You're missing "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time," I think.

Timothy, how about this... "And I will extract us from the quagmire by getting our allies, the French and the Germans, to commit their troops to the wrong war, in the wrong place, at wrong time."

BIG NEWS:

I, the swing voter par excellence, am now officially not voting for John Kerry. I actually found his flip flopping on the war quite tolerable, after all, watching it, you get to thinking, hey, these people bomb each other in the manner of a pasttime just like i like a good pennant race b/w the dodgers and giants, they like explosives, so then why the hell are we there?

And you think, yes, this is a crappy war.

But then the president brings allawi here, the guy shakes hands with a jewish person (wow!), and says look, we are hoping for a better iraq. Now, if iraq is better, i think it is quite the pareto optimal solution - but in addition to the left, one asswipe decides to crap on allawi's parade, namely john kerry and his ilk - and for what? allawi is our only chance really to make it work - cant kerry say, i welcome allawi too and i will work with him in a better way to make free and fair elections and a better iraq, and i will support him in much better ways so he can get assistance from france, et. al. why make politics out of it? I dont get it.

So after a long dalliance with john kerry, i am out. I wish him luck, but i hope he loses.

I am not however back in george bush's column unless he impresses me in the debates.

And Rumsfeld over the weekend said that we'll probably have to pull out while we're still having daily attacks on our troops.

And Bush thinks we don't need more troops even as violence continues to spiral out of control in Iraq.

And I guess Bush just doesn't care much about Bin Laden, because there are less experienced case officers today going after him than there were in 2001.

I can keep going all day. But I'm tired.

You know that less of the D/O is targeting bin laden for a fact? Are you in the CIA?

I just like facts. The fact is that if a guy like allawi, who does not murder kurds by the 100K and actually has an open mind about israel and the west can say we are going to try to turn iraq, and all kerry can say is he is doomed to fail, well, the fact is, i dont get it. IS there a better alternative?

By getting rid of saddam you opened lots of iraq unsettled scores, it is called selective restabilization of the arab world - the former stability was a recipe for more 9/11 events. So we are trying in Iraq - i just dont get why kerry has to be so against any modicum of success in iraq.

If he had stuck to the economy, which grows at the pace of a snail on meth, he would have had my vote. Making an election about foreign policy has never won the dems anything since 1960.

Surely when he is the president (actually I predict he will loose so this is all hypothetical) he would HAVE to stop flip floping.... surely...

That 200 billion dollar figure is bullsh1t. It's 120 billion - a lot of money, but a far cry from the talking point.

Also, somewhere around 100,000 Iraqis have been trained to take over for when the allied forces leave.

Kerry is arguably the worse presidential candidate in my 40 yrs of life. He should be institutionalized.

I agree with you Hen. Kerry is a bad candidate. He cannot make a point with fewer than 5 sentences. He could have been a good candidate in 1860. Not in the era of soundtracks, when they take the middle sencence out of contest.

But Bush is the worse president since ..... i do not know, Warren Harding or Martin Van Buren, or some of the time of the reconstruction like Rutherford Hayes.

About the 200 billion not being spent, part of it was that the money for the reconstruction of Iraq was not used. Look who was in charge of handeling that money. No wonder why Iraq is a mess.

The US is the greatest country of the world. We deserve the best people for the presidency. Not a guy that even when show off his knowledge confuses Abu Nidel with Abu Abbas.

"Not a guy that even when show off his knowledge confuses Abu Nidel with Abu Abbas."

Or (gasp) Lambert Field with Lambeau Field.
Or David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez with Manny Ortez.

Criminey, can we just f'in vote already.

Sono - How many contractors in Iraq do you know? How about soldiers? Are you friends with many over there? If not what are you basing your "Iraq is a mess" statement on? The press?

The fact that Bush says Abu Nidal when he meanst Abu Abbas (or whatever) bothers me not a whit.

And that is why he will win in a walk: People like you who are so convinced no one will vote for him because he is "so dumb" are out of touch with reality and with the general consensus of the American public.

But don't worry: After Bush wins again, you and your buddies can go to the local coffee house, suck down some lattes and laugh about how dumb Bush is.

Some things never change.

How come lefties never mention Jimmy Carter when looking for historically horrible presidents?

Brennan: "Spiral out of control" has a unique meaning in your world, doesn't it?

"Continues" would be accurate. "Is in a pre-election upsurge", would be accurate (do you think the insurgents and their foreign backers aren't aware that their actions may affect the election, specifically by getting People Like You to back the guy that wants to hand Iraq to them? No? Good, neither do I.).

"Spiral[s] out of control" is wishful thinking on your part.

Dear Hen: I do not think Bush is dumb. I think he is an ignorant. I think he, and his administration, are incompetent. (Except at the spinning game)
They are making America weaker in all fronts, and that is not laughable.
I became a US citizen a couple years ago. In order to do that, I gave up a perfectly fine citizenship. I have much more in steak than you, because you probably had no choice, you were born an American. I want, I need, America to kick ass!!
The people truly laughing are the people of all the rest of the countries in the world, that see how the Clint Eastwood’s wannabe president of our great country is sinking in his own ideological shit and taking all of us with him.
Believe me, I will not be laughing if he is elected.

I disagree with Bush on many fronts. (Iraq is NOT one of them.) However, Kerry's idiotic performance the past two weeks, including his dis of Allawi, have firmed up my vote for W.

As for Iraq, I believe we aqre both rebuilding a country from the wreckage of dictatorship and dealing a substantial blow to Middle Eastern terrorist networks. The only way to destroy Islamic fundamentalism is to crush it at its roots - and those roots are the theocratic dictatorships of the Middle East, and the secular dictatorships (like Hussein's) that prop them up. Israel's aggressive approach is crushing the Palestinian intifada, and our aggressive approach will crush al-Qaeda as well.

hen: you should differentiate yourself from your choice for president by getting some facts straight.

regarding the 100k trained troops, sounds nice, but the facts are different.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5240190

happy talk happy talk.

kerry is so flawed that this president who led this nation into an unnecessary war, has increased the size and spending of the federal govt and who threatens the constitution with some wingnut amendment (just to name a few) just might win.

but don't confuse a bush (or kerry) victory with an improving situation in america. we've demonstrated our vulnerability.

By the way Hen, you are right. My comment on Iraq being a mess was based on the media reports on the CIA analysis of the situation in Iraq. Those that Bush called “guesses”.
And also on the media report of the statements that CIA made answering the president remarks.

I should also include the comments of secretary of State Collin Powell, as well as a report of the BBC broadcasted on NPR where a reporter staying in one of the region that Allawi called “safe”, denied that assertion, saying that at least in that region election were not possible. (I can understand if you believe that the BBC report could be tainted with the reporter’s bias).

Oh, Dinesh, tsk, tsk, tsk. Read the signs:

"...Pentagon documents, given to lawmakers and obtained by Reuters..."

"...according to Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee."

"...Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN."

"...Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State for President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, told ABC's 'This Week.'"

and, finally, at the bottom:

"Reuters"

Surely some teeny bit of skepticism is warranted?

buzz: believe what you wish. i trust the details of the reuters article way more than the absence of details coming from hen, fox or cnn.

as for skepticism, some skepticism is warranted of a president who stated that saddam had wmd, launched 130k troop war and no wmd were found.

Stop wasting your time, folks.

When people start believing CNN is part of the Bush/Cheney junta, it's too late.

I can only imagine the color of the sky in your world, Dinesh. Probably a hint of brown, I suspect.

jimg:

you still believing that nonsense bush is spouting about 130k "trained" troops in iraq, or has fox not broadcast the facts regarding that issue?

let me know when fox tells you the facts on that matter. then we can talk.

until then, the left wing conspiracy in the liberal media continues......