Yes even I will slumber out of my lurking republican mannerism to say ZELL MILLER is the man. I think that speech could help to create a very sizeable bounce. I think 8 points in standard, I would love 10 or 11. Kerry touting his record in vietnam has proven to be a glaring contradiction to fact about his political record. I expect Bush to come out and throw a lot of economy and social issues in thurr tomorrow. Everyone else has really hammered away at the security issue. (Being one of JK's glaring deficiency). The part of Millers speech I liked was when he broadly termed the Democrats last 4 years as being "Manically obsessed" This is brilliant and absolutely true. 2 facts ladies and gentleman, 2 facts that should swing any indy's left out there and maybe some dems. I dont think there is much validity in arguing these either SammyFish. 1.- The country is safer under GW than JK. 2.- Now, more than 1800, more than 1850, more than 1910 or 1960, we need to be safER. In a perfect world the best way to prevent war would be to destroy every weapon in the world. This is not a perfect world.
Notice that the Republicans hated Al Sharpton's rant, yet love Zell Miller's....hypocrisy at its finest.
You can't be serious. Hatred towards America and Americans in the Middle East is at an all-time high and the good ole U.S.A.'s list of worldwide friends has barely ever been smaller, and we're suppossed to feel safe? Wait, I forgot, we've got duck-tape and the Rainbow Alert System. Zel Miller may not care about 20 years down the road cause he may be dead, but I hope to still be alive and in my prime and am non too excited about the next generation of terrorists being created today that will be in power then.
And Clinton won, I guess that is a good omen for Bush this time around. Ironic that Miller, 12 years ago, spoke in the same arena he did tonight. I was impressed with his passion.
Oh, Franky3422, what was it that I did to earn your ire? Anyway, briefly: Uh, I see. And your evidence for this bit of sheer speculation is, uhhhh, the fact that you said so? Well, IP-SEE my DIX-IT!!! (look that one up) I'd direct you to some contrary evidence, but I'll just turn it around on you "No it's not" Uh, I wasn't alive at any of those times, so I guess I would agree. What relevance does this have now? Our lives were less valuable then, (those of us that had them back then)? Then why does Bush's foreign policy call for us to destroy every weapon in the world, unilaterally? Or am I wrong, Does Kerry support unilateral US Disarmament? Please point me to evidence that he does. Let me guess, if you ever oppose any defense program ever...you do (unless you are a republican). Disappointing, Francis 3422, if you're going to swim with the Fish, you need to get rid of the floaties.
Jay why dont you get your peace loving ass in a time machine and go backwards then. Dont tell GW 5 years ago about 9/11, the middle east and Iraq though. Tell Reagan, Carter or Clinton. The problem is not GW's it is something that was building over time. Its stupid to imply that. Anyway, while you and Jules Verne are travelling 10,000 leagues into pointless speculation. Myself and my party are going to make the right choice to protect America today and after that. P.S. Warn someone about airline security.
Franky 3422, disregard my earlier invitation to respond. You are obviously intoxicated or something. Go towards the light.
Classic...so now there is some kind of negative tone implied with someone who likes peace? "Yeah, you peace-loving fool. War rocks. Die. Kill." Pardon me for hoping for peace. I didn't imply that the problem was GW's. I stated that the solution was up to GW to find and so far he's given us duck tape, colored coded warning sytems, a CIA director who can't use a computer, an isolationist policy and a bad reputation the world over, all while managing to split the mindset of Americans themselves more than I've ever seen it in my lifetime.
higher than it was when 19 men came out of the ME and murdered 3,000 americans on our own soil? wow, those must really be some pissed off mother****ers! to (miserably) paraphrase my man Marcellus, "ya'll got a band o' brothas that'll get positively sensitive on they ass!"
I predict nothing but a perpetual war for you and your party if things don't change in your policies (Jerry Faldwellian War Policies; Revenge in the name of God!). The horrors of war will continue on and on and on...Yet, you don't see this. You think you are doing "right" in the name of "safety, patriotism and steadfastness." All those are fine. But without good judgment, they are worthless. Take the "revenge" blinders off. This is not a war of WWII standing armies (add a little religion to boot). This is war of ideas! Something that bombs can do little to change. We went into war for the wrong premise (and changed the reasons as we went along). This will never work. Especially under a divided country.
Most definitely...terrorists use almost guerrilla warfare tactics...they atttack where and when they know they can cause the most damage. They'll bide their time, but you can guarantee the growing hatred of today will turn into terrorist activity of tomorrow. I'm all for a safe and protected America. I just happen to think this is possible, or at least a lot more so, by not pissing off every other major power in the world and not continuing to piss off those that hate us by outright playing school bully.
I liked the end of your first response, eloquent. Bill Maher said something interesting at one point on his show. He pointed out to John Oneil that because Kerry had fought in the war, and had that experience in a foreign realm, he was that much more "intune." to that particular aspect. This is a statement I cannot argue with. It is true. I do not see why you cannot say that because of his direct experience in the last 4 years and because of his standing on defense issues, that the country is not safer under GW. It would be smarter of you to debate an economic issue. I want to see what other dems beside yourself say on that issue. Secondly to further respond (im not drunk either, just got done campaigning for are (R) Gov Candidate). Uncle Sam, I was not alive during any of the times listed. If Jay is in the time machine he could get a report for us maybe? But I do know, that in reality, as we sit at our terminals, our country is closer now to COMPLETELY eradicating human life, than any other time in history. We get closer every day and minute. George also said on Rush Limbaugh, that we WOULD win the war on terrorism. Now objectively this is not true, there will always be extremists. Probably always 1 person willing to wage a terroristic act on the United States of America. He had to correct himself because that is what the people want to hear. Both parties do that. You know it. Thats what that Bush Policy is about and that is what the Entire Kerry campaign and Bush campaign is about. What the people want to hear. Factually, We are safer under GW. Admit to yourself that JK's political inclination to defense and war is timid and indecisive at best.
The RNC has certainly gone negative. It might be effective. I wonder if Kerry was wrong to run such a positive outlook on the future type convention. I think Kerry was in a tough spot. If we went on the attack the GOP would blast him for that, and by not going on the attack he's given the GOP an opening. Actually, thinking about it again Kerry did do the right thing. It might cost him the election, but it was right to take the high road. And I think if he pushes his themes of unity and Bush's failed promise of being a uniter and not a divider, as well as going on attack which he can now claim is self defense, it will serve him well in the end.
And not even an opinion substantiated by any sort of proof at all... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/ Worldwide terorrism-related deaths on the rise NBC News findings run counter to recent Bush administration claims By Robert Rivas and Robert Windrem NBC News Updated: 8:50 p.m. ET Sept. 1, 2004 NEW YORK - As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically. advertisement Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year. In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. On Tuesday, the number of civilians killed by terrorists totaled 38 — 10 at a subway entrance bombing in Moscow, 16 in a bus bombing in Israel and 12 Nepalese executed in Iraq. Moreover, the level of sophistication is increasing. Terrorism experts point in particular to the attacks apparently carried out by Chechen rebels during that 10-day period. The rebels, whose top military commanders have been Arabs, are operating at a whole different level. ‘This is all coordinated’ “You have bombs on board planes, bombs at a train station and now a hostage taking,†said Roger Cressey, a former deputy Nantional Security Council director of counterterrorism. “This is all coordinated. These things do not happen by accident, and in fact, United States officials are frantically trying to determine if they are a forerunner of an attack aimed at the U.S.†Cressey, who is an NBC News analyst, was referring in particular to last week’s twin bombings of Russian airliners that left 90 dead in southern Russia, an attack Cressey says indicates a greater level of coordination and sophistication than thought possible just last year. While fewer than 60 of the deaths since Sept. 11 have been of American citizens — and all of which took place overseas — other countries continue to suffer at higher levels than ever before. Since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the analysis, around 1,500 have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, nearly 700 in Russia, more than 350 have died in Israel, around 200 in Spain and more than 100 in the Philippines. The numbers sometimes are imprecise because of the nature of the attacks, which leave many missing. ‘Central al-Qaida’ Senior U.S. intelligence officials note that in fact, the frequency of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslim radicals is increasing, not decreasing. Moreover, they say the attacks carried out by what they now refer to as “central al-Qaida†are being dwarfed by those carried out by affiliates, such Ansar al Sunnah in Iraq, the Chechen rebels and even ad hoc groups like those who blew up the Madrid train stations. While there may be links to al-Qaida in terms of training and in some cases money, these groups operate independently of Osama bin Laden's command. The threat in fact is “morphing,†as one senior U.S. intelligence official put it. “You're talking about an al-Qaida that's trying to regenerate, and you're also talking about a movement that has looked to al-Qaida for inspiration but is not really al-Qaida central,†said another intelligence official. Concern: ‘Localization of threat’ “The thing we worry about a lot is what we call, in some ways, the localization of threat,†the official said. “Regional organizations that operate in different environments, that may have had some training from al-Qaida, that may have had some money, but that really see the world in al-Qaida terms and that's why we worry about them, and they are the wave of the future, and I believe that's the wave of the future for us operationally.†As more and more groups get into the mix, say officials, there are more and more attacks. In fact, the three worst months for Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11 were March (431 dead), February (393 dead) and June (245 dead) of this year. With the three terrorist attacks on Tuesday, the suicide bombing in Israel, the car bombing in Moscow and the execution of the Nepalese workers in Iraq, the August total will rise to 228 dead, the sixth worst month since Sept. 11. ---------------------------------------------------------- We live in a global world right now. Even if America specifically isn't being attacked, when other free nations are attacked, we become less safe by default. Forget that fact that many of us have relatives living abroad or may do so ourselves one day, or the fact that eventually this sort of terrorism will come back our way, but it gets that much worse when yout ake a step back and realize that sooner or later people are going to realize that terrorism in general is on the rise and many will start pointing fingers at the U.S., even if it isn't all our fault. We just can not continue to fight via isolationist strategies.
Yes and these are the bad old days when people try and label the entire ME based on the actions of this group. Because those 19 folks did that it means that on Sept 10th all of the ME hated the U.S.
