"Is it cowardly for president Chirac to stand up for what his people believe in (almost sounds like a democracy huh?), even when the world superpower is trying to coerce him into doing otherwise? Or would you say it's more cowardly to leave your weapons of intellect in the shelves collecting dust and resort to violently overthrowing a dictatorship that was of no threat, resulting in 1,000+ lost lives of US soldiers AND in between 13,000-15,000 Iraqi citizens."

That might not be cowardly from that standpoint...perhaps it shows 'moral courage' (the kind I disagree with, but nevertheless......)

What is cowardly, inhumane, selfish and disgusting is for Chirac, Annan and the rest of the EU/UN to stand in the way of relieving genocide in the Sudan. Chirac has repeatedly stifled any form of intervention to protect French oil interests.

What is happening now in Iraq is nothing compared to what has already happened in the Sudan.....and it has the potential for catostrophic human suffering not seen since Rwanda. The shame is it's preventable..... but the French must have their oil.......Oh well!!

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

"Are you aware that what Kerry voted for was the authorization for the President to go to war if necessary, not just to go to war? There is a distinction."

Quite aware, but the distinction is minimal, IMHO. They knew what he was planning, and they saw the same intelligence. If Kerry didn't believe the war was right, he should never have voted to give the president authorization. As far as information withheld regarding dissent within the administration... so what? I would bet that if there was dissention in the administration over the aluminum tubes, then most, if not all, of the Congressional leaders knew or should have known of the controversy, if not the outright dissention.

"...you are not paying into the system for your future benefits, you are paying into the system for the benefits of others who have already paid into the system."

Yes. I know this. But it would seem fair to reap the same or similar benefits that I'm providing to others. Why should I be required to provide for others now, if no one will be helping to provide for me later?

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

-- If Kerry didn't believe the war was right, he should never have voted to give the president authorization.

Kerry did believe in it so he voted to give him authorization. He then, along with many others, disagreed with the way the president conducted the building of alliances and didn't go to war as a last resort. I don't think anyone could have known how Bush would ultimately proceed with this.

Now they all look like idiots and Kerry is in the fortunate situation where he can now say that mistakes were made and the whole reason for going to war was proven wrong, thus it was the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place message.

If Bush even wavered from his original stance that the war was the right thing to do it would be political suicide, so he is sticking to the "it was a good idea and i'd do it all over again if i had the chance" line. It is his ONLY option, so I don't buy the "well you always know where he stands" argument. He stands where it is convenient for him to stand, like all politicians.

They are both choosing the position that helps their case to win the election.

I agree. That is why congress (an elected body representing the people) was polled and gave their support to go to war. Funny how it works, isn't it?

It is very convienient for the Kerry campaign to say, "well, that's not what I meant." He knew what he meant and he voted accordingly. Now it's convienient to say "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time."

He shifts with the wind. If things were going well I'm sure he'd be tooting his horn about how he voted for the conflict and how it was the right thing to do.

"I don't think anyone could have known how Bush would ultimately proceed with this. "

If you don't know then don't vote. The leaps of logic the left of are going through to make themselves believe Kerry is not a fraud and a weakling is beyond me. He voted for the US to go to war. Not to give Bush a new tool to use at the UN. He knew Bush wanted the war and knew at that second voting for the war was the political smart thing to do. Now he is caught and bullshits everyone. The left eats the bullshit because like the Republicans they are a bunch short sighted cowards. They pick one of the worst guys to run and now they have to act like they like him.



He voted for the war. The left needs the courage to see him as a fraud.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

-- The leaps of logic the left of are going through to make themselves believe Kerry is not a fraud and a weakling is beyond me.

I would guess similar to the leaps of logic the right go through to continue to believe Bush is not a fraud and an incompetent moron?

-- Now he is caught and bullshits everyone.

Isn't Bush caught in an unjustifiable war and bullshitting everyone into believing it was right and that its going well? What is your point? Politicians that want to get elected do that.

In terms of doing anything to get elected Bush and Kerry are the same. On the big issue of the election they are going to fall on opposite sides and try to convince the other side that they are right. For this reason, I don't think people should decide a president based on just one issue.

IMHO your comments are weakened by your insistence on calling everyone "cowards".

The Republicans are the center. I am the right. I will not defend Bush becuase he is like Kerry and will sale his soul to keep office. Which leads to wonder about those who are going to vote for either. Where is the backcone to make your guys honest and do what you want?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I guess this goes back to the "lesser of two evils" argument. I very much prefer some of the stances Kerry takes on other issues, in comparison to Bush. The war is just a tool both are using to get votes

Is writing in Bunnyman the only solution?

Is writing in Bunnyman the only solution?

Don't know. Do you have a better idea?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No, but I don't think I'll be writing in Bunnyman. I'd be too afraid it would allow Bush to get re-elected. I don't think I can take 4 more years of him.

Niether guy is evil so I would put it which of the souless fools would you vote for.

My question how do you trust either? They say what you want to hear but what in Kerry's past makes you think he will do anything? The Republicans would rather fall on their swords then give Kerry anything. While I love gridlock and was in pure glee during the 90's when nothing happened because both sides refused to move I don't think your that kinda guy.

You vote for Kerry and all you are going to get is words you want to hear. So how is that better than an insane hair stylist with a mullet?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

-- You vote for Kerry and all you are going to get is words you want to hear.

You know this isn't true so why do you say it?

-- So how is that better than an insane hair stylist with a mullet?

Don't bring the mullet into this. The mullet is probably the most practical hair style ever invented. Top of the head stays cool and your neck is protected on hot days. What is your point? :)

"You know this isn't true so why do you say it? "

I say it because it is true. Like I said look at the 90's, after the Reps took the house and senate what did Clinton get done? Nothing. No matter who wins the other side going to pull out all stops to prevent the winner from getting anything done.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Moral courage? The French are nothing but cheese-eating surrender monkeys!! (hee-hee)

Seriously, they've got a real problem with deciding what their place in the world is going to be. On one hand, they aggressively tried to interpose themselves between the U.S. and the U.N. and the action that was being sought by the U.S. They made clear that no matter what happened with Saddam there would be no authorization for war. Even though he and Iraq had already precipitated a legal war by us through their firing of rockets at coalition aircraft in the "no-fly" zones, which was a direct violation of U.N. Resolution 687, and which in reality gave us all the legal permission we needed to do what we did in accordance with terms of the surrender signed by Iraq in '91. Talk about damaging the credibility of that "august body".

What rogue state will ever take seriously what the U.N. pronounces if it's not backed up at least occasionally by a credible use of force? Oh yeah....I know how to fix that: we'll give them all nuclear fuel like what's being proposed for Iran (which they've already turned down) and build a nuclear power plant or two like they did in North Korea (which has since admitted to developing weapons-grade plutonium anyway).

And it now appears that the main reason for the obstructionism of France and Russia (and China and Germany to a lesser extent) is that fat-cats in the French and Russian governments and oil companies were enriching themselves beyond the dreams of avarice through the U.N. Oil-For-Food Program.

They also seem to want to be able to dictate to us when we may or may not make pronouncements about world affairs and the European Union. Witness Jacky-Boy Chirac's statement to Bush that "he should mind his own business" when it comes to advice on whether or not the EU should begin talks to decide on a date for admittance of Turkey to the EU. Talk about anti-Muslim feelings. You don't see us passing a law banning wear of the female "hijab" in our public schools, do you?

And now, it also seems as if the Security Council and the General Assembly is beside itself in trying to decide if the thousands of people being killed, beaten, raped and starved in the Sudan is indeed genocide at the hands of ethnic Arab groups known as "Janjaweed". I guess because Darfuris, like the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda ten years ago, are not important enough, or don't have anything of value that the rest of the world might want, don't matter to all of their former European colonial masters.

I think Colin Powell correctly identified it as genocide in a meeting at the U.N. a couple of weeks ago. What's happened since, but a lot of hot air and screaming about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in Gaza? Nothing, that's what.

But I forget, the U.N. will make things all better eventually. Action, not words. Works every time.

C'mon folks....let's all join in for a rousing chorus of "Kumbaya".

Tony

"in other words, they must do what is "popular""

I can't believe everyone let this go for so long without correcting this obvious falacy. If it were that simple, politicians would pass out surveys and be bound to vote in accordance with the results of those surveys. Our representatives are elected to go to Washington and run the government the best they can. If they stray too far from what the people want, they aren't elected again. In the meantime, they are supposed to use their judgment to do their best to do what is right for the country, not just blindly follow what the majority of their electorate say. They take just about the same Oath of office as a military officer, to support and defend the Constitution form all enemies foreign and domestic and to faithfully discharge their duties. nothing about, I will vote the way my constituents want me to.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Honestly Brian, no one but your parents really care about your opinion. You have shown a complete inability to recite anything but the Republican party line on any issue, fail to see any of Reagan's, Bush's, or for that matter anyone else that even hints of being right wing's weaknesses.

You have failed to produce a single piece of original thinking here that I can not read courtesy of H, of H&C or any of the other conservative "journalists".

Brian, Reagan whilst he did good things such as first woman on the supreme court, he also acknowledged South Africa as an ally. Now just which part of that is an indicator or a good, let alone, great leader. Lets see, a country that keeps it's future president in jail on Robin Island for 25 years, under the guise of being a terrorist? bearing in mind the guy was living in a country where could not vote for a change of government anyway..........

This is a president that Vetoed Sanctions against South Africa. You think SH oppressed some people, how about a goverment that oppresses its majority?

Reagan was a real stand up guy. Good job Brian, you probably dont want to be reading about Rons achievements on his website, you may want to branch out a little.

Oh, and what say you about Reagan, the contras and South America?