At least he wasn't absent, looking for the next, better deal. Like it or not, at least I know what he stands for.

"Like it or not, at least I know what he stands for."

Yes that's true. Unfortunately he stands for the wrong things.

You're right Justin, letting Saddam rule was way better than freeing those people. If we would have let things stay the same, he would have reduced his population by a lot through genocide and we would have not lost so many troops. Just like that pesky Hitler, who we should have let run about unchallenged, right?

Are there no Dems out there who think that everyone should be equal, that everyone should be free? Am I the last one standing? Just because GW is a rep, doesn’t mean that the people of Iraq do not deserve to be free.

Halliburton is an evil corporation, right? Name another company that could take on a job like Iraq, there are none. They have proven themselves time and time again. The amount they are getting may need to be looked at, but just because they are what most libs hate (a corporation), doesn’t mean that using them is a bad thing.

That would be Vice President Nasty Dick.

Yeah, it was nice of America to free the Iraqi people. Though, that isn't what got us into the war in the first place. We went because Sadaam was a threat to us, not because he was killing his own people. Hell, he'd been doing that for years.

And I'm a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. Just because Bush is a Republican doesn't mean I should let him get away with screwing up a completely unecessary war.

I'm not honestly sure what Dick Cheney stands for. According to Dick, why did we go into Iraq. Depending on the timeline his story has changed. Was it a terrorist threat? Was it a connection with Al Qaida? Was it a stockpile of WMD? Was it just a mere desire to acquire WMD? was it to free the Iraqi people?

Talk about an answer depending on the politcal winds.

Sometimes I think the most honest comment the Bush team has made about why they got us into this poorly planned debacle of a war was when W said of Saddam Hussein: "He tried to kill my dad" or words to that effect. That I can understand. The WMD, "they attacked America," bringing "freedom" -- none of their other explanations stand the test of time or logic.

It's amazing to think how rational people think that Sadaam just did away with all that poison gas that he used to kill more than 100,000 Kurds.He has resisted inspections so much so that Clinton bombed Iraq heavily killing almost as many Iraqi civilians as we've lost in this war.He(Clinton) knew they were there and they would always be his ace-in-the-hole.To think that the weapons were not taken to Syria or that the were not buried in a country whose desert mass is two-thirds the size of California is the height of stupidity on the part of Kerry.He knows they exist but he is trying to blame Bush for misinforming him.Here's a man who served on the intellegence committee 8 years until 2001.He should know more about Al Qida than Bush.Oh I almost forgot,he only attended less than 25%of the time and one year was not there at all.His runnig-mate was no better in his time on the same committee.That's right,they were absent for the most in the critical time leading up to 9/11.You folks have been listening to ABC,NBC,CBS,and CNN.They are more interested in what happened 30 years ago.Look what they haven't done.You mean to tell me that aman who was against deploying US troops for 30 years has changed.You mean that a man who defied the world for 14 years and murdered more than 700,000 people by conservative estimates gave up those weapons.You've got to be kidding me.The attacks had escalated until 9/11 because Clinton was weak.Kerry is no different.If the naive american people are willing to elect these two "show boats",the get ready to see thousands of our women and children die also.WAke up !!!!

We're in engaged in the toughest, nastiest, meanest, dirtiest war for national security since the Second World War, and John Edwards wants to talk about f*cking Meals on Wheels? If Meals on Wheels is where JE's head is, then I don't need to criticize his record, I need to criticize his priorities.

(Sorry not to have a comment about the salient point of the Tax Reform Act, Jack, other than, "Wow, a Republican who voted against tax reform... that's ideologically weird. Or not")

There is no such thing as a "plastic" gun that can go through a metal detector. Guess Johnny doesn't realize that the barrel is made of a big hunk of steel. Get a clue!

we are so doomed

Being engaged in a war doesn't do anything to combat malnutrition. Just as many people need Meals on Wheels, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, and what's left of the rest of the social safety net as needed it before the war.

That's one of the reasons you don't start wars unless you absolutely, unquestionably have to. They are preposterously expensive, and unless you are willing to (1) ask people to pay for them (which Bush is not willing to do); or (2) run deficits that will eventually have to be paid by people who are currently infants and cannot vote (which Bush is entirely willing to do), then you have to pay for them by cutting everything else.

The idea that government is so flush with money that you can make enormous cuts without harming anyone is a nice idea, but false, and everybody who's been in government for a long time knows it.

War has nothing to do with Meals on Wheels. It certainly doesn't make eating any less important to people who otherwise WON'T EAT. What good is it to save an old man from a terrorist if he's going to die of malnutrition? Or having no heat in his apartment, or no access to a doctor?

Why are the only deaths worth averting the ones that are averted by war, rather than by food, or medicine, or education that leads to a job? It just makes no sense to me that you would preserve a society's safety through war while shrugging at the fact that the people who live in it can't afford to go to the doctor. Obviously -- obviously -- not all social ills can be cured, and not all of them fall to government; I agree with that. But why does it make sense to abandon a social program that is there to keep people alive in order to fund a war that also is theoretically there to keep people alive? It just . . . it doesn't hang together for me.

Where's the guy who said we should all drive mopeds when ya need him?

And now the latest reason from Bush-Cheney on why we invaded Iraq: corruption in the UN oil-for-food plan.

First, I really don't remember them giving that reason back in pre-invasion 2003. Second, do we now have reason to attack any country benefitting from a corrupt UN program?

I'm guessing where Cheney really stands is "attack first, attempt to justify later."

The only thing Chaney has going for him is he's from Wyoming. But when we were travelling in Wyoming, he was in Jackson Hole, the trendiest, most expensive, most Las Vegas-like corner of Wyoming. I.e. he was not mixing with the common folk, ranchers and antelope!!! I think he's aptly nicknamed "Dr No."

We still have yet to see the Bush Administration show any sort of humility or apologise for anything that has happened. All they do is point their fingers at everyone else. Not who I want running my country.

The scare tactics still continue to come from the right wing. If Al Qaeda is planning to attack us, it will happen regardless of who is in the White House.

The median salary in America has gone down, while cost of living continues to go up. And you say our economy is recovering?

What I think is sad, is that they have become bigger flip-floppers than Kerry could ever have been. They've been changing their rationale for the war in Iraq and changing their positions on domestic issues left, right, and sideways. They say whatever they need to say to deflect any possible criticism, when all it does it bring more.

You're right, Senator Edwards, I can't take four more years of this!

Do you know what GDP is?It was just revised up for the 3rd quarter to 3.3%.We have growth and 5.4% unemployment.5.6 is the average since 1990.1997-1999 is a unreal comparison.You a temporary a hiring and we over-hired in 2000 caused by under-estimating the growth in broad-band.I looked at the jobs lost by 9 telecom companies 2000-2003 came to 900,000.We had a huge over-building of internet infrastucture.We had the largest bankruptcies in the history of this country.The loss of capital made the S&L losses of the early 1990's look tiny(by the way that recession brought with it 7.4% unemployment).Did we say that 5.4% in 1996 was bad and blame President Clinton?Y2k and the telelecom and internet speculation caused the job losses and they weren't permenant in the fist place.This median income comparison is also relative to those boom times of 1995-2000.We need an economics theory and history coarse.

Pat: you badly need a basic spelling and grammar course.

No doubt. 'Cause, you know, I don't want to think about where "the fist place" is...

Can you imagine being an EG Equities client and getting some opinion or recommendation about where to put your money and getting some simplistic political line filled with spelling errors? Pretty funny, dawg. Just like Pat says, everybody is hiring. Send your spell-checked resumes to:

Senior VP Search Committee
Emerging Growth Equities, Ltd.
Parkview Tower
1150 First Ave, Suite 600
King of Prussia, PA 19406
610-783-1800 telephone
610-783-4780 fax

Chaney appeared very smart in his debate with Edwards. The country would be better off if these two guys were running for president. Maybe they are, at least Chaney is. But explain to me how ANYONE could vote against Martin Luther King's birthday becoming a national holiday? It makes no sense, in spite of his being a conservativee republican.