Eswiv

First off, Matt Druge certainly isn't a nonpartisan source. The National Journal, however, isn't partisan, but those rankings were widely acknowledged inaccurate. The ranking consisted only of votes cast in 2003, a year when Kerry was absent from many votes due to the campaign. The ranking was based on 62 votes split amongst three areas - economic, social, and foreign policy. Kerry's ranking was formulated from only 20 votes, all of which wer

Coolness is certainly the most critical thing to look for in a President.

Those celebrities should realize how what they take for granted is precious indeed and act a bit more responsibly. Is responsibility not standing up for what you believe in, then? Whatever you think of their opinions, they have just as much a right to have them and to express them as anyone else. Neve

Wow.

Kerry went to Boston College Law, buddy.

That's your expert opinion, sandy? Oddly, the missile research you allude to has spawned technologies currently at use in the military every day. If you go back and look, people were saying the same thing about the B-2 bomber before they realized they had no idea what they were talking about. Kerry voted against it, too, o

Madine- The Framework Agreement with North Korea negotiated under the Clinton Administration provided the North Koreans with a supply of economic aid, in the form of both oil and food and humanitarian aid. In return, North Korea was to cease a Plutonium enrichment program that it was operating in several facilities scattered around the mountains. I would not be so quick to criticize the Clinton administration's handling of the situation, how

Last I checked only 28 presumed innocencents had been convicted of murder and executed. There hasn't been one who has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be innocent. Remember, if it's worth hav

The "Two Americas" idea here is, I think, being very misinterpreted. The idea is not that the wealthy are lazy or boorish and just don't care. The idea is that there is a growing divide in this country between the haves and have nots, that the gap between the upper and lower strata of American society is growing larger. The idea is not that one is bad and the oth

As much as I dislike this President, as much as I disagree with this President, and as much as I want this President to become a former President as soon as possible, that is a touching photo, and it's a breath of fresh air in the political landscape. I wish we could see more of this type of thing across the board. Thanks for the photo.

It's not a technicality. It's a pretty important point, that the Security Council is authorized to do something but no one else. I hate to break the news, but it is a fact. We weren't legally justified in going into Iraq. We were fine based on the information we provided at the time we went in, but since then the lack of WMD has stripped us of our legality. You can ask around the legal community, it's just the truth. As for Internationa

Presidents get more information on these things than Senators do. If you think there is full transparency between the Senate and White House then why does the Senate have to kick and claw and scream to drag memos and briefings out of the Administration? Why is Executive Privelidge exercised so much when dealing with the Congress if Congress gets everything the President gets anyway? Bush states in his State of the Union that Iraq is not an imminent

That is, as you say, the legal justification. However, the action was illegal. I had a discussion about this with a professor at Georgetown Law once, and we came to an agreement. The war was illegal because of what UNSC 687 states. UNSC 687 was the security council resolution setting up the post-war Iraq environment after the Gulf War. It stated that were Iraq in material breach of the conditions set down by that resolution, including the producti

What's your point? The issue at hand isn't what Senator Kerry thought of WMD in Iraq. Senators were not provided with much information more than the public was, and the recent report shows that that information was deeply flawed. They did not have the same information as President Bush did. I mentioned this before. Here are some examples. Members of the Administration repeatedly claimed, and these claims were also given to the Congress

I keep explaining this, but you clearly missed it. I will copy and paste it yet another time. People continue to support the war because first, they think removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, regardless of the situation it was done in. They don't know much about, or care much about, or both, the foundations of international law or procedure, and they just figure that Saddam was a bad guy and it's good he's gone. Then there

There was NO UN provision in there. Except for this one. Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions.'

There's a big difference between saying that pre-war Iraq was a nice place and saying that Iraq now is not better off than it was before, BakerStreet.

Nobody voted on the invasion. Kerry and the others voted on a resolution to support the president provided that he go to the UN and ehxaust all diplomatic avenues before taking action. It's widely known now that Kerry traded his vote for the resolution for the addition of the phrasing requiring diplomatic action. The contention is, of course, that Bush didn't exhaust the diplomatic avenues, and as such their votes were not supportive of what action

Given the fact that the weapons inspectors themselves had numerous misgivings about WMDs that weren't accounted for, I'd say your assumption is pretty weak.I'd suggest a basic philosophy course. You can't prove something doesn't exist. You can believe, or assume, but you can't prove anything of the kind. <b

Revisionism better describes people that like to present Hussein's regime as a happy, comfortable place. Great, but what's the point? Hussein's Iraq was not a happy place at all. That's no reason to invade. If it was, we'd be all over the place by now. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=

Re: # 41 There is far more evidence at this time to support the claim that Iraq didn't have significant WMD stockpiles than to support the idea that it did. I think if you're depending on some huge discovery a few years down the road, then you are backing yourself way out onto a much more fragile limb than anti-Bush zealots. Nobody ever gets a second chance in po

First off, support has significantly declined. Here's some CBS/New York Times polling information. "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?" . Did Right Thing - Should Have Stayed Out - Don't Know Trend: 5/20-23/04 49 46

China would never do anything to actively prevent the U.S. from invading North Korea. There's too much at stake. All China could do is put pressure on North Korea to back down. If, however, you want to look at attempting a peaceful solution, we have been attempting one with North Korea for sixty years now. Ten years ago we had them freeze their plutonium enrichment program, and they proceeded on secretly with a uranium enrichment program. When we

And once again you fail to address the question at hand. I am not suggesting that it would have been the best thing to do to invade Korea, quite the opposite. I think that would be one of the worst things we could do, and that this Administration made the right choice in negotiating. I am simply saying that it is intensely hypocritical to claim that you are invading Iraq because it poses a threat to the United States when there are far greater threa

No, it isn't some sociopathic mantra. Let's look at the Bush Doctrine for a second, shall we? The Bush Doctrine consists of four parts. The Preemptive Strike, Unilateralism if necessary, the War on Terrorism, and Promotion of Democracy. The first part, the reservation of the Administration to act preemptively if it sees a threat, was utilized in Iraq. Next, the Unilateralism. If we have to, we will act alone to protect our interests. Again, we