Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Lyle, Jun 28, 2004.
CNN Story here...
Take the above link, and mix with the following:
...after well-blended, slowly add this to the mix:
...taste...if too bitter, add a dash of the following...
depending on your dietary needs, you may want to use saccharine instead...
Links that require registration give me indigestion.
Do you (or anyone else) have any registration-free links for the same?
I apologize for taking up so much space...
Lyle (and anyone else who does not want to register), these are, with the exception of the last link, multi-paged articles (# 1&2 are two pages, #3 is three pages)...clipped for some sense of brevity...FYI
No, thanks very much, blackfox. After your initial post, I tried to see if I could view them through Google news but it seems to only let me view today's Washington Post stories (not the ones from a few days back) without doing the registration thing.
after all bremer's changes, i suppose the "free" is gone from "free elections"
Hey, they're ahead of schedule... doesn't that mean that everything is going just great?
Here's Juan Cole's take on today's events.
sounds more like an elaborate game of hot potato than a transfer of sovereignty...
now playing: last plane out / toy matinee
Probably, for the short run anyhow. Predictions on tv now about how terrorism is going to go up between now and Iraqi's election 7 months from now. People are probably going to post about how much worse it is. Thing is it is going to get worse in an attempt to stop the election process from happening.
This is nothing but kowtowing to terrorists and giving in to the pressure they applied to Bush and the coalition.
How can this be interpreted as anything other than allowing the terrorists to dictate the ground rules? Are we seriously afraid of what might happen if we follow the schedule WE set out?
And can you imagine the scream of 'cowardice' from the right if a President Kerry had done something like this?
What, switching over power 3 days early? I thought it was the UN's idea to do it on the 30th. I believe it was smart strategy to do it 3 days early so as to prevent the terrorist from interfering with the change over.
The terrorists aren't pleased they are going to get worse not better, switch over isn't going to stop them.
No, that was all GWB's call. And now he can't even stick it out until the day he said he would. Cutting and running is what it looks like to terrorists.
Were still there *shrug*
Haha, you *shrug* now, but back then you were on the side that ridiculed me and others who said we'd still be there 130,000 strong 15 months hence back before this war started. Now you *shrug* as if that never happened.
Did it? I always figured we'd have bases there, I personally figured that we'd close our European bases and open up a slew of Middle East bases.
i think the handover today was a good way to save lives...on both sides
i am glad that iraq is back in their hands even though i know us troops will be involved there for some time to come
i don't give w any brownie points for the handover since it was the shrub and his administration who put us in iraq in the first place...as this has dragged on, more and more people have ditched their support for the president and what supporters he has have toned down their enthusiasm a lot
some months back, i thought bush would definitely win in november but i think the war turning south and the sluggish economy has made this handover look like a weak political move of w to make him look good
...but at this point, nothing can make w look good and if he gets a second term, it will be by the skin of his teeth
sure, he barely got in four years ago but his supporters were on a mission and they were gung ho...where are they now? no matter what bush does in the next four years, assuming he gets a second term, he won't go down in history as an effective president like clinton and reagan were...who, whether you agree with them or not, got a lot done in their first terms and were generally praised by the majority of the country
I agree jef, but it can't inspire confidence that we aren't able to hold a transfer ceremony in the open for all the Iraqi people to see. A necessary change, but not much of a confidence builder.
if bush gives us the impression that the whole occupation is truly over, then he will gain a few points in the polls
when someone brings up this unpopular war a few months from now, no one will want to hear about it since it may be considered old news by then
that will hopefully make us look the economy and how it has been with the inevitable question, "are you better off today than four years ago?"
i am confident most will say "no" and this will hurt bush and hopefully get him out of office...i don't think he is the worst president ever since i am reading "all the president's men" right now about the watergate scandal
but at least nixon got stuff done
Take away Kerry's issues
In a political context, this is part of the republican strategy to take away Kerry's issues.
Issue #1 The economy: Obviously getting beter. Even though the US is negative for job creation, trends for the last few months are good, and if it continues, it'll be hard for the democrats to hit the Republicans on the economy. If a lower defecit is projected for next year, that will help the elephants too.
Issue #2 Iraq: This is part of a path towards Bush reducing military head count in Iraq before the Nov election. I wouldn't be surprised if you see less than 100k troops in Iraq by November. That way if Kerry says "US troops out of Iraq", Bush can say "well, half of them have already left." Also Kerry says "UN support", Bush can say "we already have UN and NATO support now."
Issue #3 Health Care: Prescription drug benefit signed a while back.
So what are Kerry's issues going forward? I'd vote Kerry because I think he'd do better on health care and education, and I think that's what he should be highlighting. But will he get that message out and will it resonate with most people if they think the country is improving anyway?
So what was Chalabi doing there?
i remember talking to my republican friend, who remains conservative, but won't vote for bush again
"so the economy is good, or getting there finally...about time!...so let's say bush has one good year? *this was back in november, 03*
how will that make up for nearly three shi##y years that we had under his watch?"
no matter what happens between july and november this year, even great job creation, there is no way bush can say "yup, i did our economy proud"
and that's why i posed the question about which of his economic policies, if any, helped the economy. i think it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold that, despite his policies, the economic engine of america was able to burst through.
e.g. after 3 years of sluggishness, businesses just simply broke down and needed to buy some stuff. plus, after so much downsizing, a certain efficiency was reached.