October 31, 2004


On Tuesday, Americans will choose between the conservative hawk from Texas, and the conservative hawk from Massachusetts. Both are running on a platform to strengthen the military and track down terrorists wherever they may live. Draw your own conclusions about who has the most convincing track record in this regard.

I have tried to make clear the reasons I have, and continue to support, President Bush. Despite his many faults, he seems to understand that the only nations serious about this fight are already in the field at our side. We have recovered from budget deficits before. We have been debating abortion and gay rights and all the other lifestyle issues for decades, and these debates will not go away if John Kerry is elected.

I will be able to live with a Kerry Presidency. But what tortures me is the thought that this country is no longer capable of doing hard, dirty work -- that we have reached the point where nothing difficult is attainable because the cost is something less than free.

I believe, from a reading of the history and the very words of the leaders of North Vietnam, that John Kerry was instrumental in convincing them that if they were able to hang on and inflict enough American casualties, eventually we would tire and go home.

I further believe that history shows that the Ayatollah Khomeini had our number in this regard, and I regard the start of this current conflict as the day they overran the US Embassy in Tehran, to which our response was...what?

The murdering, beheading savages who are trying to steal victory from defeat in the American ballot box have seen these lessons of Vietnam, and Iran, and Somalia, and they are -- and have openly said they are -- doing their best to kill as many Americans as they can to win this election for the man they certainly seem to fear less. That tells me something.

We now discover from MEMRI (link here) in a more precise interpretation of Osama bin Laden's recent tape that he was in fact saying that those American states that do not mess with him will be safe, and the implication, of course, is that those that do -- by voting for Bush -- face his retaliation.

Whether or not you are willing to bargain your safety with this man is up to your own individual conscience. Personally, the idea disgusts me, and I think the reason the press has --shockingly! -- declined to mention this is because they know that despite Michael Moore, this is not Spain. I believe the idea of bin Laden dictating American politics is enough to ensure a Bush win. Read the article at MEMRI and draw your own conclusion.

President Bush has already done much to re-program our mortal enemies assumptions about our determination to finish what we start, no matter the cost. Three dangerous enemies have fallen during his watch -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The first two were predicted to cause American streets to run red with blood as the Jihadists took their vengeance upon us. In the three years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on this country. That is a record to be proud of, and one that deserves the reward of my vote, at least.

I want to finish this fight, now. I don't think our children should have to worry about this five or ten or twenty years from now, when Iran or North Korea has had a chance to spread some nuclear largesse around. I believe a badly wounded enemy is more dangerous than a dead one. I want this fight to be over so that the country can afford to elect someone who panders to everyone and speaks French and can undo all this animosity from Europe with a few well-placed toasts and a conciliatory speech at the UN. The time for that is when this thing is over.

There is much to dislike, and even some to despise, about the current American President. But he means to finish this fight, and by that, I believe he means to finish it by winning.

Afghanistan did not go to the warlords. It went to the polls. There were not one million refugees. Iraq did not produce 10,000 US casualties in house-to-house fighting, nor did it splinter into 3-way civil war as so many predicted. In three months, Iraqis will also go to the polls, and they, by all accounts, will continue their widespread support for secular candidates and repudiation of the extremists that are fighting so hard to terrorize and dishearten them. But the Iraqis are not terrorized. They are signing on for their army and police forces in the face of great danger. We owe those brave men and women something better than "wrong war, wrong place and wrong time."

This is failure?

Not by my standards, it isn't.

So I promised you a final thought, and everything above this point is mere preamble to it. Here it is:

People are telling you that Tuesday will be the most important election of your lives.

That is not true.

The most important election of your lives was held on Tuesday, November 7th, 2000. You just didn't know it. Neither did I.

What happened on that day led to one man being in the White House these past four years, rather than the other one. Whether he has done enough to keep us safe, even if he should lose on Tuesday, remains to be seen. But the fact remains that George W. Bush was Commander in Chief and President when we needed him the most.

I made a mistake when I cast my vote for Al Gore in the most important election of my lifetime. I won't make that mistake again on Tuesday.

Posted by Proteus at October 31, 2004 11:37 PM

Welcome to the Eject! Eject! Eject! commenter community. Please read and understand the following:

1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door.

2. This is a voluntary online community. Your posting of any material, whether in comments or otherwise, grants to William A. Whittle, Aurora Aerospace, Inc. and their affiliates, a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, sublicense, reproduce or incorporate into other material all or any portion of the material posted, for commercial or other use.

3. If a comment does find its way into a main page essay, print, or other media, every effort will be made to credit the individual making the comment. So chose your screen name accordingly, SLNTFRT33@yahoo.com!

Now let's see some distributed intelligence and basic human decency! Don't make me come down there every five minutes!


You wrote: "I made a mistake when I cast my vote for Al Gore in the most important election of my lifetime. I won't make that mistake again on Tuesday."

Boy, howdy is THAT the truth. Honestly? My first thought on September 11 (well, the first coherent one, anyway) was "Thank God it's not Gore in office." Honestly.

I'm not going to make that mistake again, either.

A Belmont club entry had a take based on the earlier translation, that Osama was basically offering "surrender" or, that if we left him alone, he'd leave us alone.

There's only one problem with the theory. It depends on BELIEVING what Osama says.

Others have pointed out that there's a concept in islam (I forget the word they gave) that lying to infidels is not a sin, and there's another one about strategic retreat for regrouping. That Osama is offering this olive branch is a trap for the foolish. He'll take it back and hit us with it. No, it's a sign that he's really on the ropes and we should redouble our efforts to finish him.

Personally, I think this upcoming election IS the most important one, partly because this time we are AWARE of the stakes, but mostly because this time we're doing more than just choosing our "favorite candidate for the post." We're making a direct statement of our own TO THE WORLD -- our communal citizen's voice directly to the ears, hearts and minds of the rest of the world, enemy and ally alike. We are proclaiming who "we" -- AMERICA, the nation as a whole -- are, without a unilateral singular voice speaking for us this time.

The world knows who George Bush is now. It knows HE will honor his promises, it knows HE will stand tough against truly astonishing pressures, it knows HE will see this fight through regardless of vacillating national and international opinions. What the world is NOT sure of (thanks to this nearly even split at the polls) is who WE are, who AMERICA is, or what America, as a nation of influential CITIZENS will DO. And this election, moreso than any other I can think of from recent history, is the moment at which the world will find out -- whether America IS all that President Bush showed it could be, or whether we're back to being short-sighted, self-centered dabblers, debuttantes and fair-weather friends. Because, as I just said in the last comment stream, voting in ANYONE else other than President Bush is (obviously) the same as throwing OUT the first president in a long time who was willing to do the dirty job, at the likely expense of his political career, who honored his promises, and DID what he said he would friggin' DO. It announces that we disapprove of his kind of resolve and stick-to-it-tiveness, as WELL is his specific choices of action. And whether you like his choices of action or not, that kind of CHARACTER is what the world is watching for in US now, the voting American public.

Was Bush's stalwartness a fluke? A one-voice chorus? Or is that kind of resolve the true nature of this COUNTRY? Because, if Kerry is elected, whether he lives up to every one of his campaign promises or not, we will still have thrown out the one guy whose utter resolve no one doubts anymore. We will have proclaimed, "That's not us." We will have backed away from the challenge again, shown our short attention span and lack of perseverence, and worst of all, shown our enemies the very weakness they're looking for -- the weakness in OUR resolve. And just like the North Vietnamese 30 years ago, they will then have the measure of us, and all they'll have to do is wait.

No, THIS election is the most important one. This time YOU have the world's attention, not just your favorite candidate.


And don't forget - as an added bonus you get to enjoy the look on Dan Rather's face as he announces Bush's re-election.

Also I'd like to ask Bill's readers a question that has been bugging me. The US Constitution says someone can only be elected President twice. The Moore-ons and other moonbats say that Bush was not elected in 2000 but selected. Does that mean that Bush can be elected in 2004 and 2008?

Frank M.,
Nope. Here's what it says.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
It's the 'acted as President' that counts out that idea.

If the Move/Moore On folks were correct that Bush was selected (they aren't, but I'll go with that for a moment), he could be elected twice. (Bush was elected legally and fairly, despite Gore's attempts to recount forever, but I'll consider this a constitutional question).

The case in point was Ford. Ford was not elected (he was chosen as VP after Agnew resigned), but was eligible for election for two additional terms. He didn't win election in his first attempt so the point was moot.

Truman became president when FDR died. He won reelection for his first full term, but lost in the second. Another example that you can be president for more than 8 years if you gained the Presidency in something besides an election.

Warning: I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert. I just play one on the web.

I am almost certain that Truman did not lose a presidential election. Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson in 1952, not Harry Truman.

You're right, Alan. Truman didn't run for a second term, but he could have.

Your concluding statement is true for many of us. Let's hope there are plenty of other 9/11 Democrats out there.

Mauser - The term you're looking for is "hudna" which refers to a truce that, according to some scholars (and much tradition) must be chronologically limited if entered into with Infidels. E.g.:

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

The concept is, of course, to enter into a truce with a superior enemy, regain strength, and later resume the conflict. It's interesting to note that some scholars (see above) believe that the eventual ending of the truce and resumption of hostilities is a mandatory end.

Please American people, please please please please please please please please please please please please re elect George, please please please please please please please please!

It takes a lot of guts to admit that you voted for Gore. If it makes you feel any better, the very first election I voted in, I voted for Perot. (My military vote in '88 doesn't count considering I got my absentee ballot after the elections were over.)

Thankfully we learn from our mistakes.

The two-term limit on the presidency is a recent innovation, and Harry Truman was specifically exempted. He could have run for as many terms as he wanted, as the amendment passed while he was president. In fact, he started to run in 1952, but either after losing the N.H. primary or after not doing well in it, stopped his campaign.

You have to scratch your head at the bin laden tape and its suggestion that states that don't mess with him will be spared.

Is this some kind of David Boies Florida strategy?

Nothing would surprise me in this election. Nothing.

I don't think that OSB realizes that you mess with one state you mess with them all! Shake the nest again OSB and the hornets will strike!
GWB all the way!

...just another registered Dem who voted for Gore but will push the button for Bush tomorrow, to the discernible dismay of family and friends...

If the media actually reported that OBL was threatening retribution against red states and security for blue states, I think the main impact would be to make the red states go for Bush by larger margins and the blue states go for Kerry by larger margins. Since most of the toss up states are in the midwest, OBL's comments would push those state to Bush.

As a foreigner, who is supposed to hate Bush because that is what the left wing Fisk- Chomsky- Moore loving media elite preach day and night, I say thank God Bush was elected in 2000 for I can't imagine Gore having the fortitude of this man, nor the vision to not only envisage that freedom in the Middle east will free the world of Islamic terrorism, but the courage to act on his vision. Because of this revolutionary President, millions in Afghanistan and Iraq are free from tyranny. I beg all Americans, PLEASE vote for Bush. A win for the 10 September-backward looking-conservative Kerry will be a victory for the terrorists and make the world not only less free but much more dangerous. Tonight I will go to bed praying for a Bush victory. I wish I could vote, I can't only YOU Americans can do it. Don't let the freedom loving people in the world down. Your President hasn't, NOR MUST YOU! VOTE BUSH.
Patrick Becket, South Africa

Mauser said, "Others have pointed out that there's a concept in islam (I forget the word they gave) that lying to infidels is not a sin..." Change "islam" to "politics" and "infidels" to "voters" and your statement is equally true. Especially so for Bush and Kerry. I don't believe a single word that comes out of the mouth of either of those tyrants.

Vote Libertarian, or vote from the rooftops. Your choice.

Nobody really knew what kind of President W would be before he was elected. He campaigned as a different kind of candidate than he he was presided. So I think speculating on how Gore would have reacted to 9/11 is nonsense. Being thankful that Gore was not President is a form of self-delusion.

Al Gore lost Tennessee, the state where his father was Senator for eighteen years and where Al himself was elected Senator four years before being selected by Clinton in '92.

If your home state won't even go into your column, you deserve to lose.

'Nuff said.

For 15 years the Islamo-murderers have been telling us what they're going to do to us ..... and then DOING it! Finally, FINALLY someone has stood up and said "No mas". Why would any rational voter want to get rid of him?

Providence gave us the president we needed on Sept. 11, and tomorrow, if Kerry is elected, we might just get back the president our satieted country deserves. I know for absolute certainty, if Gore had sued his way into the White House and 9/11 had happened and hand wringing incompetence had followed with Afghanistan and Iraq. I can tell this country would have been ripped apart in way we cannot imagine.

**Being thankful that Gore was not President is a form of self-delusion.**

being dave is a form of self-delusion.

I voted for Harry Browne in 2000, thinking that it wouldn't matter who won the election. Gore was a known-and disliked-quantity, while Bush appeared to be an empty suit. I have to say that I was dead wrong in that regard, and thankfully so.

Some of us were saying Algore had serious mental problems longggg before "Having a Al Gore moment" became cliche.

Inventing the internet was only one of them along with "Earth in the Balance".

I don't have as much issue with what Bush did in his 20's as I do with what Gore did in his 50's.

Thanks for saying that this started in 1979 with the Iranians. I have been argueing that point for three years now with people who feel we deserve what we got on 9/11. I was a paratrooper in Italy in 1979 and still feel the hatred for Carter that most of the unit felt at that time. Thank heaven for George W. Bush.

I too supported Bush in 2000, but thought Gore was someone I could live with if the Florida-debacle when the other way....until Sept. 11th, 2001. I gently remind those who think Bush-Kerry...either way...of how you felt on Sept 12th about Gore.
My opinion is that if Gore had be POTUS on that bright, wonderful morning that we'd be huddling in the cold and dark over a candle, the world economies would have been shaken by the lack of decisive action by the US, and the Islamo-fascists would be rising in 'Jihad' in many the oil regions of the world. And not surprisingly, world oil production would be maybe 50% of current levels with Saddam and the mad Iranian mullahs both nuking-up for an nuclear border war aimed at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the gulf states and Israel as spoils of war. Inconceivable?, look the blunders and missteps that birthed WW1 European bloodbath. And was the aftermath of the US Civil War obvious in 1860 with one-half-million casualties?
I was reminded this afternoon of the Samurai act of seppuku. One of it's forms was "....self-disembowelment as rebuke to one's liege-lord". As pissed as I have been at Bush for his support for FMA, the poorly-managed post-war Iraq governance, and the fiscal situation...I am not-prepared to commit electoral-seppuku and vote for Kerry as a form of ritual rebuke.

I do not trust John Kerry with my life and those of my family. Everything else is secondary. And it's that important.

Great job. I agree with you 100%.

Why can't people ever offer support for the President without having to attempt to win the respect of the Beltway talking heads with stuff like "there is much to despise about Bush"? Like what?

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 too. And I have been grateful ever since September 11, 2001 that he lost.

Will I make that mistake again? I'm not omniscient, so I probably will. But not this year.

I'm voting for George Bush.

Imagine what would've happened if Iran had decided to take our people hostage AFTER Reagan's defeat of Carter in 1980 (although not that even Khomeini would've been that stupid).

Looks like at long last the terrorists didn't dodge the bullet. A few inches to the left, a handful of votes in Florida, would've made it a near miss, but I'm afraid this time around the terrorists got it right between the eyes.

Now is the time to reload and keep shooting.

Dubya '04!

The only way to decide between these two is to pick your hot-button issues and see how they compare. The President is a known quantity after 4 years of insane pressure. Kerry is known thru 20+ years in the Senate and his so-called youthful excesses. Gore lost because he was as confidence inspiring as a turnip on Valium.

Neither Bush nor Kerry will change. They will both be true to their pasts.

Bush will fight. Bush will piss you off. Bush will try something different. Bush will speak poorly in public. Bush will lead.

Kerry will run...after polling.

As for what Bush has done to displease people...that's personal to each of us. I'm a social libertarian, fiscal conservative, and second amendment kind of guy who happens to believe in a woman's right to choose.

Neither of these guys quite fits that bill.

On my hot button issues Bush wins. On some of the things I believe in, he has shown support...the rest he ignores. I'll take that any day over active opposition.

I voted for Bush in 2000 and I'll proudly vote for him again...he happily exceeded all of my expectations...despite the AWB thing, his policies on immigration, and the ballooning government. Kerry would be worse. I voted for Perot way back when and I don't regret it for a minute. The country is stronger for it.

Oh yeah, and I'm a vet. I'd rather see my daughter date a Kennedy than have that bastard Kerry as CinC. He puked me out in the 60's and he pukes me out now.

I, too, voted for Gore in 2000.

This year, I took advantage of early voting, and I'm glad to say that I didn't make the same mistake again.

Thanks for another spot-on essay.

Frankly I cannot understand how ANYBODY can look at the Bush presidency and not see an utter an abject failure. His actions have made this nation significantly less secure than we were when he took office. He has a pathological inability to admit any error. We, as human beings, learn best from our mistakes, if you cannot admit to mistakes you cannot learn their lessons. He will not even acknowledge that being arrested and convicted of drunk driving was an error of any kind. He just does not see the world as it is. He is blinded by his faith, and thinks god talks to him. If that doesn;t scare the bejeepers out of you, nothing will. The man who has his finger on the button thinks god talks to him personally.


I would consider it an utter abject failure if terrorists had struck the U.S. mainland again, and I do not feel significantly less secure.

Methinks you and I have different priorities and perspectives, which is why I don't consider the Bush administration an utter abject failure.

Thanks for another great post, Bill.

As for me, I go along with what George said:

"Please American people, please please please please please please please please please please please please re elect George, please please please please please please please please!"

Should we blame President Carter for all the problems we have had in the Middle East? Islamism saw that we would not help a friend (the Shah of Iran). They took hostages and we fell on our face trying to get them back. We have been attacked offend since then. Now they are saying if you vote someone that will stand up to us, we will attack you. Are they afraid of President Bush? I say yes and I voted for President Bush.

Remember the Redskins “won the game before they lost the game”.

Tomorrow I'll pray so that Americans do what we Spaniards didn't had the guts to do in 14-M.

I'll pray for Bush to win.

God Bless liberty and the U.S. of A!

Sir Sefirot

Ps: Great post, Bill. As always.




In 2000, as with every Presidential election that I had voted in before that, I voted against someone.

2004 will be the first year I vote for someone.

I only hope I get to do it again someday.

Holy F'ing schnitt! Was the the real Mikey Moore that just posted? I mean the oh so unsubtle irony, the misinformation, the spin. I think it just might have been.
Refused to go after OBL and missing explosives???? That's all you got fat boy?

Well stated (as usual). Let's finish this thing now. And if Osama wants to come after the red states, I say "Bring it on", because the red states are probably the ones with the largest number of armed citizens.

Well of course you won't make that mistake again...
I'm pretty sure al gore isn't even on the ballot this time...

Great post

I am afraid.
No matter how large a margin Bush wins by the Dems will still cry foul, and make the 2000 election look like a minor disagreement.
This is going to be ugly folks.

Thanks again, sir.

The frightening thing about being a free people -- about trusting one another and making decisions in an election -- is that we as a people might actually make the wrong choice. This has happened before, and when it does happen we always eventually pay a price. This time, I think, the price could be pretty high.

Democracies can make mistakes. We can be distracted by demagogues and by the chaos of the day-to-day squabbles, and miss the big truths about the world and our responsibilities in it. Whole generations of people can lose sight of the values and the spirit that must animate a free society. Look at what has happened to much of "old Europe". One of the things I treasure about the writings on this site is the way they remind us of what we should always know, but too easily forget.

Sometimes, we do get it right. And when democracies get it right, we can get it really really right, right in a way that no other kind of society can approach. I'm hoping that tomorrow, we do just that.

I can't imagine anyone who ever flew something with an ejection seat would vote democrat.

Michael Burhans wrote " His actions have made this nation significantly less secure than we were when he took office. "

Hey Mike, you gotta be on crack like those ACORN voter reg guys. Don't you mean that YOU don't feel safer? You actually thought you were safe on 9/10/01 and now you know the difference. You also know that your ignorance was your bliss and it is clear from your posting that you continue along that path.

As to MOORE, he is rapidly approaching the physical size of a state, so I guess he now counts officially as a blue state? What kudos to Bill that MM would find this site so compelling as to actually visit it.

Good luck, God Bless and VOTE!

Phantom, your record holds. I'm strictly civilian. Many of us wore flight suits for 6hr+ glider duration rides. But I've never hit the silk and hope I never have to.

Truman disappointed me (historically, I wasn't born quite yet) for two things,

one, relieving MacArthur. I understand the threat he perceived from China. But I think some of it was personal. IMHO

The other disappointment, was giving up and not fighting again for re-election in 52.

He was a tough SOB, and even when he was wrong, he was a tough SOB.

Bill, I agree totally. I made the same mistake and also will not make it again.

Dave from Texas,

You are wrong re: Truman pure and simple. I am not discussing the merits of Truman's vision of limited war in the face of the danger of nuclear WWIII. It is a matter of insubordination, pure and simple. Truman gave McCarthur an order. McArthur publicly questioned it and wilfully disobeyed it. Truman had NO choice but to relieve McCarthur. Either that or resign himself and let the Cold War be directed without civilian command.

I quickly bypassed all the comments to make my own, I am in the business of dirty wars, dirty politics, rescicent desires and commands, wishes both trusted and lost. One man, one vote, one life, one loss. Each of us conflicts, or inflicts our own thoughts upon others. "We have not attacked Sweden, for they show us no threat". Paraphrased, this sounds logical, harm us not, and we have no reason to harm you. Logistically, this is insane, only the meek need be conveyed to be stable. The weak, or meek, need not fear. Lovely thought. How stable is the rationale? My friend Bill will fight the clean war, I shall get down and dirty with anyone clever enough to escape the net we have around them. Poetic Justice allows me poetic license, and I will use every means within my grasp.


If i'm not mistaken, the republicans pushed thru the amendment limiting a president to 2 terms OR ten years total (if a VP took over from a dead president or one who resigned). This was unfortunately an error on their parts as Eisenhower could have been elected to a third and fourth terms if he desired.

It is my interpretation, that this is nothing more than another "threat". I don't think it has anything to do with the "results" as it has do with us participating in the process altogether. I think there may be plans for suicide bombers at polls tomorrow. Early most likely.

The plan, scare away the electors, disqualify the elections, disrupt the process and once again bear down hard on our economy.

I for one, regardless of how I read his threat, will "Roll" tomorrow. And that I have always believed is the American Way.

"I believe..., that John Kerry was instrumental in convincing them that if they were able to hang on and inflict enough American casualties, eventually we would tire and go home."

Can anyone offer some references for this? I'm not challenging it - rather, I'd like to have this as part of my *own* arguing points.


Mr. Burhans:

The whole foofraw over liberals insisting that Bush admit mistakes is a transparent ploy. They want nothing more than to harvest soundbytes to use against him in DNC ads, and Bush is right to brush them off. People who, in his shoes, would have done nothing are in no position to fault him on anything.

On Tuesday, Americans will choose between the conservative hawk from Texas, and the conservative hawk from Massachusetts. Both are running on a platform to strengthen the military and track down terrorists wherever they may live. Draw your own conclusions about who has the most convincing track record in this regard.

Here's the conclusion I've drawn.

Mr.Kerry's rhetoric suggests that he'll fight for us, but his record most definitely does not. I beleive that his rhetoric is a case of him saaying whatever he believes he has to say to get elected. I'm old enough to have learned the hard way that you better trust a man's actions before you trust his words. That being the case, my conclusion is that Mr. Kerry will not use the US armed forces to defend the country for any reason, short of avoiding impeachment, during his 4 year term. If he's elected, I hope that I'm just being pessimistic. Way more than 1000 innocent American's have died at the hand of the enemy in this war, but all we hear about from the D's is the 1000 servicemen who have died. Many more innocent Americans may die before our fellows on the left wake up.

I'm getting uneasy about this whole matter of seizing on terrorists' "endorsements" to beat the other guy with. In his original declaration of war on the U.S. in 1996, OBL addressed it to Bill Clinton's then-SecDef, William Perry. We were right the first time: they hate us for being Americans.

Help me!

The choice seems so clear it is very difficult for me to consider someone who will vote for Kerry tomorrow without getting a confused and exagerated look of dispair and disgust on my face. I don't like the thought of being so judgemental and condescending, but I can't escape it.

People simply must recognize that we are in an idiological conflict with real dangers, and real and actual possibilities of losing...losing our lives or way of life...unless we prosecute the war with something very like the strategy of President Bush. If they don't, I worry for them. If they do and don't care, I despise them. I would be ashamed to live in a country populated by such a majority.

Vote to let President Bush finish this thing.

Thanks for the post.

long live freedom of speech...

Yes, Truman could have run again, legally. There is a clause in the 22nd amendment that says, in dense legal language: "This does not apply to whoever is in office when this is ratified."

It was ratified while Truman was in office. I have always felt that he took the hint, from the American people and from tradition going back to George Washington.

Michael said:
"He is blinded by his faith, and thinks god talks to him. If that doesn;t scare the bejeepers out of you, nothing will. The man who has his finger on the button thinks god talks to him personally."

First of all, the majority of Americans actually believe in God, even if we don't all practice the same religion so the thought of a man talking to God wouldn't really be that scary would it? Second, I think that if God ever talks to you, it will be "personally" don't you? I mean, is there any other way? I don't think God would have his secretary talk to you instead. And lastly, I feel a little sad for you. I hope you talk to God sometime, and if/when you do, try LISTENING some too. You might be amazed.
God bless you,

Best Poll for undecided voters;

Since 1956, Weekly Reader students in grades 1-12 have correctly picked the president


Weekly Reader kids select Bush in Presidential Poll

The students who read Weekly Reader’s magazines have made their preference for President known: they want to send President Bush back to the White House.

The results of this year’s Weekly Reader poll have just been announced, and the winner is President Bush. Hundreds of thousands of students participated, giving the Republican President more than 60% of the votes cast and making him a decisive choice over Democratic Senator John Kerry.

Since 1956, Weekly Reader students in grades 1-12 have correctly picked the president, making the Weekly Reader poll one of the most accurate predictors of presidential outcomes in history.

"Michael said:
"He is blinded by his faith, and thinks god talks to him. If that doesn;t scare the bejeepers out of you, nothing will. The man who has his finger on the button thinks god talks to him personally."

So blinded by his faith that he's committed the government of the United States to shoveling 15 billion dollars into Africa to do something about AIDS. So blinded by his faith that he regularly engages in lugubrious hugfests with Muslim leaders in the White House, and publicly compliments the Mohameddans whenever the topic arises, and distinguishes between the Muslim religion, and the terrorist animals who threaten us. Yup, he sure is blinded by his religion. Ha.

I don't think he believes God talks to him as much as that he believes he is accountable to a higher power than that imposed by mortal (and fallible) men. I find that reassuring, and from what I can tell, George Bush's God is fairly restrained, and doesn't take an awful lot of interest in holy slaughter, unlike some other Gods I could mention. Remember what Dostoevsky wrote:

"With God all things are possible, without God all things are permitted"

Many more lives have been destroyed in the Age of Reason, than ever were in the Age of Faith. The last century provided a bloody, horrifying example of what happens when men with no God, except themselves, have power over other human beings. That's an example we ought to remember.

"Many more lives have been destroyed in the Age of Reason, than ever were in the Age of Faith."

This is that special kind of nonsense you get three times a day in my mail. There were also a lot more lives to lose, and I don't think god's graces gave us penicillin or soap (the biggest heroes of the Age of Reason).

So? The Age of Reason also gave us movable type, cheap paper, the mechanical harvester and Berdan-primed brass cartridges. The Age of Reason gave us ideologies with no constraint placed on the human conscience. It was a disaster that technology advanced at the same time morals regressed, that's all I'm saying.

FWIW, I promise to never send you mail, Berton.

I think you're a little misguided in believing terrorists would prefer softer leadership. I have dealt with people who have the same typically contrarian mindset (sometimes I'm one of them), and I've noticed that some people are only happy when they have a strong enemy -- there's nothing that motivates like great bulletin board material.

I'm not advocating the weaker of two evils here, but it's naive to think Osama bin Laden doesn't thrive on having George W. Bush for an enemy.

BUsh is the best thing to happen for middle east terrorism since Palestine, 1947.

He has taken UBL's bait - hook line and sinker. If you take a look at the classical goals of ANY terrorist organization, it's easy to see that most of those goals are closer to getting fulfilled now, rather than before Bush.

He was a good soldier for about 2 months after 9/11 - that's all we really needed him for. After that we required someone with judgement, and vision. Our bad.

The sort of judgement that reminds Cubans in Florida about the Bay of Pigs, and the party of the President who betrayed them, a couple of days before the election? The vision to provide an entire catalog of contradictory quotes ("I voted for the invasion before I voted against it") as he asks for supreme executive authority? Oops, my bad, I forgot that you were talking about President Bush, and not the man who demands that 280,000,000 people trust him to be the CINC in a time of war.

Your simile is flawed--"take UBL's bait", my ass, do you have a suggestion about what should have been done, besides start doing the long, hard chore of teaching the Muslim countries to keep their problems to themselves--and for all I keep hearing about the storied "classical goals of a terrorist ANY terrorist organization", you are awfully stingy about setting them down in writing yourself.

So please do so, right here on this comment thread. It gets tiring, this expectation on your part that someone else will do your work. What are the classical goals of ANY terrorist organization? If you would do the work, and state what you think such goals are, we could have a fair discussion about what you have proposed, that is to say the likelyhood of those goals being nearer to fulfillment. Fill in your own gaddamned blanks.

This election is more important than 2000, if only for the reason that there is no question we know the stakes. We consciously decide this election the attitude the U.S. will take in the face of clear and present danger.

A Gore win in 2000 would have delayed action at worst. If he had won, and not gone after our attackers, you can be sure a Republican would have won easily today, as more attacks would have followed.

Bush's policies have apparently made us safer. That we haven't been attacked post 911 amazes me no end.

More importantly though, and most significant to today's election, Bush's policies have made our children's and grandchildren's lives safer, if, and this is a big IF... IF his policies are continued.

If they are abandoned today, the pendulum swings the other way, and future generations will pay a horrible price for our cowardice.


p.s. Never argue with someone calling himself Charlemagne. Someone with delusions, be they of grandeur or of armpits that smell of roses, is generally an incapable of rational discourse.

"I made a mistake when I cast my vote for Al Gore in the most important election of my lifetime. I won't make that mistake again on Tuesday."

I hope all Gore's supporters are as intelligent as you, but I doubt it.

For me, at age 55, the last dem I voted for President was.......NONE.

Since Lyndon Johnson, and that piece of human filth, Robert McNamara, there has not been a dem qualified to be commander in chief of our nation.

Glad you came from the Dark Side

I will be able to live with a Kerry presidency
--Bill Whittle


What exactly are you conceeding?

Merely that Kerry has won?

Or that a Bush victory might get you killed by terror, absence of first responders, absence of medical research, absence of social security, etc.


The thing that kills me about the UBL thing is, UBL came out on that videotape all but wearing a Kerry/Edwards button on his lapel. The man who orchestrated 9/11 is all but stumping for Kerry. What does this tell you?


Many certified first responders are volunteers. I know, because I have trained with them at Red Cross centers and at Municipal Fire Departments.

Medical and other scientific research as well, originates from people who are self-motivated. There is a role for government, but it cannot substitute for the spark that makes a person HUNGER for knowledge, or even for the recognition and validation that may follow from success.


Osama is a piece of shit.

To take the shit that comes out of his mouth at face value, is retarded.

That piece of shit ought to be stomped into oblivion.

But Bush bungled the job.

That piece of shit ought to face justice, for the thousands of people murdered on 9/11.

But doesn't care if Osama is caught: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." said Bush in March of 2002.

Then Bush proceeded to cripple the hunt for Osama, diverting resources to Iraq. Over a thousand dead US troops. $200 Billion spent. Osama still free.

Maybe Bush was being tricky when he made that quote. Feigning indifference, when he really felt the opposite. If you are capable of imagining Bush using reverse-psychology; can't you see Osama might, also?

The one positive sign in the last days of this campaign, has been seeing Bush & Kerry united in telling Osama to fuck off.

And yet, Andi, that proud unity is tarnished by shitheads like you, who seek to pair Osama & Kerry; for your narrow partisan gain.

That's sick. You should be ashamed.

I say this as an American, not as a hack for some party.

Statements like yours should be beneath us, as Americans. Ask John McCain, who said the Swift Boat smears were the "same thing [Bush] did to me, in 2000]-- concerning slurs on his heroism. Ask Colin Powell, who says Kerry would be able to lead the nation in fighting terror. Ask Max Clelland who gave 3 limbs for his country in a 76-day seige in Vietnam; just days after winning decoration for an amazing act of heroism. --Only to be unseated in a 2002 race where his face was paired with Osama & Saddam's, in TV smear ads.

Stand up straight.

Thank you for a very beautiful post, made me cry because I made the same mistake in voting for Gore. The ones I am really ashamed of, though, are the two liberal-knee-jerk ones I cast for Jimmy Carter.

David March,

Are you saying that the failure of FDNY radios was because the firemen lacked character? That Bush's reneging on a promise to rectify such needs, is irrelevant to their abilities?

Are you suggesting that Stem Cell researchers are not limited by Bush's ban on research? But by their own lack of moxy

Yes, that's exactly what you are saying.

The lengths you'll go to-- to cover Bush's faults-- are silly.

The failure of the FDNY radios was the fault of the FDNY commanders who apparently didn't ensure the quality of their equipment. The task of supplying the FDNY is in the hands of the New York city government, NOT President Bush. Actually I'm taking your word for it that this happened since I'd never heard of radio failure being a problem during 9/11.

Stem cell researchers are not severely limited because private sector funding is still permitted. I see no reason why the life and death of stem cell research hinges on government grants. Furthermore, several government funded stem cell lines are currently operational. Bush's policy on this is a compromise, would you rather he follow his, and millions of Americans', true beliefs and have all the lines destroyed? I think it's a mark of Bush's character that he is able to compromise on such issues that violate his base of morality.

Tanya, you don't advance your arguments by accusing me of something I never said. Funding for Municipal Fire Departments was not then, and is not now, at the discretion of the Federal Government. Having been married to a professional firefighter (Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District) and having cousins and friends serving on several other municipal fire and police departments, I have some knowledge of these issues.

Certainly, local and regional governments and services are affected by the costs and actions of the federal government, but the details are mostly far outside the influence of the executive branch.

And the idea that stem cell research can only continue by the subsidy of taxpayer's dollars disregards the staggering list of cures, conveniences, advances, and goodies that have emerged from privately funded research.

Your post is just too extreme. The Federal government is NOT the Only source, provider, or controller of all medical care, research, rescue, and welfare support. Maybe YOU want it to be, But hundreds of millions of folks in a number of countries have found to their chagrin, that centralized bureaucracies tend to be impersonal, un-caring, despotic, dictatorial, extravagantly inefficient, and brutal.

If you think so highly of socialized medical care, I invite you to look up some statistics on hospital-acquired infections and resulting deaths in Canada and England, compared to statistics for American hospitals. Just for starters...

I'm sorry. My post should have been addressed to Jude Kimball.

Man I wish I were old enough to vote. 2 more years!

"Long live freedom of speech". An excellent thought, one I completely agree with. Who pays for our freedoms? A dead man can not speak, certainly has no rights, but now we wonder what freedoms are worth dying for? I go back to nature, what teaches us to survive, not who might salve our harmed feelings, or difficult life. What is worth dying for? Life? Freedom? Our own salvation? My life is worth dying for, my own reason, and those I believe in. I understand the feelings of those that feel they are oppressed, or misunderstood, I understand hate, pity, joy, wish and desire. I understand that humans are not all alike, not many will care for another, that is nature. I understand love, and how it is so misunderstood as a reason to survive, or die for another. I understand that I am an idiot, knowing only what I believe, only what matters to me, only lost when I can not agree with another. I hope everyone understands the limitations they were born with.

Question for "Field Marshall Dino"

I'll spot you the 4th Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division and magically transport them to Afganistan just for your use.

Now what the fuck are you going to do with them? Set them in static positions and let them collect mortar rounds? That was the Soviet strategy and we know how successful they were.

There is no one for them to fight except a few warlord's thugs and taliban dead enders.

NO FORCES were pulled from Afganistan and sent to Iraq.

These are two totally different scenarios and require two totally different force packages. Afganistan was a classic Special Forces war. My son (an 18D, if you even have a clue what that is) has been there twice since W "stripped" the theater. You don't use a sledge hammer to shell a peanut.

When JFK (in his dreams) talks about W taking his eye off the ball he betrays his own ignorance. To assume that OBL is the only ball in play is short sighted to the point of stupidity. W (or our military under his command) has the ability to fight effectively in both areas simultaneously, kind of like walking and chewing gum at the same time. Don't try that at home it's not in the Democrat talking points manual.

Since you obviously have no original thoughts on this topic maybe you would be better off discussing W's "secret plan" to draft any and every fat assed mama's boy off the street and turn him into cannon fodder.

One serious question though: How do you fold that tin foil hat?

Only the insane wear tin foil hats, I have one of course, not very effective against shrapnel, but it does help with radio waves and voices from beyond. Not really, I am being silly now.


I see willy knows what he/she espouses, a few good men can contain a nation. A pity Delta is not real. Nuff said.

Wait, I am real, to me :)


Bill, you said:

"There is much to dislike, and even some to despise, about the current American President."

Could you elaborate on that? You have never stated in any of your essays openly anything resembling harsh critisism against the president.

Is it the deficit? Any president under the same circumstances would be in a similar position.

Changing the Constitution by proposing bans on same sex marraige? It was always assumed man and woman. Had the Framers known then what we know today, I think they would have been more specific.

Is it the Patiot Act? Most conservatives support it.

Or is it the so-called 'quagmire' the left attaches itself to regarding Iraq?

After all the reports out in recent months, how could anyone continue to criticize our legitimate reasons for invading? Clearly Saddam was not going to step down and he had more than enough reason to be forced out.

Playing devil's advocate, or maybe just voicing my belief:

1) Is it possible Mr. Wonderful didn't do enough to PREVENT the atrocities of September 11, 2001?

2) Why has it become almost criminal to suggest such a concept?

Please answer both if you are going to answer either.

Oh come on, Mr. Jeffers. Do you think acts of international terrorism were first invented during President Bush's first term? Why didn't CLINTON "do more to prevent the atrocities of 9/11" then? AQ and OBL were operatin' and perpetratin' on American soil back then too. And what "more" would you have WANTED them to do anyway? Strip-searches for anyone entering the country? More walls and concertina wire and dobermans wreathing everything? Do you WANT to live like the Israelis, in a perpetual state of paranoia and hyper-security? And did YOU really think something that extreme was likely to happen on American soil, regardless of the threat level of the time? No one *I* know did. Most had a hard time believing it even AFTER it happened.

And "criminal" to suggest such a thing? What? Gimme a break. Just because most people consider such trite second-guessing and Monday-morning-quarterbacking to be lame and a waste of intellect, and because they often express contempt for such gutless arguments, that's a far cry from "criminal," even in a metaphorical sense. No, it's just tiresome and meaningless (and that's as politely as I can say that).

If you sealed this whole country in under a dome of titanium, closed the borders to ANY form of crossing, in or out, surrounded the coasts with anti-missile batteries, and rigged the world's first fully functional force-field on top of all that -- if you had everyone living in a vault, if we mandated "papers" for anyone even leaving their own hometown, if we insisted on 5 hours of security procedures before getting in or out of any public events -- if we clamped this nation down to its most unbearable and unlivable state just to ensure the maximum possible security, anyone with the will could still find a way to do unspeakable harm. That's just the way it is. With all the firewalls and security systems in place to protect our cyber-world, and despite all the other useful and productive and fruitful ways that a computer-savvy kid could use his abilities, hackers can still get in to just about any database they want to and wreak havoc. The defenders will always be in the weaker position, the intruders always with the initiative.

And that's the whole point of this war -- that you cannot approach this kind of problem defensively. Defense will always be reactionary and "after-the-fact," and preventive measures will only bring restrictions and limitations to the lives of your innocent citizens, while offering only a "challenge" to the "evildoers" of the world. That's why "offense" is the only viable solution here.

In the meantime, I, like most people, would prefer to live in an open (and thereby accessible) and free (and thereby vulnerable) society, in lieu of the battened down and paraoid alternative. And that means that occasionally the bad guys are going to get their licks in. And in such a culture, the only way to provide some modicum of safety and security is to eliminate the known baddies, and make any future plans of the UNknown ones so unprofitable, on every level, that it's not worth their time (or their existence) to even try.

And that's what we're doing.

But blaming Bush for 9/11? Gimme a break.


Amoxil is an antibiotic in the class of drugs called penicillin. It fights bacteria in the body. Amoxil is used to treat many different types of infections, such as tonsillitis, pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, urinary tract infections, gonorrhea, and infections of the skin. Amoxil may also be used for other purposes.

FedEx next day delivery, free prescription with your order and 24/7 customer service, http://www.BuyTramadolOnline.ws

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.