Washingtong Post Finally Endorses a Candidate

[sonic1]

Washington Post

Kerry for President
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B06


EXPERTS TELL US that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year's presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead for the next four years.

The balancing process begins, as reelection campaigns must, with the incumbent. His record, particularly in foreign affairs, can't be judged with a simple aye or nay. President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 11, 2001, and reshaped his own world view. His commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. His actions have not always matched his stirring rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world (notably Russia) appear not to have troubled him much.

But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators. He has promised the large increases in foreign aid, to help poor nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes, that we believe are essential.

The campaign that Mr. Bush led to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan seems easy and obvious in retrospect, but at the time many people warned of imminent quagmire. Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial determination to avoid nation-building after Kabul fell and his drawdown of U.S. forces. But even so, Afghanistan today is far from the failure that Mr. Kerry portrays. Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention.

In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that had to be faced; we continue to believe that the U.S. mission to promote a representative government in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator.

We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president's high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.

These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.

ON THE DOMESTIC side, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in the House have governed as heavy-handed partisans. We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to promote accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of his other ideas may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to give people more control over their retirement funds, individual health accounts that might better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, market incentives to reduce pollution. But he has failed to do the hard work to turn such ideas from slogans into fair and balanced programs, and he has never said how he would pay for them, as in the case of Social Security private accounts.

Which brings us to his reckless fiscal policy. Mr. Bush inherited a budget in surplus but facing strains in the long run as retiring baby boomers intensify their claims on the nation's resources for pensions and health care. A recession that was gathering as he took office, and the economic blow delivered by the Sept. 11 attacks, would have turned surplus into deficit under the best of circumstances.

But Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to record levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic stimulus and that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on the Treasury from the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made permanent; no one, no matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush's rationales have shifted, but his prescription -- tax cuts -- has remained constant, no matter what the cost to future generations. The resulting fiscal deficit has dragged down the national savings rate, leaving the country dependent upon foreigners for capital in an unsustainable way. Mr. Bush says the answer lies in spending discipline, but he has shown none himself; see, for example, the disgusting farm subsidies he signed into law.

In 2000, Mr. Bush justifiably criticized his predecessor for failing to deal with the looming problems of Social Security and Medicare. In office, though, he has been equally delinquent, even as the day of reckoning drew closer. He championed a huge new entitlement for Medicare without insisting on the cost-cutting reforms that everyone knows are needed.

SO MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the challenger made his case? Here's why we say yes.

Mr. Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism. He sensibly proposes to reverse Mr. Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest and pledges to scale back his own spending proposals if funds don't suffice. He would seek to restore budget discipline rules that helped get deficits under control in the 1990s.

On many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach. He has a workable plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection. Mr. Bush played politics with the Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by endorsing an amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and respect civil liberties at home. A Kerry judiciary -- and the next president is likely to make a significant mark on the Supreme Court -- would be more hospitable to civil rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy.

None of these issues would bring us to vote for Mr. Kerry if he were less likely than Mr. Bush to keep the nation safe. But we believe the challenger is well equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. Kerry brings a résumé that unarguably has prepared him for high office. He understood early on the dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda. To pave the way for restored relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, he took on the thankless and politically risky task of convincing relatives that no American prisoners remained in Southeast Asia. While he wrongly opposed the first Persian Gulf War, he supported the use of American force in Bosnia and Kosovo.

As with Mr. Bush, some of Mr. Kerry's strengths strike us as potential weaknesses. The senator is far more likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range of opinions before making a decision -- but is he decisive enough? He understands the importance of allies and of burnishing America's image -- but would he be too reluctant to give offense? His Senate record suggests an understanding of the importance of open markets, but during the campaign he has retreated to protectionist rhetoric that is troubling in its own right and as a possible indicator of inconstancy.

We have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry's zigzags on Iraq, such as his swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush charges, Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a "diversion" does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a Kerry administration would be better able to tackle the formidable nation-building tasks that remain there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals of an elected Iraqi government and a well-trained Iraqi force to defend it but argues that he could implement the strategy more effectively.

Mr. Kerry understands that the biggest threat to U.S. security comes from terrorists wielding nuclear or biological weapons. He pledges to add two divisions to the U.S. Army; try harder to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world, and improve U.S. preparations for a bioterrorism attack. There is no way to know whether he would be more successful than Mr. Bush in slowing North Korea's and Iran's march toward becoming nuclear-armed states, but he attaches the right priority to both problems. He is correct that those challenges, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, call for the kind of sustained diplomacy that has been missing for four years. We hope he would be firmer than Mr. Bush in standing up to the genocide unfolding in Sudan.

We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them.

[Gary Sisco]

I'm shocked.

[sonic1]

I want to add my brother's comment to me when he told me he was voting for Kerry.

My brother was in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Saudi the last few years, and recently came home. He was not a foot soldier but more of an officer, though I have never understood what he did there in those countries.

My brother is very republican. His favorite passtime is taking pop shots at "bleeding liberals", which being in NY is very easy. I have tried to work on him, being his older brother, to be less partisian.

When he came home from the war he had nothing good to say about Bush. It took him a while to let his vote reflect that, though at first he was going to vote for either a third party candidate or not vote.

Then when one of the many reports came out that reported no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq my brother awaited Bush's reply. It was one of those times when Bush basically made excuses and said something like, "Well, he wanted to have those weapons!" -this after saying he would still invade Iraq knowing what he knows now.

My brother said at first he was just shocked. Then as the days wore on he finally got pissed and called me, "I went to war for that fucker!".

This is one of the reasons I myself am pissed and hate Bush the way I do. It is not any of Bush's family that goes into harms way for one of his whims. His rushing into war is a critism Kerry repeats over and over again, ad nauseum. But it is important that people understand and remember that people like my brother went to battle, and many of them died, for a bullshit war.

My brother told me he put trust in the president when he went to war. He didn't listen to the press or any of the detractors. He went to war as a soldier and as any good soldier did what he was told. Now he has come to find out that his efforts were guided by a man with a shady agenda. My brother told me that this was his breaking point because he realized that Bush spends more time making excuses for his actions than taking responsibility, which being a soldier my brother would be expected to do.

My brother is cautious about Kerry because mostly his health care plan is more socialist than he is comfortable with. But he said he is willing to chance that, because the alternative is chancing supporting a destructive president who is wiping out the network of support this country has worked so hard to create over the latter part of the 20th century. Kerry at least understands that even if his health care plan is "socialist". My brother believes the health care plan won't get support anyway.

I don't agree with all my brother's conclusions. But the main one I do.

[Groovehigh]

Thanks for posting your brothers views. I think many soldiers think as he does, but don't reflect it like your brother. In other words, they may still vote for Bush.

That Kerry's "health care plan" is "socialist" sounds like a pretty funny thing to me. Having lived in Europe for some years I think it's still pretty liberal. To use the word socialst....ah, alright we are living in the US. ;-)

[Gary Sisco]

Anything that's not a direct state subsidy to Hallicheney, Inc., is socialism in the US of A.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I was curious about which way the Post would go. Seing as how it's a "liberal rag" (as some of my conservative buddies call it) they've typically gone with the Demovratic candidate.

But because of the Post's support for the Iraq invasion I thought they might have gone with Bush.

[Gary Sisco]

A lot of people who supported the invasion at first blush are pissed off at Bush about it now, Darryl -- the ones with enough brains to have figured out how badly they'd been conned, and they come from all sections, and not only in the US. I wish there'd been that many who paid (eventually) that much attention in the 80s. There'd be a hell of lot less dead Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, Guatemalans, et al, if they had.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gary,

Unfortunately not enough Americans are pissed in my opinion. I'm often amazed about the lack of outrage in this country. And I'm saying this as an American, not as a Democrat or a liberal or any other label. Look at how much trouble Tony Blair is in or Iraq. With all the revelations that have come about the decision making behind going into Iraq I feel the government would've fallen in other countries.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

A lot of people who supported the invasion at first blush are pissed off at Bush about it now, Darryl -- the ones with enough brains to have figured out how badly they'd been conned, and they come from all sections, and not only in the US. I wish there'd been that many who paid (eventually) that much attention in the 80s. There'd be a hell of lot less dead Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, Guatemalans, et al, if they had.

Just asking questions, which most publications in the U.S. seemed afraid to do, has been, IMO, the most damaging aspect of this whole mess.
Just asking Mr Bush "What's in this for us?" would have prompted discussion, but there seemed to be a real fear, which still persists, about seeming unpatriotic by doing so.
Americans had the right to know what was being done in their name. All I can think of is that they TRUSTED their leaders, which turns out to be the last thing they should have done.
Any positive results seem to mostly be represented by the obscene profits going to companies which produce weapons of war and the supporting materials for waging of war.
This seems, at first blush, to have been a make-work project for companies such as Halliburton, Bechtel, Smith, Brown and Root, and the various manufacturers of bombs and military hardware.
So, I guess there's that. Too bad that thousands of people had to die, to keep the profits rolling in.
If being a strong leader against terrorism means that the President is willing to please those who would profit from a war, on the bodies of the dead and the ruins of a civilization, then George W Bush is your man. His thoughts and prayers are with the families of the dead and the horribly wounded. Don't you feel better about this whole "miscalculation" now??

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Patricia,

I think for some the reasons for going into Iraq were/are irrelevent. That's the impression I've gotten from some of my conservative friends. Iraq was part of punishing Arabs for 9/11. Someone had to pay.

Cause and effect does not matter. Thousands dead and injured does not matter. Billions in dollars spent does not matter. Someone had to pay. Ten years down the line there may be some regret.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Patricia,

I think for some the reasons for going into Iraq were/are irrelevent. That's the impression I've gotten from some of my conservative friends. Iraq was part of punishing Arabs for 9/11. Someone had to pay.

Cause and effect does not matter. Thousands dead and injured does not matter. Billions in dollars spent does not matter. Someone had to pay. Ten years down the line there may be some regret.

Yes. Sadly, the price of revenge keeps on rising and I see little positive return. If the same conflict continues, it is the same revenge, carried out on those who had NOTHING to do with the attacks on Sept 11. If attacks had been launched on Saudi Arabia, the funders and the home of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers, it would have made more sense. But, Iraq was Mr Bush's personal nemisis and his associate's target, even before Sept 11. Sept 11 was a GIFT to them.
Now that the Bush Administration has their taste of blood, there seems to be no stopping them. War will continue in the region, remaining a current event, becoming history, long after you and I are dead and our children are still seeing it and reading about it as the normal state of events.
Just how much revenge is enough??

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Patricia,

For the policy makers it's not about revenge, Iraq's never been about revenge for them. 9/11 simply gave them an excuse to do something they've wanted to do for years. When I say "they" I'm talking about the think tankers for the Prospect for the New American Century.

Now the political support the Administration's gotten from the American people, that's about revenge. And ignorance, willfull ignorance. As the joke goes, "The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, managed by terrorists in Afghanistan, financed by Saudis following a Saudi form of Islam. Let's attack Iraq."

So you've got people too ignorant to read a map supporting a war against Iraq. Hell, one of my coworkers was afraid of flying in a plane sitting next to a cat with a "dot" on his forehead. I had to explain to him the guy was a Hindu.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Patricia,

For the policy makers it's not about revenge, Iraq's never been about revenge for them. 9/11 simply gave them an excuse to do something they've wanted to do for years. When I say "they" I'm talking about the think tankers for the Prospect for the New American Century.

Now the political support the Administration's gotten from the American people, that's about revenge. And ignorance, willfull ignorance. As the joke goes, "The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, managed by terrorists in Afghanistan, financed by Saudis following a Saudi form of Islam. Let's attack Iraq."

So you've got people too ignorant to read a map supporting a war against Iraq. Hell, one of my coworkers was afraid of flying in a plane sitting next to a cat with a "dot" on his forehead. I had to explain to him the guy was a Hindu.

All I can say, Darryl, is that the Bush Administration is taking advantage of a public who, for some reason, have been less than informed about other cultures and other countries, either by chance, or by design.
Few bother to examine the reasons given for this terrible mess that the Bush Administration has created, for reasons explained only by the established doctrine put forward quite forthrightly by the Neo-cons. This group, which includes Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, with the all too willing assistance of Cheney and the now-disgraced Iraqi, Chalabi, conned you. Now, the fat's in the fire and fear grips America and the rest of the world. Instead of being fired and disgraced, they are being given credit for winning the "War on Terrorism". How can anyone wage a war on a noun, an ideology?? Nobody asks. Bush, just the other day, derisively quoted Kerry as comparing the War on Terrorism with the failed War on Drugs and the War on Poverty, as if this were different. The ironic thing is that THEY ARE THE SAME THING and doomed, by their very nature to fail. Bush would have you believe that there is no comparison.
On the same note, the hopeful comment made by John Kerry, that success in the war on the ideology of terrorism would only be a success, if terrorism could only be reduced to "a nuisance", was twisted by Bush to indicate that Mr Kerry doesn't take Bush's War seriously. Success would, indeed be the reducing of the threat of terrorism to a nuisance. We should all, if we are praying people, pray for that. Terrorism, as a method some choose to make their point, is not going to be defeated, ever.
Mr Bush has done a piss-poor job, on almost every front and yet, the people who deliberately keep themselves ignorant support him. As a reward for his totally inept leadership and woeful ignorance of the world, they want four more years of this doofus and his garden gnomes.
It's been said that people deserve the leaders they elect. Those people could have been excused for the first term, which was dubiously acquired, but not this time. This time, they are electing a proven loser and, oddly, seem elated. Go figure.

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by patricia

All I can say, Darryl, is that the Bush Administration is taking advantage of a public who, for some reason, have been less than informed about other cultures and other countries, either by chance, or by design.
Few bother to examine the reasons given for this terrible mess that the Bush Administration has created, for reasons explained only by the established doctrine put forward quite forthrightly by the Neo-cons. This group, which includes Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, with the all too willing assistance of Cheney and the now-disgraced Iraqi, Chalabi, conned you. Now, the fat's in the fire and fear grips America and the rest of the world. Instead of being fired and disgraced, they are being given credit for winning the "War on Terrorism". How can anyone wage a war on a noun, an ideology?? Nobody asks.

I hear you, Patricia... I don't understand why everyone can't see that "the Emperor has no clothes!"

Mr Bush has done a piss-poor job, on almost every front and yet, the people who deliberately keep themselves ignorant support him. As a reward for his totally inept leadership and woeful ignorance of the world, they want four more years of this doofus and his garden gnomes.
It's been said that people deserve the leaders they elect. Those people could have been excused for the first term, which was dubiously acquired, but not this time. This time, they are electing a proven loser and, oddly, seem elated. Go figure.

I have always had friends of various political stripes, and we agree to disagree. This time, I cannot understand how smart people can buy this bullsh!t. It's frightening. Like you, I wonder what will happen if Dubbya gets in again. I keep remembering the book of Revelation.....

[patricia]

Exactly the reference I was thinking of, the Book Of Revelation. For decades, nutcases have been parading around, wearing signs reading, "Repent, The End Is Near" and we ridiculed them. Now, that sentiment is not amusing, and that scenario is not only possible, but possible within our lifetimes. I don't mean a returning of the son of God and all the rest, but merely the end of civilization as we know it and that is truly frightening.
How could this have come to be in just four short years, under George W. Bush?? It did, because nobody understood the signs, or bothered to swim against the tide of the government's reaction to Sept 11, sequeing into the terrible mess which now is ongoing. A vigilant public is suspicious of their elected official's motives. Complacency is not an option when the lives of the nation's young people, particularly in the military are at stake.
I weep. I truly weep.

[lynn]

In listening to Bush on the news, I am astounded at how he can get people to vote for him.

To paraphrase a statement he made - You may disagree with my policies but at least you know where I stand. Then he asks for their vote.

Now you tell me what idiot would vote for someone they disagree with.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by lynn

In listening to Bush on the news, I am astounded at how he can get people to vote for him.

To paraphrase a statement he made - You may disagree with my policies but at least you know where I stand. Then he asks for their vote.

Now you tell me what idiot would vote for someone they disagree with.

If we are to believe the polls, about half the population that votes in the United States.
Now, there's no guarantee that the other half, who never think that who governs them is important enough for them to actually vote, registered and voted for a change, that the outcome would be different. However, wouldn't it be interesting if they did??

IMO, not voting doesn't make any statement, other than the person who is entitled to cast their vote and doesn't, doesn't care who governs them. If they did, even if they voted for a fringe candidate, they would be doing what makes democracy worthy of the name.

[Gary Sisco]

Darryl -- There's quite a lot of quiet anger about it all. My mom, for instance (a Korea vet, officer, Navy nurse, County Commander of the American Legion, here), has never voted anything but repub in her life (at least since leaving Alabama in 1950, when the Democrats controlled the segregated south, but come to think of it, she probably wasn't of voting age til moving north) and has never once even whispered opposition to an American military adventure, no matter how stupid or despicable, is pissed off about the whole thing. She's already told me, last year, that she won't be voting for Bush but doesn't know if she'll vote for Kerry or not, or if she'll even vote. She told me the same a few weeks ago, while I was walking her home after we'd welcomed a local guy back from his second tour in Iraq. I've *never* heard her say anything like that, ever in my life. And the American Legion magazine (I belong to the local post because it's a real fraternal organization, not a cheap bar -- in fact, it doesn't have a bar) has been printing both sides of the story, regularly, for the first time, ever. Apparently a lot of pissed off vets out there, for that to be happening, and most of them are conservatives, needless to say, or they wouldn't belong to the Legion. (I joined out of family tradition, apart from the reasons above, as a way to honor my father, who's whole life was devoted to the Legion.) They're not going to run around holding signs or anything but nearly all of them will be voting.

[patricia]

My late father served with the Canadian Army in WWII and he would be appalled at this whole mess. Dad was an immigrant to Canada from Norway, when he was nineteen and joined the Canadian Army when the war broke out. His Canadian citizenship was his reward and he treasured it.

Like your parents, he was a loyal member of the Legion, keeping in touch with everybody he could. When he died, old guys I'd never met, showed up.
More amazingly, other old guys, whom I'd never met either, attended my mother's funeral two years before Dad's. They are LOYAL and totally and unequivically patriotic, truly willing to give their lives, if they have to for their country.
To ask men and women such as these to die for a lie is to say the least, obscene and to say the worst, treasonous. How dare George W Bush send people like these to their deaths to burnish his own ego and enrich the coffers of the companies who will make out like bandits from the deaths of thousands.
SHAME!!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gary,

I know there's a lot of anger out there, but in my mind not enough. Maybe I'm using the late '60s as a reference point. Maybe that era was just an anomaly.

But as I said before, I cannot understand for the life of me with all the revelations that have come out, that there isn't more anger.

Is it because the body count isn't high enough?

There's a guy I work with, Bush supporter, ex-military like me. The few times we've talked about Iraq and I mention the Americans who've been killed or wounded his basic comment is: "I'm fine with that". His premise is that's the risk you take when you enlist.

He's right. But I reply that if I'm the Commander and Chief then it's paramount that I don't waste lives in vain. Therein lies the rub for me. If I were Bush I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Every rationale he's put forth for invading Iraq has been proven wrong. And he knows this. He and his advisors know this. They also know that Iraq's going to hell in a handbasket. But I listen to his stump speeches and it sounds like the cat's living in some alternative universe.

And how partisan can you be to swallow this bullshit? Some of these fuckers care more about some fetus in a fertilty clinic than they do the living and breathing adults on the ground in Iraq. And a lot of these people call themselves Christians who believe in the sanctity of life?

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

And how partisan can you be to swallow this bullshit? Some of these fuckers care more about some fetus in a fertilty clinic than they do the living and breathing adults on the ground in Iraq. And a lot of these people call themselves Christians who believe in the sanctity of life?

Barney Frank cleverly captured this contradiction when he said, "'Conservatives' interest in life begins at conception and ends at birth."

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Patricia,

I think for some the reasons for going into Iraq were/are irrelevent. That's the impression I've gotten from some of my conservative friends. Iraq was part of punishing Arabs for 9/11. Someone had to pay.

This is what they want us to think actually. They want us to think this was all about 9-11. But come on, is this not totally transparent? Don't we all know going to Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Do we all really believe Bush thought Iraq had anything to do with Iraq. He is admitting "bad" intelligence because the other option is admitting foul play. With Cheney at his side, and the entire arsenal of the United States which every conservative is always ready to brag about, do we really believe he didn't know Iraq was less harmful and less problem than say Afghanistan, Iran, N. Korea or elsewhere?

Believe me, it's easier to say, " oh, I guess we had bad intelligence".

I don't believe that for a moment.

[Gary Sisco]

Darryl -- I'm more concerned with the dead and maimed that aren't talked about -- the Iraqi civilians. Casualties in the tens of thousands. For what? Ask him if he's alright with that. If he is, he's not a friend and stear clear of him.

By the way, my mom was here today and she brought up her voting quandary again. She's still sticking to her guns about not voting Bush, and has no problem voting for Kerry, apart from the fact that she doesn't think Edwards is old enough or experienced enough to take his place, should something happen to require it.

I'll tell you, though, for all of VT's "liberal" reputation, it's actually one of the most bedrock conservative places I've ever lived or even visited, and Bush is going to get creamed here by two to one, as he did in the 2000 primary here.

Very few True Believers here, as, as always, VTers are way in the fray in numbers far exceeding their proportion of the population. Just counting National Guard, there are more than one person per thousand of population in Iraq *right now,* and I don't have figures for the number on active duty there. Statistically, VTers now have a far better of chance of ending up in Iraq than they do of being the victim of any crime at all, violent or nonviolent. And, out of a population of less than 650,000, the state's already taken 14 KIA there, and I lost count of wounded at 12. That's casualties far in excess of Vietnam, and VT had the highest enlistment rate per capita all through VN, not counting the draftees. I don't think there's a place in the country that's more anti-Bush than this little, very conservative state. But they're conservatives, not ultrarightists (and some, outright fascists) a la the Bushites. There's a big difference, regardless of how words are misused in the US today.

Ain't a one of them would trade one of those lives for any tax cut, now matter what size or who it went to.

Bush is going to get creamed here so badly that his campaign, according to the local rag, is going to be spending an entire one million dollars here. Hell, running for Congress costs more than that.