jamiroguy1

It was a little chunky style.

Nope... Not this trip. (knock on wood)

Woo Hoo! I was able to take a shower this morning.

I'd rather go see Hybrid for now.

Bill Kristol, Keeping Iraq in the Cross Hairs By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 18, 2003; Page C01 Moments after the Persian Gulf War was halted, Bill Kristol got a call from columnist Charles Krauthammer, and both were fuming over what they saw as unfinished business. "I was one of those who thought we should have finished off Saddam at the end of the war," Kristol recalls. "We both agreed this was a big mistake." As Vice President Dan Quayle's chief of staff, Kristol had little influence over administration policy. But over the next dozen years, in various incarnations and guises, he would mount a political, journalistic and intellectual campaign to push the government closer to the goal of regime change in Iraq. Kristol's magazine, the Weekly Standard, has been loudly beating the war drums. He has launched a hawkish think tank that churns out petitions backed by big-name scholars and former officials. He presses his case privately with the likes of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and publicly on Fox News Channel. He teaches at Harvard, speaks to such groups as the World Affairs Council in San Francisco. And he's co-authored a new book called "The War Over Iraq." Full article http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43043-2003Mar17&notFound=true

So it was Clinton's decision to invade Iraq? Now Clinton sets the agenda for what they're going to discuss??? Jesus Christ, you guys love blaming Clinton. Personally, I'm not finding too much of difference between Clinton and Bush these days besides Clinton having the better economic record. Bottom line is Bush and his cabinet are responsible for the agenda on their meetings not an ex prez. Nice try, Bill Kristol. http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

Interesting article, by the way. I'll be watching for updates on this.

Once again, you have proven you have no idea what your talking about. Progressive doesn't mean the same thing as Liberal, just like communism doesn't mean the same thing as socialism. The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises. The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state. I'm not going to get into liberal versus progressive. You can google it.

What's the difference. I honestly don't know.

Clark is a damn hypocrit and this is the reason I've never supported him. He's pretty much Bill Clinton.

woops!

Now that would be a problem I would keep to myself if that was happening. Frozen crack pipes, that is.

This go to show ya that the ACLU believes that all americans, even drug addicted republican assholes have rights.

No, you'll never get it.

We'll never know what would've happened because we didn't do it that way.

I think Al Gore's approach to Iraq would be a little different than Bush's. Continued containment and continued inspections as recent evidence has shown was working and was essentially what disarmed Saddam's Regime not an invasion.

My point is, who decides which polls are valid? It's all subject to interpretation. And there are plenty of opinion polls that show job disapproval of bush is low. Google it.

I think the fact that Bush and his cabinet were discussing an invasion of Iraq in their first cabinet meeting counter to what he said on the road to white house. No Nation building. It underlines his lies and hypocracy to the american people... that's why the lefties have such a huge hard on.

I'll give you that. I'm not going to defend Brittain at all. The point I was making is they chose to give up slavery without war. As far as Brittain being an imperialist nation... of course they are/were but not more so then what we've become.

KILL WHITEY!!! lol

Depends on what opinion poll you look at so both of your above statements (war approval and bush approval) are open to objection.

Let's stick to the topic at hand here with out you babbling on about what you think is macho and not. The topic or discussion was "can slavery be ended without war" and I think i've already proven that it can be and has been if you examine history. Peace can only be obtained through a peaceful solution. It's always been an agreement or an act that has ended a war throughout history. About the brits being pussies... I like Marksimons take one.

Brittain gave up on slavery without war Unless you consider the american revolutionary war, the war that ended brittish slavery. I'm sure Mark will correct everyone on this. Abolition of Slavery Act 1883 ******** After 1830 when the mood of the nation changed in favour of a variety of types of reform, the antislavery campaign gathered momentum. In 1833 Wilberforce's efforts were finally rewarded when the Abolition of Slavery Act was passed. Wilberforce, on his death-bed, was informed of the passing of the Act in the nick of time. The main terms of the Act were: *all slaves under the age of six were to be freed immediately slaves over the age of six were to remain as part slave and part free for a further four years. In that time they would have to be *paid a wage for the work they did in the quarter of the week when they were "free" *the government was to provide £20 million in compensation to the slave-owners who had lost their "property." ******** http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html And they gave reparations as well.

Study Published by Army Criticizes War on Terror's Scope By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, January 12, 2004; Page A12 A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat. The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point." It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network. "The global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security." Full Article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8435-2004Jan11.html