn The Truth.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

Alan: I Like Wes Clark as well and think he would be great at DoD. My Cabinet picks are posted on 26 Mar 07 here and I have doubts about a couple of them. The 288 total include Fl. and Ca. and I will be taking another look in a week or so but they are mainly west coast, upper east coast, and middle north. I cannot, at this time, see any of the southern states except Va. in the dem column.

lylepink, I'm not knocking your candidate, but the only two Democrats to win presidential elections in the past 40 years were little-known southern governors.

History indicates that the electoral map will not likely be kind to most other types of candidates, so I'm a little surprised by your 288 electoral tally.

For full disclosure, the one I want to run is Wes Clark. I think he gives the Democrats the best chance of winning, and their ONLY chance of significantly expanding the party.

Uh thick cloud caught uh piper clubs tail
The match struck blue on uh railroad rail
The old puff horse was just pullin' thru
'n uh man wore uh peg leg forever
I'm on the bum where the hoboes run
The air breaks with filthy chatter
Oh I don't care there's no place there
I don't think it matters
My skin's blazin' thru
'n my clothes in tatters
'n the railroad looked
Like uh "Y" up the hill of ladders
Ohe shoe fell on the gravel
One stick poked down
Gray of age fell down on uh pair of ears
An eagle shined thru my hole watch pocket
Uh gingham girl baby girl
Passed me by in tears
Uh jack rabbit raised his folded ears
Uh beautiful sagebrush jack rabbit
'n an oriole sang like an orange
His breast full uh worms
'n his tail clawed the evenin' like uh hammer
His wings took t' air like uh bomber
'n my rain can caught me uh cup uh water
When I got into town
Odd jobs mam ah yer horse I'll fodder
I'm the round house man
I once was yer father
Uh little up the road uh wooden
Candy stripe barber pole
'n above it read uh sign "Painless Parker"
Lic-licorice twisted around under uh fly
'n uh youngster cocked 'er eye
God before me if I'm not crazy
Is my daughter
Come little one with yer little dimpled fingers
Gimme one 'n I'll buy you uh cherry phosphate
Take you down t' the foamin' brine 'n water
'n show you the wooden tits
On the Goddess with the pole out s'full sail
That tempted away yer peg legged father
I was shanghaied by uh high hat beaver moustache man
'n his pirate friend
I woke up in vomit 'n beer in uh banana bin
'n uh soft lass with brown skin
Bore me seven babies with snappin' black eyes
'n beautiful ebony skin
'n here it is I'm with you my daughter
Thirty years away can make uh seaman's eyes
Uh round house man's eyes flow out water
Salt water

Lyle, we here at The Hidden Vote would like to inform you that no matter what suspicions you have about the way we will vote, we intend to keep hiding our vote from YOU as well. Never mind what some members of our organization, who may have to seemed to confide their support of Hillary to you, have said. In order to fulfill our charter, we who have signed it in blood must hide our preferences from everyone, you included. Some of us might support Hillary. However, some may have been deceptive in their clues, and may be supporters of Obama. I personally know of one small but vocal group of Hidden Voters who, from hiding, let slip a clue or two which indicated that they had just simultaeiously spoken to you and made an on-line donation to the Gravel campaign. Oh, those guys!
So the moral is, Lylie, ask not from whom the vote is hidden. It is hidden from thee, and Juliet is the sun.

Peace out!

"I stated a loss by Hillary of less than 15% could be taken very well, since Edwards has been there long and often."

Gee, lyle, it sounds like you're making excuses. If Hillary does not win Iowa, she will no longer be considered "the frontrunner" - a riduculous label at this point anyway.

Iowa poll has Edwards 29%, Obama 23%, and Hillary at 21%. Remember I stated a loss by Hillary of less than 15% could be taken very well, since Edwards has been there long and often. I can spin too, although I would rather stick to facts.

MikeB: Polls can be used in many ways, for or against. The book/books you mention are but another way for opponents of Hillary to try and bring her down. From what I have read and heard most of these are nothing new, and I don't pay much attention to them. You have been all over the place about you being a dem and have nothing good to say about any dem that I can recall. From the start I have been the lone supporter of Hillary here with few exceptions. Iowa and NH has been pointed out several times as to their importance, and I am only saying that has been diminished a little by the change to early voting in February by so many states. My calculations has the 08 nominee all but selected then, and Hillary will be the dems choice. This is not to say it is a sure thing, but I honestly think it is going to happen.

'The blueprint for our current foreign policy was being written back in 1992 by then-Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney. His writings set out a new doctrine that called for U.S. power in the twentieth century, to be that of an aggressive and unilateral approach that would secure American dominance of world affairs by force. This "peace through strength" policy has been unfolding from the day Bush, Jr. took office; the strategic planning of it was done during the Clinton administration with funding from the military-industrial complex, energy companies, and right-wing foundations [who themselves are funded by gilded age families like the Mellon Scaifes]. Over time, those working on these new plans evolved into PNAC, established in 1997 with members Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz at the helm. May God help us!

In September 2000, the PNAC updated and refined Cheney's original version into a new report entitled: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" calling for unprecedented hikes in military spending, American military bases in Central Asia, Central America, and the Middle East, toppling of non-complying regimes, abrogation of international treaties, control of the world's energy sources, militarization of outer space, total control of cyberspace, and the willingness to use nuclear weapons to achieve "American" goals. This plan by the neo-conservative or neo-con think tank, PNAC, shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and says the U.S. for decades has sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security, revealing that a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure a regime change was planned even before Bush took power in January, 2001. The lengthy blueprint for U.S. global domination can be accessed at http://cryptome.org/rad.htm.'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html

;Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they call "total war" -- the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends.

Recently Perle commented on America's 'war on terrorism': "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Members of PNAC are so self-assured they are advancing America's best interests that they publish policy papers specifically outlining their plans, plans that lay the groundwork for a third world war.'

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

In short, they are completely insane. 'Our children will sing great songs about us..'' Whatever children might be left, if any. Just completely freaking insane. And they are running our government, running it to hell.

'The neo-cons saw Iraq as their opportunity to remake the ME post 9-11. '

Sorry, clueless Davel -- the neocons had intended to 'remake the ME' for quite some time before 9/11-- see 'Project for a New American Century, circa 1996. Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Lieberman, all were [and still are] drooling for 'increased American militarism' and the toppling of the half the world's governments -- to be replaced by american puppets, like the Shah or Iran or Saddam was, before he got independent.

In fact, they were begging for an attack on American soil ['another Pearl Harbor'] BEFORE 9/11 -- hoping for lots of American deaths -- in order for there to be American 'will' for all the slaughter they intend, in order to secure the world's oil supply for the British and American oil companies that so lavishly support them.

They truly do not care how many Americans die. Nor do you. Chickenhawks lack any sort of human feeling except bloodlust.

lylepink, You're reading push polls, inventions of the Clinton campaign. The most recent mainstream polls of registered voters (Zogby, USA Today, ABC, etc.) show Clinton's negatives fixed at aound 48%. That's nearly half of the voters, people who wont vote for her no matter what. Those same polls show her getting no more than 40% of the popular vote in a general election. Even 25% of registered Democrats wont vote for her. Basicly, she can't win, its a statistical impossibility. Moreover, with the recent spate of books about her politics and personality being published - and I am thinking of the Bernstein book, a really good and accurate and well researched book and another by a couple of investigative reporters from the New York Times, I expect her negatives to climb above 50%...and stay there. If you are wedded to the idea of a woman President, you have Nancy Polosi and no one else. Forget Clinton. She is nothing so much as Bush in drag anyways.

Alan: Just saw your question, and I didn't check the W/L by Gore and Kerry. Sometime back I went over the Electoral College and came up with 288 for Hillary in 08, and a quick review a week or so ago was the same over twenty some states. This was based on trends, polls, and other factors such as a feeling that I have, like you know something but really don't, and cannot explain the reason.

Cassandra - I never said I supported Thompson. I don't. He is 180 degrees opposite of my positions on universal health care, choice, gay rights, need controls on guest workers, needed corporate comtrols, etc. I don't have any diea of where he stands on gun control, but hat tnds to be the one issue Republican's and I agree on (I'm opposed to any new gun control laws nd would rpeal most of the ones we have now.) I Do think he wold be a forminable opponet for any Democratic candidate and I do expect him to be the Republican candidate in the upcoming election. He is simply too much like Reagan to discount, apparently a fundimentally decent man with a lot of hairbrained conservative ideas.

JimD in FL,
"Gore would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 when the Taliban failed to hand over bin Laden. I cannot imagine any US president not doing so." I can imagine Carter not invading. I'd like to think that Gore would have but i really don't know.

"The neo-cons had consistently criticized Clinton for not being more forceful against Iraq and many had spoken or written in favor of military action during the '90's." And deservedly so. He allowed Saddam to skirt the UN resolutions for years. The neo-cons saw Iraq as their opportunity to remake the ME post 9-11. Saddam was the perfect stooge. It would allow the US to establish a bulkhead for democracy in the ME plus removed a barbaric dictator at the same time.

Cassandra,
I am shocked, SHOCKED to find politicans hanging out with lobbyists!. All successful politicians on both sides hang with lobbyists and i guess that is ok. But lobbyists themselves, well that's a different story. Shoot the messenger. I guess to use your words, you don't want the prostitute running the nation but the john can.

Now whether the corporate tax rate in this country is the highest in the world or nearly the lowest is really beside the point. People seem to be under the impression that if corporations pay taxes, that means less money out of Joe Citizens pocket. But it's really just a hidden tax on Joe - and a very insideous one at that. If you think that the taxes corporations pay are not reflected in the pricing of their product or service or that the CEO's or corporations pay those taxes out of pocket, you're high. Say I am typing this on a PC i bought from Best Buy. Now when i purchased it, the price I paid for it included the cost of the corporate tax that Best Buy had to pay. So they may not have paid 35% but they did pay something. How did i hear about the PC? Though advertising. And BB paid the advertiser their rate that included their corp tax. The computer is an HP. When BB bought it from HP, HP's price included the corp tax. HP might have shipped it via UPS who's rate included their corp tax. Now HP bought the processor from Intel and Intel probably paid some mining company to get the silicon and they all paid corp taxes. ALL of those taxes wind up being paid by the consumer who buys the PC. But in the Democrats world, having a corporation pay taxes is like giving you and me a free lunch.

"'Despite Thompson's "folksy" appeal, his campaign team is a who's who of Washington insiders and corporate execs." Having a "folksy" appeal has nothing to do with who is working on your campaign and where they are from. Portraying yourself as an "outsider" might. But I would expect somebody running for president to have people knowledgable in the ways of Washington on their team.

Finally on Fred's wife. Dennis Kucinich 60, Elizabeth 29, Dennis' 3rd wife, Elizabeth hot, Dennis not.

lylepink, which states do you have Hillary winning that Gore or Kerry couldn't get?

Gore would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 when the Taliban failed to hand over bin Laden. I cannot imagine any US president not doing so. I doubt that he would have subsequently diverted resources to invading Iraq with the Afghan situation still unsettled.

Remember that the neo-cons had an obsession with Sadaam. Bush pressed Richard Clarke right after 9/11 to find evidence that Sadaam was responsible. The neo-cons had consistently criticized Clinton for not being more forceful against Iraq and many had spoken or written in favor of military action during the '90's. The changed environment post 9/11 gave them an opportunity to make a more plausible case to the American people.

Clinton did order cruise missile strikes against suspected terrorist sites which were ridiculed by leading Republicans in Congress who were more interested in impeaching him at the time.

lylepink, really? I had no idea.

Cassandra: Forgot to ask. Who is your favorite at this time?? Everyone knows mine is Hillary.

Cassandra: Today you have a good summing up of what is going around. I'm suprised that the Hillary haters are not out in force as yet, maybe the polls, which I don't give much credit at this time, are showing her gaining and has an almost sure lock on the early ones in February, which I have counted, along with later ones, and have an Electoral College vote of 288. I did this earlier and am getting the same results. If, and this is a big "IF" my predictions are accurate, Hillary will be the dem choice for 08 and on to POTUS.

'Rep. Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.), one of Fred Thompson's boosters on the Hill, recently suggested the actor/senator/lobbyist would make a good president, in part because of his speaking voice.

"He has a commanding voice," Wamp said. "He has a commanding presence. He makes people feel secure. He makes us feel confident."

Sen. George "Macaca" Allen (remember him?) apparently feels the same way. (via Steve M.)

Former Sen. George Allen is bullish about former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, the actor who hasn't even gotten into the 2008 presidential race yet.

Thompson has the right philosophy, is articulate, has a record and is "the best voice in America," Allen, a Virginia Republican, told a lecture series audience yesterday.

He likened Thompson's voice to that of a "modern-day Rex Allen," drawing a reference to a now-deceased cowboy actor.

It's good to know substantive qualities weigh heavily on the minds of GOP leaders.

On a related note, interest in Mitt Romney's appearance is apparently still high among conservative political observers, with the Politico's Roger Simon applauding Romney for having "shoulders you could land a 737 on."

This, of course, follows Bill O'Reilly praising Romney's jaw and hair, and NewsMax celebrating the former Massachusetts governor's "sensational good looks."

The moral of the story: if a Republican candidate looked like Romney and sounded like Thompson, they could call off the primaries and give the guy the nomination. They might be tempted to ask this amalgamation a few questions about issues, but why bother?'

-sure sounds like a lotta R pundits have a man crush on Mitt and Fred... I mean, 'shoulders you could land a 737 on' -- most teenaged girls would be embarrassed to say anything that fawning.

More:

'Despite Thompson's "folksy" appeal, his campaign team is a who's who of Washington insiders and corporate execs. Until recently his campaign manager-to-be, Tom Collamore, was a top tobacco industry exec at Altria (formerly Philip Morris). His division, according to the Center for Media and Democracy, has "been responsible for implementing countermeasures to combat public health efforts to control tobacco...and PM programs to enact 'tort reform', head off increased cigarette taxes and thwart legislated smoking restrictions."

Another top Thompson staffer is Tim Griffin, the RNC operative who Karl Rove recently installed as US Attorney for Eastern Arkansas as part of Attorneygate.

His spokesman is Mark Corallo, the former press flack for Karl Rove during the Scooter Libby trial.

The man who organized a Thompson conference call this week, Ken Rietz, is a top exec at the PR firm Burson-Marsteller. Rietz, as Rick Perlstein notes, once spied on Ed Muskie's presidential campaign on behalf of Richard Nixon in 1972 as part of "Operation Sedan Chair."

And though it's unrelated to his corporate past and present, it's worth mentioning (since we're talking about the GOP primary) that Thompson's second wife and key political counselor, Jeri, is 25 years his junior and younger than the kids from his first marriage.'

Nice talking to you Mark and FH- hope you're enjoying the weekend. MikeB--this is something I thought you would like to know. ?Sorry for the long post but it's important that it be out there and I doubt the WaPo will report it... people need to know that there is no bigger corporate wh*re than Thompson [with the possible exception of Dick Cheney] and if you REALLY want to see this country slide into a bottomless hole of national debt so deep we will never climb out, he's just your guy:

'USA Today finally breaks the national media silence about the one-third of Fred Thompson's life that he spent as a high-paid corporate lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Thompson's campaign, which is being run by his fellow K Street lobbyists, responded by saying only that being a K Street lobbyist "is an honorable endeavor that goes back to the beginnings of this republic." I love this pathetic attempt to liken corporate lobbying right up there on the "honorable" scale with George Washington heroically crossing the Delaware.

What's funny is that you could say a lot of things "go back to the beginning of this republic." Prostitution, as just one example, "goes back to the beginning of this republic." But that doesn't mean you want a prostitute - sexual or corporate - running the nation.

Not surprisingly, the National Association of Manufacturers has a post on its blog trumpeting Thompson's first major policy declaration: His decision to make enacting new corporate tax breaks the centerpiece of his campaign.

Here's what he declared on CNBC:

"We have, you know--if you include state taxes--the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That makes us less competitive. All those things have to be looked at. And all those--especially as far as the corporate tax rate is concerned, need to be clearly reduced."

The claim that America has "the highest corporate tax rate in the world," of course, is a lie handed to Thompson from corporate-backed front groups like the Cato Institute. Here's what I documented in Hostile Takeover:

"Groups like the Cato Institute and Americans for Tax Reform, which are funded by some of America's wealthiest corporations, have for years pushed to eliminate all corporate taxes. They claim 'the federal government takes 35 percent' of corporate income for taxes, that such a rate is the fourth highest in the industrialized world, and therefore oppresses U.S. companies and hurts the economy. Yes, it is true, the official corporate tax rate in America is 35 percent. It is also true, however, that because of lax enforcement, loopholes and evasion, most corporations never come close to paying that rate. As the Government Accountability Office reported in 2004, 94 percent of corporations pay less than 5 percent of their income in taxes, and corporate tax payments are at their second lowest level in 60 years - lower than in every other industrialized country other than Iceland."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/fred-thompson-k-street_b_51415.html

A Romney win, even if the others do not participate, will be a plus to a certain extent. Why? Because there are plenty (the majority??) of people who will see the headline 'Romney wins' and never notice who he did or didn't run against.

Before you folks start going ga ga over Thompson I think you'd better ask him what he ever decided about or ever accomplished during his time in the Senate. Recently he was asked just that in an interview and he couldn't remember a thing.
Folks that because he never did accomplish a thing and in fact made a habit of leaving work early. That's a fact....

I don't know if you're being delussional or if it's a case of wishful thinking, but Thompson is very mych for real. McCain, especially in light of his alliance with Kennedy in the failed immigration legislation and ensuing fiasco, is toast. Gulianni is too libral for most Republican's and isn't seen as "moral" enough by the social conservatives and the Fundimentalists. Romney, for all of his Mormon money, is completely unacceptable to most Fundimentalists; they will never vote for him. Those churches have been running The God Makers for years and it's too late to turn 180 on that. So, Thompson is all there is. Thompson would be a formidable candidate, too. His politics are very Reagan traditional conservative and he, personally, doesn't appear to have any skeletons in his closet. Beyond that, his Hollywood good looks, his considerable acting talent and being just plain smart, means he will simply blow away any oponent I see on either the Republican or Democratic side. Now, I'm a liberal and a rather diguntled Democrat, but I could see Thompson eating Clinton or Obama for lunch. There is a long ways to go before the election and lots of time before the primaries. Thompson woul be the logical choice for the Republican's and I'll bet you lunch he is their nonimee.

If Thompson does make a serious effort in Ames (and probably won't) it will show clearly that the only people really interested in a Thompson campaign are the people inside the Beltway, nothing more.

no. not Paris.

I like the restoring our honor part.

Get back on topic. Let's elect Barack.

Go Get 'em Chi town!

What's next? Paris Hilton as Thompson's veep?

THis is a joke. Plain out-and-out push journalism.

Thompson has as much chance to be president as I have of being the next Polish Pope.

We need someone who will restore this Poor Old Republic's Honor after 8 years of abuse by the current occupant.

If the US is the beacon of hope to the World, how long will it take is to repait the damage to our constitution by the Current Occupant, Dick Cheney, and thier current cast of political appointees.

I know that Dubya admires the 'Chicago Way'. I just never thought he would carry it to raising "hired trucks" to the national level.

Where is Fitz when we need him????

THis is a joke. Plain out-and-out push journalism.

Thompson has as much chance to be president as I have of being the next Polish Pope.

We need someone who will restore this Poor Old Republic's Honor after 8 years of abuse by the current occupant.

If the US is the beacon of hope to the World, how long will it take is to repait the damage to our constitution by the Current Occupant, Dick Cheney, and thier current cast of political appointees.

I know that Dubya admires the 'Chicago Way'. I just never thought he would carry it to raising "hired trucks" to the national level.

Where is Fitz when we need him????

Look at this recent piece of news from Iowa.

The voters want Condi, Fred, and Newt to run. That is very interesting.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/NEWS/70519030/1001

Cassandra - In Afghanistan, Bush had U.S. mountain troops actuaslly trap Bin Laudin and his people in the mountains between that country and Pakistan. For some bizzarre reason, then, he pulled the U.S. troops and left it to some Northern tribesmen irrulars to go in and finish Bin Laudin off. Bin Laudin, of course, escaped. There are plenty of other examples of CIA drones, looking for Bin Laudin and shooting up the countryside in Afghanistan. So, incompetent and stupid Bush and his boys may be, but they still have/are trying to get Bin Laudin. Who knows, they might get lucky ad actually kill him. My bet is on the next President getting Bin Laudin. I think Bush and Cheney are simply too married to their unworkable polcies and micromanage the Pentagon and the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan to the extent that they cannot and will not do anything but create more of a disaster. (And, all of this begs the question of whether we ought to be doing anything over there to begin with. If we had worked smart at making friends in the Middle East, Bin Laudin and his gang would already be dead or in custody.)

Cassandra -

The only strike against OBL I know of was Clinton's. I thought that is what I said. I think Bush testified that he had asked his NSA and DOD for strike opportunities but never got one. I think Clinton and Berger testified they got only the one opportunity.

I have not gone back to my dog eared copy of the Report, however. Have a great weekend!

Who cares whom is vote in as running for Republican representive for President ! They still will not win the Presidential election! So who cares!

Mark, agreed on the lack of "Hawks" in his (Gore's) admin., however post 9/11 its hard to say. I would continue to assert that the biggest possible reason for him to have invaded Iraq would have been to take away the weak on foreign policy label that the GOP would have tried to pin on him in 04.

Cassandra - I think what Bush was doing was downplaying the importance of one man, and trying to play-up the importance of changing the culture of the entire region. I still would argue that many liberal thinkers, including Tom Friedman, initially concluded that the spread of democracy could be a nice long term solution to the culture of terror in the Mid-East. Simply put, I'm trying to establish that Bush is not evil or stupid, but that he was just a man who made some bad choices and that perhaps a dem may have made similar choices. Take it for what its worth...have a great weekend.

By the way, nice debating...you came to the table prepared, I'll give you that.

Mark in Austin: can you show me an example of Bush taking a 'strike opportunity' on bin Ladin? I haven't heard of this.

FH, the 9-11 Commission Report is terrific as a primer on the two Administrations. I am going from memory here, but both Clinton and Bush wanted to take strike opportunities against Bin Laden [Clinton actually did, once] but were usually [always, save once, I think] told "no" by their respective DODs.

The agency that bore the brunt of the unpreparedness blame was the FBI, but there is no guarantee a bureaucratically swift FBI would have foiled 9-11. You should watch:
"The Man Who Knew", a Front Line episode about the FBI's NYC counterterrorism guru who was shuffled off by internal politics.

Bush did the right thing chasing Al Qaeda into Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to go into the AQ training camps. I would have hoped Gore had done the same.

Bush faced multiple political pressures on Iraq that a Gore would not have had to deal with. Simply put, Gore would not have had Wolfowitz and Perle pressing their neo-con agenda of "liberation", or Cheney's belief that it was important to establish an alternative stable oil resource in the Gulf.

Gore would have faced a need to get the inspectors back in and to "make" the UN get serious about sanctions and oil-for-food, but it is fair to say that would not have made the invasion inevitable, don't you think?

FH -- I am not mad, my friend. I am simply challenging assertions you made, with facts and reasoned arguments.

And the question - what did Bush do? - for the third time appears to be beyond your ability to provide an answer.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 8, 2007 06:29 PM

Not enough...clearly!!! If you think I believe that G.W. is some great warrior who has done everything right...you are far from correct. I think he has made disastrous decision after we invaded Iraq, and in his lack of diplomacy. After all, Saddam was a Republican...I think we could have made a deal with him, personally.

The point of my original post about a possible Gore presidency and how he may have made many of the same decisions as Bush was obviously a provocative post that I had hoped would provide some interesting responses. Instead I got mad-Cassandra and its all Bush's and the GOP's fault. Clearly errors in judgment have been made by all party's IMO.

'When they know you're coming'? We know exactly where bin Ladin is -- in the Waziristan section of Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan. The Pakistani goverment has a 'treaty' with him -- do you read the news?

And the bin Ladin task force, which was started by Bill Clinton to hunt down bin Ladin, was defunded by George W. Bush. As Bush said:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

-- and why? Because he was more interested in going after Iraq's oil.

Clinton did try to 'go kill the man' but republicans jeered at the idea. And what, for chrissakes, is the problem with 'common sense'? So you advocate action that lacks 'common sense'? Maybe that is your party's problem.

The fact is, Clinton wasn't just talking about bin Ladin -- he was trying to prevent domestic terrorism by rightwing loons like McVeigh as well. 'Terrorism' doesn't belong to any group -- it's simply a tactic, and an increasingly easy one to use in this heavily armed world, by the disgruntled, whoever they are.

"it is absolutely ridiculous to put the blame solely on Bush, as so many dems. are apt to do"

The only time I see people put all the blame on Bush is in response to Republicans blaming it all on Clinton. Bush did have 270 days to work on it.

And the question - what did Bush do? - for the third time appears to be beyond your ability to provide an answer.

It's a little harder when they know your coming Loudoun Voter.

FH: Bush has now had almost as long as Clinton -- so where is Bin Laden?

What is Bush supposed to do about the info, go hunting for the terrorists himself, as apparently Cassandra wanted. The fact is, Clinton had 8 years to hunt down Bin Laden and Bush had 8 months...while it my be justified to blame both party's involved, it is absolutely ridiculous to put the blame solely on Bush, as so many dems. are apt to do.

That is the problem Cassandra, instead of trying to go kill the man (Bin Ladin), Clinton was trying to adopt common sense approaches.

FH, you truly have your head in the sand. I can't help you... maybe no one can. The republicans didn't 'differ' -- they mocked and blocked most of what Clinton wanted to do to confront terrorist. Simple commonsense things. Why? Because they were deferring to big business over the interests of their own country. As they always do these days.

And as far as expanding wiretpping -- Clinton wanted to do that LEGALLY -- rather than against the judgment of his own Justice Department as Bush has. And maybe if the Republicans had allowed Clinton to do that, there may not have been a 9/11.

Please get real -- get out of denial. You have no creditibility.

So the Republicans differed on some issues that Clinton wanted included...that's your big complaint. And I find it particularly humorous that Clinton wanted to expand wiretapping...boy, where have we heard that?

"Bin Ladin, determined to stike in the U.S...yea, there's news"

The question remains: WHAT, exactly, did Bush do in response to this apparently unimportant (in your eyes) information? We can point to Clinton's actions. While the mindlessly partisan response is to question the efficacy of those actions, the logical question still being ignored is: what did Bush do?

When Bush is presented with this information it is OK to ignore it (again, your view) but when Clinton has the same information his responsibility is so much greater that it extends 270 days into the tenure of the subsequent Administration.

April 16, 1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By Friday, the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress is expected to pass an anti- terrorism bill which addresses some, though not all, of the concerns the bombing raised over Americans' safety.

The demand for an anti-terrorism bill precedes Oklahoma City and was shaped by the attacks on Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland and the bombing of the World Trade Center.

The bill, which would cost $1 billion over four years, also calls for "tagging" plastic explosives to better trace them. The bill calls for a study on tagging methods for other explosives such as fertilizer and black powder. Critics say the 'study' provision is a concession to groups opposed to restrictions on explosive materials.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

President Clinton asked Congress to give him the anti- terrorism bill by the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19. And he'll get it. While it might not be all the president wants, administration officials indicate it's a bill he can sign.

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.

Here you go, fH..

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

What did the Republicans do to stop Clinton from fighting terror?

Bin Ladin, determined to stike in the U.S...yea, there's news. 1993 ring a bell, he had been determined to strike in the U.S. for 8 years before Bush took office.

As for "you people make me sick" are you talking about your fellow Americans who happen to differ with your worldview? What does that make you, Cassandra...I would say narrow-minded.

If Thompson is auditioning for President, he might as well answer every cattle call, including the Iowa straw poll. But he'll be doing most of that electronically:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/06/fredhead-convoy-is-ready-to-roll.html

'Gore and the dems are rightly blamed for their lack of aggressiveness in fighting terror throughout the 90'

Oh please, give it up. Everytiime Clinton tried to do anything about 'fighting terror' he was blocked by the republican congress, whose only agenda was to unseat an elected president. Tom DeLay mocked Clinton's efforts to 'fight terror' -- as did a great many republicans, who didn't see terrorism as a threat. Do you think you could stop revising history?

And tell me exactly what GW Bush did about 'terror'? Nothing... there was supposed to be a commission on it headed by Dick Cheney, announced in February of 2001, but they never met. Not once.

And then there was that report that Condi Rice gave Bush in Crawford in August 2001, entitled 'Bin Ladin determined to strike in US'. And what did he do? Stayed on vacation for another month.

You people make me sick.

Agree with you, bsimon, about Gore-- what the left really needs is the kind of policy establishment/think tank/communications apparatus the Republicans have. They have been much better at presenting policy -- however repugnant I might have found it -- in a that is comprehensible to the general public.

What I fear is that the public, the great majority, no longer have the attention span to understand complicated public policy, to even pay attention to anything other than sound bites. I was talking to young woman who cuts my hair, who is a smart girl--but. I said something about Karl Rove, and she said, who?

And we both live in Westchester County in New York. Not exactly an isolated enclave. She's just not interested.

Andy R, I saw an article somewhere today about who was losing the most support because of Thompson, and I think they indicated Rudy. I think the rationale was that social 'conservatives' thought Thompson had the same 'law and order' values [because he plays one on TV] as Rudy but better social values. Like having a really young wife, I guess.

However, Sean Hannity has been pushing hard [and giving lots of loving coverage] to both Rudy and Thompson, so I think it's just the weirdest race I've seen in a long time -- and I've been watching for a long time.

And yes, if Thompson can't make some kind of a decision about something sometime soon, he sure looks like a waffler, and a wimp.

If Gore is elected in 2000, we still have 9/11. Gore and the dems are rightly blamed for their lack of aggressiveness in fighting terror throughout the 90's. His only chance of being reelected in 04 is to overcompensate for his party's lack of security credibility by instituting an aggressive policy. I believe Gore would have attempted to carry out Clintons stated goal of ending the regime of one Saddam Hussein in an effort to appear tough on national security.

Now you may argue he would have pursued the policy in a more competent manner, but I believe we would be right where we are now even if Gore had been elected.

What if he comes in first though? CC, assumes that Romney will win, but what if the McCain and Guiliani supporters all throw there collective weight behind Thompson just to derail Romney.

Just throwing it our there.

Also I agree bsimon that this waffling might be a sign of things to come from old Fred Thompson.

Regarding the OT Gore quote, I have to say, he hits the nail on the head. At this stage of the game, Gore serves well from the sidelines. If the Dems manage to foul up the 08 election, he's well positioned for 2012. In the meantime, he ought to be working on a new national policy strategy with the likes of Bradley & Schweitzer. Start competing with all the conservative think tanks in the marketplace of [political] ideas.

I'm not a pro, but to my amateurish eyes, it seems the Ames straw poll could be a way for Thompson to leapfrog into the top tier. If he's as perfect a candidate as his supporters seem to think, the decision should be a no-brainer.

As an aside, is the man capable of making a decision? Seems like half the stories about him mention how he hasn't decided one thing or another.

CC - Thank you for the return to the standard format.

Anyone here about paris hilton? lol...

'It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I'm not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong. In 2001, I had hopes it was an aberration when polls showed that three-quarters of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11. More than five years later, however, nearly half the American people still believes that Saddam was connected to the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just unfortunate excess --- an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our news media. Now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsession that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Late in the summer of 2006, American news coverage was saturated with the bizarre false confession of a man who claimed to have been present at the death of JonBenet Ramsey --- the six-year-old beauty queen whose unsolved murder eleven years before was responsible for another long-running obsession. A few months prior to John Mark Karr's arrest in Bangkok, the disappearance of a high school senior in Aruba and the intensive search for her body and her presumed murderer consumed thousands of hours of television coverage. Both cases remain unsolved as of this writing, and neither had any appreciable impact on the fate of the Republic.

Like JonBenet Ramsey, O.J. has recently been back at the center of another fit of obsessive-compulsive news, when his hypothetical confession wasn't published and his interviews on television wasn't aired. This particular explosion of "news" was truncated only when a former television sitcom star used racist insults in a night club. And before that we focus on the "Runaway Bride" in Georgia. And before that there was the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial, the Laci Peterson tragedy and the Chandra Levy tragedy. And of course we can't forget Britney and KFed, and Lindsay and Paris and Nicole, Tom Cruise jumped on Oprah's couch and married Katie Holmes, who gave birth to Suri. And Russell Crowe apparently threw a phone at a hotel concierge.

In early 2007, the wall-to-wall coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death, embalming, and funeral plans and the legal wrangling over the paternity and custody of her child and disposition of her estate, served as yet another particularly bizarre example of the new priorities in America's news coverage.

And while American television watchers were collectively devoting a hundred million hours of their lives each week to these and other similar stories, our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness.'

Al Gore

He wins even i8f he doesn't participate.

Speaking of Fred, here's a good piece on why Fred's arrival on the '08 scene is really bad news for Giuliani
http://political-buzz.com/?p=221

Doesnt he finish 2nd even if he doesnt participate?