<br><br>

Uhm. Does he HAVE to? If so...WHY? To satisfy you? Isn't it possible to have a valid opinion without having to resort to hollow apologies like being "equal" in application of criticsm? If that's the case then it kind of contradicts supporting Miller.

There's also the minor point that truth doesn't have to be apologized for. It's true that Mr. Bush took us into a war that ultimately had no justification. It's true the Mr. Bush is not so slowly but very surely dismantling environmental laws. It's true that Mr. Bush has made the whole world more vulnerable to terrorism and made terrorists more attractive to more people by confusing Iraq with al Qaeda and making Iraq a new center for attracting and training terrorists. It's true that Mr. Bush has screwed up the US budget. It's true that Mr. Bush has reengaged "culture war" kinds of issues (gays and gay marriage, abortion, bare-breasted statues in public places for God's sake).<br><br>At least that's the truth from my angle. And why shouldn't Mr. Gore be angry, and voice his anger about those things? I'm pretty angry about it too, but my anger goes no further than a pretty small circle of friends. Let the person who has the ear of the public pull no punches.<br><br>An frankly, I don't think the following, quoted from Mr. Gore's convention speech, is even close to being angry enough:<br><br>[color:blue]It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for?<br><br>Is our country more united today?<br><br>Or more divided?<br><br>Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled?<br><br>Or do those words now ring hollow?<br><br>For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all?<br><br>Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another? And the loss of more than a million jobs?<br><br>By the way, I know about the bad economy. I was the first one laid off. And while it's true that new jobs are being created, they're just not as good as the jobs people have lost. And incidentally, that's been true for me too.<br><br>Unfortunately, this is no joke for millions of Americans. And the real solutions require us to transcend partisanship.<br><br>So that's one reason why, even though we meet here as Democrats, we believe this is a time to reach beyond our party lines to Republicans as well.<br><br>I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?<br><br>Are you troubled by the erosion of some of America's most basic civil liberties?<br><br>Are you worried that our environmental laws are being weakened and dismantled to allow vast increases in pollution that are contributing to a global climate crisis?<br><br>No matter how you voted in the last election, these are profound problems that all voters must take into account this November 2.<br><br>And of course, no challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq. Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?<br><br>Wouldn't we be better off with a new president who hasn't burned his bridges to our allies, and who could rebuild respect for America in the world?<br><br>Isn't cooperation with other nations crucial to solving our dilemma in Iraq? Isn't it also critical to defeating the terrorists?<br><br>We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent.<br><br>But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: The group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Laden?<br><br>Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al-Qaida with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger?</font color=blue><br><br>By contrast, what is Zell angry about? That in a democratic country there are people who disagree with the president and dare voice the disagreement? That in a democratic country there are people who don't agree with giving multi-billion dollar contracts to corporations without competitive bidding? Or is he just angry that Mr. Kerry can vote on weapons bills in the same was as Mr. Cheney did? Or is is he angry that someone can see the difference between two appropriations bills even though the sum involved in both is the same 87 billion dollars?<br><br>I know that there's a group that goes around hunting RINOs, people who deemed Republicans In Name Only. Bill Moyers' Now did a great bit on them last night. There is no democratic counterpart to that. But Mr. Mille does make you wonder why not.<br><br>

I voted for the Green Party candidate because they needed to get 5% of the vote to get federal funding and couldn't see myself voting for Gore or Bush, but I'll answer your questions.<br><br>[color:blue]It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for? </font color=blue>He wasn't elected[color:blue]<br><br>Is our country more united today?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Or more divided?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Or do those words now ring hollow?</font color=blue>yes[color:blue]<br><br>For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another?</font color=blue>yes[color:blue]<br><br>And the loss of more than a million jobs?</font color=blue>yes[color:blue]<br><br>By the way, I know about the bad economy. I was the first one laid off. And while it's true that new jobs are being created, they're just not as good as the jobs people have lost. And incidentally, that's been true for me too.</font color=blue>Me as well[color:blue]Unfortunately, this is no joke for millions of Americans. And the real solutions require us to transcend partisanship.<br><br>So that's one reason why, even though we meet here as Democrats, we believe this is a time to reach beyond our party lines to Republicans as well.<br><br>I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. <br><br>I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates? </font color=blue>never did believe that[color:blue]<br><br>Are you troubled by the erosion of some of America's most basic civil liberties?</font color=blue>absolutely[color:blue]<br><br>Are you worried that our environmental laws are being weakened and dismantled to allow vast increases in pollution that are contributing to a global climate crisis?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>No matter how you voted in the last election, these are profound problems that all voters must take into account this November 2.<br><br>And of course, no challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq. Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Wouldn't we be better off with a new president who hasn't burned his bridges to our allies, and who could rebuild respect for America in the world?</font color=blue>The only "bridges burned" where those who would never be allies anyway. The proverbial bridge was gone long ago.[color:blue]<br><br>Isn't cooperation with other nations crucial to solving our dilemma in Iraq? Isn't it also critical to defeating the terrorists?</font color=blue>Absolutely.[color:blue]<br><br>We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent.</font color=blue>Agreed[color:blue]<br><br>But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: The group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Laden?</font color=blue>Yes[color:blue]<br><br>Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al-Qaida with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger?</font color=blue>Since we over threw Iraq's government a long time ago no one is confusing a dictatorship that doesn't exist anymore with the task at hand.[color:blue]<br><br>

yoyo - thanks for the post. I'd seen it linked before, but hadn't wanted to register for (my home town paper!) the washington post.<br><br>neye<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> It's true that Mr. Bush took us into a war that ultimately had no justification. It's true the Mr. Bush is not so slowly but very surely dismantling environmental laws. It's true that Mr. Bush has made the whole world more vulnerable to terrorism and made terrorists more attractive to more people by confusing Iraq with al Qaeda and making Iraq a new center for attracting and training terrorists. It's true that Mr. Bush has screwed up the US budget. It's true that Mr. Bush has reengaged "culture war" kinds of issues (gays and gay marriage, abortion, bare-breasted statues in public places for God's sake).<p><hr></blockquote><p>Truth? Who's truth? <br><br>It's also true that Saddam violated resolution after resolution from the UN security council. It's true that those resolutions came under Chapter VII of the UN charter which authorizes the use of force to enforce those resolutions. It's true that Iraq, on a daily basis, attacked UN aircraft patrolling the UN no fly Zones. It's true that Iraq entered into a policy of deception and obstruction of the UN weapons inspectors. All of those acts were supposed to be met with military force according to the UN's own charter. It's also true that Iraq tried to assassinate an ex-President of the United States. That sir is an act of War in anybodies book. At what point do we become justified? After there is another attack on the US? After thousands more American citizens are killed in their own cities? After he invades another one of our allies? What was our alternative? We could try to get the UN to act, but they were unable to act for 12 years. What realistic hope do we have that they would act now when they refused to enforce their own resolutions. Sanctions? There were already draconian sanctions in place that were not working. We could assume a nonaggression policy in the hopes of not inflaming the situation. President Clinton took that road and we all saw the results of that. So at what point do we become justified???? <br><br>You say he has made the whole world more vulnerable to terrorism, yet we haven't been attacked again. The leadership of Al Quiada is slowly being torn apart. Yes we have made people mad at us, but they were already mad at us as evidenced by 9/11. Being pissed off at the United States, and being able to do something about it are two different things. To be effective terrorists need some kind of nation state support, both financially and for bases to operate and train freely. By removing sources of that support we remove their capability to act. But suppose we had not attacked Iraq. Would that have prevented another attack on the US. Again I turn to the policies of the past, were we didn't act for fear of generating more hatred of the US. That never slowed them down. The years leading up to 9/11 saw unprecedented levels of terrorist attacks on us interests and people. The two embassies in Africa, the USS Cole in Yemen, and ultimately the World Trade Center in NYC and the Pentagon in Washington. At the time of those attacks we were not occupying a foreign nation. The Arab world was standing with the UN on Iraqi sanctions, and President Clinton had brokered one of the most sweeping peace agreements ever seen in the middle east. Yet we were still attacked. Why? Because terrorists exist to hate. They will hate us no matter what we do. Their leaders will continue to use their rhetoric to build followers. We could try to give in to their demands. We could walk away from Israel and abandon the middle east, but then what. If terrorists don't have anyone to hate, then they become irrelevant. Do you honestly believe that the likes of Osama Bin Lauden would allow himself to become irrelevant? No! He would find something else to hate us for, and he would be emboldened by his ability to change US policy by attacking us. If you give a bully a dollar today, he will come back looking for two dollars tomorrow.<br><br>As for the budget, I dare say if we were not attacked then we wouldn't be spending the kind of money we have been spending, so is it really Bush's fault or the guys who attacked out country? And as far as the "culture wars", well the nation has been split over these issues for years. We were split over them under the President Clinton, and we are split now. I can promise you that the conservatives were as angered by President Clinton's policies as the liberals are angered by President Bush's policies. It has nothing to do with the individual man. It has to do with what the people see as right and wrong. <br><br>So again I ask what is truth? Or is it more a matter of point of view?<br><br>Oh and I think Zell was "off da chain". Just a little too much anger for me, but then I'm not voting for Zell Miller.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex

Absolutely right, Larry--like I said, it's the truth from the angle that my window makes on the street in front of my house. I could answer your points, and you could then answer mine, and so on and so on. But my real point was this: Mr. Gore did not tear Mr. Bush apart in his convention speech. He did talk about things that Mr. Bush had done that, for Mr. Gore (and for me), seem a problem at least, and disastrous at worst. He didn't say that Mr. Bush was unfit for command. He didn't say that Mr. Bush is a coward or a liar or a cheat or a flip flopper or a profiteer or a . . . .<br><br>And, frankly, I wish someone would. If the Republicans are going to take that road, then failing to respond in kind guarantees that people who have an attention span carefully nurtured by Sesame Street (very very bried, and responding only to Flash) will have only the one perspective. <br><br>

It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for? - For the most part yes. And is he disappointing enough to voter for Kerry, absolutely NO!<br><br>Is our country more united today? - No it is not and I blame the Democratic party for that.<br><br>Or more divided? - More divided, see above.<br><br>Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled? - I don't know what that means. I was unaware there was such a thing as non-compassionate conservatism.<br><br>Or do those words now ring hollow? - No, see above.<br><br>For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all? - Yes and no. Tax decrease, yes many other no.<br><br>Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another? And the loss of more than a million jobs? Yes, we were going into an economic downturn just like the country has time and time again during the normal course of the business cycle. This coupled with the devastating impacts of 9/11 and the correct decision to defend the country from further attacks make our current economic situation not very surprising.<br><br>By the way, I know about the bad economy. I was the first one laid off. And while it's true that new jobs are being created, they're just not as good as the jobs people have lost. And incidentally, that's been true for me too. - I do personally feel bad that you now have a job that offers less than your previous job but that doesn't translate into some sort of fact that the entire country is in some sort of horrible economy.<br><br>Unfortunately, this is no joke for millions of Americans. And the real solutions require us to transcend partisanship. - Good then the democrats can jump on board. Usually when I hear a democrat say something like "transcend partisanship" they mean do what we want to do.<br><br>So that's one reason why, even though we meet here as Democrats, we believe this is a time to reach beyond our party lines to Republicans as well.<br><br>I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?<br><br>Are you troubled by the erosion of some of America's most basic civil liberties? - And what are those? And how were they eroded?<br><br>Are you worried that our environmental laws are being weakened and dismantled to allow vast increases in pollution that are contributing to a global climate crisis? And what laws were passed that did this?<br><br>No matter how you voted in the last election, these are profound problems that all voters must take into account this November 2.<br><br>And of course, no challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq. Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble? - No.<br><br>Wouldn't we be better off with a new president who hasn't burned his bridges to our allies, and who could rebuild respect for America in the world? - No.<br><br>Isn't cooperation with other nations crucial to solving our dilemma in Iraq? Isn't it also critical to defeating the terrorists? - Yes, and we are cooperating.<br><br>We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent.<br><br>But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: The group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Laden? - No, we need to focus on the entire terrorist threat not just al-Qaida. This is the main problem with democrats, their narrow mindedness on terrorism.<br><br>Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al-Qaida with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger? - The principal danger is terrorism no just al-Qaida. Here in lies the problem with the democratic party.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

Your window gives on a different street, Dean--what can I say. And to repeat my central point again: if you can lambaste the dems because they see a different street, why can't the dems lambaste the reps because they see a different street? One is presented as legitimate political discourse, the other as mere Bush bashing.<br><br>

To be honest Yo, that's when I tune them all out. I want to know the politician's positions, and I will listen to their speaches to get a feel for the individual, but I don't pay attention to the mud slinging.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex