US election poll

[xanas3712]

Blowing up terrorist training camps and stopping a terrorist attack in CA during the new year 2000 celebartions is 'very little'? I guess the only way in your eyes to be 'strong' on terrorism is to start invading countries that cant possibly defend themsevles.

 

LOL, did he do these things? Actually the investigation on the millenium plot has discovered they got lucky more than anything else. This had much more to do with officials in the FBI than anything to do with Clinton or his administration directly. And btw, the same is true with the Bush admin. They are hardly directly responsible for most of the good or bad that happens under them.

 

As far as bush jr is concerned... something from the news wire today..

 

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that a top level CIA report showing the Bush administration blind to the threat of Al Qaeda before 9/11 has been suppressed by the Bush administration

 

The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago. 'It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed,' an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward.

 

Ok, so the LA times (an outfit I've never respected) goes and says something about an unreleased document, as if they know exactly what's contained in it. Hmm. Who gave them the information, I don't see their source for it? Maybe it's Charlie Rangel

 

So? Isnt that the regions job to deal with him? If he was such a real thread dont you think the more moderate middle east countries would have been seriously concerned? When central america was bady destabilized in the 80's did italy start invading countries? No the world let the people in the region deal with it. (the us, canada and mexico). Same should have been here. He was not a threat, period and we stuck out nose too deeply in something we had no business to

Oh, the ME moderates would have done something about him. You realize that Saddam had a large military than all of them right? Or maybe you don't. Believe it or not, even though we smashed Iraq in a short time it wasn't because his military was insignificant. There is no way that any one nation could have handled it on their own, and while Israel is in the region you know that their work would have been rejected. And they have enough problems to deal with on their own as it is.

 

Again, so? You can try to squirm you way and spin it all you want. The bottom line is: a. he was not a threat to us and b. he could not harm america. End of story.

 

Not end of story, the fact you could care less about the people over there does not make it the end of the story. You may want it to be but I think those things are important, as do many other Americans.

 

If bush should be inpeached for lying/deceiving congress.

 

Congress had access to the same intelligence information and came to the same, if not more severe conclusions. If you need me to fish out Senator Kerry's remarks, such as "If you don't think Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons don't vote for me" then I'll get you some with sources on the matter. Oh he was told that by Bush right? Hardly, because Bush or his officials never went that far, and Kerry was on the intelligence committee.

 

You need to go beyond your 101 econ course. Its a much more complex issue then 'overtaxation'. Thats just a repub talking point to downplay a good economy. I suppose in your opinion driving us into the larget deficit in history is good policy too.

 

I have taken Economics. The meaning of surplus is "more than is required to be balanced" If you have a surplus for the month, that's money you get to spend as you want. It is overtaxation. There is no getting away from that. It's not the largest deficit in history. That was at the end of Reagan's administration. You are speaking purely in nominal (ie: meaningless) terms. You have to account for inflation for nearly any figure to mean anything. Otherwise it's just a nice talking point from your favorite democrat.

 

What short term memory you have. He was on his soap box talking about reducing the deficit during the primaries and his run agaisnt bush sr. back in 91/92. Congress had little choice but to follow along with it as if they didnt it would have been political suicide for the newly controled congress to show inaction on a faultering economy.

 

Only it didn't happen until the Republican congress was in at 94 for this to occur. It didn't happen in 92.

 

Who is agaisnt 'traditional values'? And liberal democrats are the ones who pushed/got done everything I mentioned.

 

Well, liberals thing being pro-choice is a traditional value. Too bad that you think supporting that and partial birth abortion is "traditional values"

 

His presidency had mixed results. I do give him credit for driving the USSR to the ground by outspending them. OTOH that policy left deficts for bush sr and clinton to fix. Then theres the iran/contra affair.

 

Contras were fighting against the Sandanista Communists. It was good that happened regardless of the fact it was illegal. And before you mention how evil it is for a president to go against Congress lets not forget that Roosevelt wasn't beyond doing that himself when he found loopholes to send arms to the Brits in WWII before Dec 7 1942.

 

I think if anyones to blame for it its LBJ more then JFK.

 

They both escalated Vietnam, and the bay of pigs was on JFKs watch. Though, I'll admit of the 2 that LBJ was worse. But lets not forget that he was also a liberal democrat, and though Nixon is now blamed for what happened in Vietnam (which was ridiculous since he was withdrawing troops) it's actually LBJ and Kennedy who put most of them in there in the first place.

 

Actually, I mention that only as a failure because you think it is. I actually believe we should have won that war the way it was planned. If we had continued funding SV as NV was funded by other communists it would have been possible for them to have held off invasions on their own. Their military had proven it's ability to defend in the past. They just ran out of supplies thanks to congress here cutting off the help.

 

I dont disgaree. But unlike the repubs I look at both sides rather then one. (ie I have not heard you say one good thing about clinton, rather just repub talking points) Tho I have a difficult time finding something good about bush jr honestly. Perhaps you can list what he has done on the level of JFK, FDR, Clinton?

 

You certainly haven't been listening if you say I haven't said anything good about Clinton. I said he was an average president, not the worst in history or anything stupid like that. He managed to pass the balanced budget, so he deserves some credit for that as well as some credit for helping in Bosnia, etc.

 

The fact that I was responding to an overtly positive report by you on Clinton in no way says I have nothing good to say about the guy. I think you went too far and said so, no way I can be positive in doing that.

 

His budgets, taxes and various policies/initiatives can all effect the economy for good or ill. Compleate control? No. But they can and do certainly have a noticable effect.

 

Its not a talking point, its a fact.. you know.. those little things you repubs like to look away from?

 

LOL, it is a talking point. You say you don't blame him and then you bring up that line. I don't look away from the line, I think you underrate the effect of the Stock Markets failures with Enron and Worldcom, as well as 9/11. The worst terrorist attack in the nations history and you think, oh, it doesn't amount to anything. Great.

 

Regardless, as to Clinton's budget, taxes, and various policies/initiatives that's not very speicific. The budget is set by congress, and taxes were raised. Now if you can explain to me how raising taxes makes the economy better I'd like to hear that, but honestly I think the economy got better because that's what the economy was already doing. It was already improving and had improved significantly as of his first 90 days (when he had yet to pass any of his agenda in congress)>

 

Anyway, also if you like talking points, here is one. The current rate of unemployment is below the Clinton Administration's average. Since you talked to me about taking economics I'll point you to the concept of minimum unemployment. I think we had a period where the economy was actually in "overemployment" and that is another reason that jobs fell. Most economists in the past thought that the rate is somewhere around 5.5% (some higher some less) and when it was below 5 I think many would say that it couldn't stay at that level.

[Dakoth]

Ok first off some people have strange ideas.

 

Or you gather forces and intercept.

 

Pyronius this would be a preemptive attack.

 

Preempt : to prevent from happening or taking place : FORESTALL, PRECLUDE

 

Intercept-1 obsolete : PREVENT, HINDER

2 a : to stop, seize, or interrupt in progress or course or before arrival b : to receive (a communication or signal directed elsewhere) usually secretly.

 

The violations are UN violations dealt with by UN. WE went against those that made the rules and enforce them. Notice--THE US acted AGAINST the UN in more and greater ways than did Iraq. There is no way you justify the invasion on UN resolutions when we went against the UN to go in.

 

We are the UN's peace keeping force plain and simple. Every time the UN called for troops we were there. The one time we ask the UN for help they turn their backs on us. Later we find out because of the money some people were making off the oil for food program.

 

It is never worth it to kill civilians to get at the 'bad guys'. I mean, if that was done in the US borders, people would not accept it. Its not worth it. Do not come back at that... If you think that many Iraqi/Afghani civilian lives were worth killing a terrorists, then I'd rather not know. Sad day.

 

You are a very scary person, you have absolutly no moral conviction. It is because of people like you that Hitler and Stalin were able to do the things they did. It is a painful thing but sometimes inocent people have to die for the greater good. Not every german was a Nazi yet no one had any problems; now or back then; killing them by the thousands to liberate Europe and save the Jews. Not everyone in US thought that WW2 was our problem yet we sent how many inocent men to die for our fellow countries. That brings up another point if killing inocent people is not acceptable than you should be all for the war as Saddam did it on a weekly basis. Alas that is not the way it is for you feel screw everyone else as long as it is not happening to me.

 

If bush should be inpeached for lying/deceiving congress.

 

Hmm interesting Rhomal was he under oath? It has already been established that all sorts of excuses can be made why a President can be excused for a lie, Bush got bad intell that has already been said.

 

Blowing up terrorist training camps and stopping a terrorist attack in CA during the new year 2000 celebartions is 'very little'? I guess the only way in your eyes to be 'strong' on terrorism is to start invading countries that cant possibly defend themsevles.

 

What was his response to the first WTC bombing?

 

Again, so? You can try to squirm you way and spin it all you want. The bottom line is: a. he was not a threat to us and b. he could not harm america. End of story.

 

Wrong if he had WMD he was a threat to who he would give them to to get back at the US.

[xanas3712]

Ok, we know that Iraq was shooting at the US planes before the war. Doesn't that qualify as an act of war?

 

I don't see how it's pre-emptive if you count that, but I'm not necessarily saying I disagreed even if that wasn't going on.

[Rhomal]

Not that I am in the mood to keep going back and fourth, but my question is how you can support a party or even want to be assoicated with such who do something like this.

 

GOP Voter Drive Accused of Tossing Cards

 

By DEBORAH HASTINGS

 

AP National Writer

 

In several battleground states across the country, a consulting firm funded by the Republican National Committee has been accused of deceiving would-be voters and destroying Democratic voter registration cards.

 

Arizona-based Sproul & Associates is under investigation in Oregon and Nevada over claims that canvassers hired by the company were instructed to register only Republicans and to get rid of registration forms completed by Democrats.

 

``We treat these complaints very seriously,'' said Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. The Democratic office-holder said three complaints were filed with election officials throughout the state. He declined to provide details, citing the continuing investigation.

 

Substitute teacher Adam Banse wanted a summer job with flexible hours, so he signed up to knock on doors in suburban Minneapolis and register people to vote.

 

He quit after two hours. ``They said if you bring back a bunch of Democratic cards, you'll be fired,'' Banse contends. ``At that point, I said, `Whoa. Something's wrong here.'''

 

http://home.netscape.com/redir.adp?_dci_ur...%5fhlm1%5fu%5f2

[Chemix]

Bush- Christian, Respectable, Conservative

Kerry- Lying, Word Tiwsting, Backstabbing, Liberal Extremist

 

What some call respect for the world I call stupidity. We support the dang world with foreign aid, money, food, ect. ect. We support Europe and all those dang liberal countries and they don't care, as long as we don't share the same exact liberal veiws we are stupid amer-ric-cons. It doesn't matter if we've helped defeat world wars waged by evil people (IE we helped stop Hitler)

 

Bush no more lied then the people walking down the street talking about the world being flat back in the days before people beleived in the round earth we beleive today. We were informed by our intelligence that sadam was a WMD threat, we were informed by Russia that sadam was a WMD threat, the world agreed, Sadam was a WMD threat. What couldn't be decided was what to do, liberals wanted to hold off on an invasion and try the let the world walk all over u tactic. Bush was supposed to take the word of Sadam Husseign over the CIA? and the rest of our organizations. Might I add that Sadam bombed his own hospital, invaded his neighbor huwait and tortured civilians, not to mention the things he did to test his bioweapons including testing them on a great number of dogs. Yeah I'm an animal lovin tree hugger, Bush hasn't done much for the enviornment but look what he has dealed with: 9/11, War on Terror, War on Iraq, Post War difficulties. Things take time, insurgents have always been around after major wars, post WW2 for example, we dealt with insurgents.

 

2 wars and 9/11 crippled the enconemy and lost jobs, not Bush.

 

All the above are opions and views, no offense intended

[Judge Hades]

And who's watch was it to make sure that the 2 wars and 9/11 didn't happen? Bush. Bush failed and its time for someone else.

 

Also if you want me to support Bush, saying he is Christian is not the way to do it. I hate Christianity.

[Chemix]

I personaly don't give a dang about you Hades one, ur outlook on life is poor, self destructive and cold. I am a christian, and don't give a dang if u don't like it. Poor security set up during a democrat administration allowed 9/11 to happen.

[Judge Hades]

Lets go back in time shall we. Back when Osama Bin Ladin was trained by the CIA. Who was president? Nixon, a republican. WHo was the head of the CIA at the time? George W.'s dad. Enough said.

 

You don't give a damn about someone? How Christian of you.

[Pyronius]

Bush- Christian, Respectable, Conservative

Kerry- Lying, Word Tiwsting, Backstabbing, Liberal Extremist

 

Ok. Thats just nasty. I won't even try to prove that Kerry doesn't lie. I'm sure he does. All politicians do. But Bush's ads against Kerry are blatantly word-twisting lies. At the very best for your causes, both are lying, word twisting, backstabbing politicians.

 

Bush and or his people obviosuly twist facts for commercials.

 

Lets take one commercial that attacks Kerry's support of military. It states that he is not supporting military because he voted agianst some bill that funded vests and other armour for Iraq. In itself, it is true. He DID vote against that bill.

 

But not because he doesnt support military. The bill included a lot of things OTHER than the vests and armour things. Since those other things were not things he was for, he voted against the bill. That way, it would be re-written and then passed. It is obvious that everyone in the senate supports the troops. No one in the senate is a freaking anti-american. DUH! They WILL pass a bill to get the troops what they need. Anyhow, as it goes, the bill was indeed revised and the Kerry voted FOR it. See how it works?

 

The troops got their supplies, and the silly clauses that some people opposed(like kerry) were removed. Thats how the senate works. But Bush's ad makes it look like Kerry was saying troops should not get that funding. That is textbook word twisting.

 

Want more? No? OK one more then.

 

The same situation is used to twist facts and make Kerry look like a "flip-flopper". Notice he voted AGAINST it then FOR it!

 

The ad takes a clip of Kerry saying something like "I actually voted FOR that bill after I voted AGAINST it". Then the ad goes on some rant on how Kerry doesn't know what he's for and against while Bush is resolute or some crap like that. A big twisted lie.

 

What kerry said is true--he voted against the first form of the bill, then voted for the altered(fixed) version. but that doesnt make him a flip flopper. It makes him a responsible Senator. He actually read the whole bill to make sure it was up to snuff. some parts weren't so he voted agisnt it until re-written. Bush and his people twisted that one clip to make him look like a flip flopper.

 

There are more, but whatever. Kerry's campaing people ran a few ads against bush too. I dunno, there were probably some long shots from truth in there too. I didn't notice any though(doesnt mean there weren't any, I just cant recall them if they were in there.)

 

The thing I am trying to do is show how you should not be so blinded by Bush's semblance of trust and Christian morals. As a christian myself, I would never run an ad as dishonest and twisted as Bush has(he has said all of these things in speeches too). They are tantamount to lieing. Very un-Christian. and frankly unrespectable.

 

Don't back Bush because he is supposed to be a respectable christian. He lies like a politician. So far i find Kerry more respectable. Bush has way more charisma and is funnier and more simple spoken(all good things IMO). Take some of those as Bush's selling points, because "respectible" and "not a liar" are not accurate descriptions. I won't say he's not a Christian, that would be below the belt. I respect his faith. I just wish he'd make more christian like decisions if he's going to use christian faith as a selling point.

[Gorth]

Not everyone in US thought that WW2 was our problem yet we sent how many inocent men to die for our fellow countries.

 

Weird, I thought most people in the US agreed that declaring war and fighting against the Japanese was the right thing to do. When Germany and Italy declared war in the US, it didn't really matter that much what the general concensus in the US was, others had already made the decision for them <_>

 

Of course, the Russians then went on to beat the crap out of the Germans and the Japanese armies in eastern asia (Manchuria) and do the majority of the bleeding and dying. They still left quite a lot of Japanese, a few germans and a handful of Italians to fight though...

[Zaine]

im voting for kerry. bush has screwed up enough, i fear what another 4 years would bring. i have no clue how kerry will do but its better than being sure of another 4 years of hell with bush. a president who uses his religion to guide his decisions for the country is not someone who should be president in the first place. there is no room in the world for religion in the government.

 

 

 

on a sidenote: religion in itself has lost all usefulness in the world. it was useful when there was chaos in the world because it brought some order, but now all it does is cause hate. its really quite sad that most people in the world still need to believe so strongly in what is obviously a great work of fiction.

[Nartwak]

So are you speaking from your studies of theological philosophy or from your adolescent petulance?

[Pyronius]

I'm not sure why religious differences cause so much hate. It makes no sense. Christianity(I am christian) is supposed to teach love of neighbor and even enemy.

 

Still many that call themselves christians constantly cross the lines. They use the followers of christianity. I E the crusades. Obvisously this is a non-christian act. Period. However, it is done in the name of christianity. I dont know much about the Muslim faith but some muslims have told me that their religion has been similarly "used" violently when that is not the true message of their faith. THose that cause war and violence based on religius differences often cross the rules and basic principles of their religion to do so.

 

This all leads me to believe religion is not the actual root of this problem. Take it away and I bet people will still be angry and hateful towards others. Just a hunch...

[Judge Hades]

So are you speaking from your studies of theological philosophy or from your adolescent petulance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I cannot speak for Zaine, but i have a minor in the field of Religious Studies and due to the historical references since the time of Jesus to the present, along with my own personal experiences in Christianity I can honestly say that I hate Christianity.

[xanas3712]

Not that I am in the mood to keep going back and fourth, but my question is how you can support a party or even want to be assoicated with such who do something like this.

 

GOP Voter Drive Accused of Tossing Cards

 

Rhomal, the reason I can support them is I don't immediately believe some guy who was fired and is probably whining to the DNC to get himself attention. Who am I going to believe is the bad guy? All the officials there or this one man? Come on.

 

Furthermore, even if I thought it were accurate I would think that it's restricted to this area. I simply don't believe the spin your party puts out. Maybe we could talk about the fact the Democrats are well known for winning elections through "other" means. One might forget that the reason Nixon did what he did is that he lost to Kennedy because of "mob connections." So even if I believed this I would say there is just as much going on the other side that's deplorable, we just don't have the media to play our spin like you guys do. Instead, they like to play attempts to get rid of fradulent voters as getting rid of "legitimate democrats." But there is so little proof for either situation so many times it's best to assume some disgruntled employee is going off.

 

Did you know out of all the cases the Democrats have filed so far this election that they have lost every single one? Or maybe you just chalk that up to conservative activist judges.

 

Weird, I thought most people in the US agreed that declaring war and fighting against the Japanese was the right thing to do. When Germany and Italy declared war in the US, it didn't really matter that much what the general concensus in the US was, others had already made the decision for them getlost.gif

Not really, the european operation could have been delayed after the "real war" was over with Japan. Of course I would have disagreed with that. Also, we were arming the British (Roosevelt) and other various things that people could get away with. You can't exactly blame this on the politicians as this was the isolationists fault. The same kind of Isolationists (people like HadesOne) who agree with you now about Iraq.

 

Of course, the Russians then went on to beat the crap out of the Germans and the Japanese armies in eastern asia (Manchuria) and do the majority of the bleeding and dying. They still left quite a lot of Japanese, a few germans and a handful of Italians to fight though...

Give the statistics to back this up please. That there were only a "handful" left after Russia destroyed so many. I know Russia lost a hell of a lot more than we did, but I don't think their effectiveness per man was that great at all. Anyway I haven't seen a list of casualties caused by specific allied groups against the Axis, and it probably doesn't exist. So without that this is just a battle of opinion over who killed more.

 

I cannot speak for Zaine, but i have a minor in the field of Religious Studies and due to the historical references since the time of Jesus to the present, along with my own personal experiences in Christianity I can honestly say that I hate Christianity.

Yet you had no problem citing principles to use them against the guy earlier. This leads me to believe that your hatred has a lot more to do with people than anything.

[Judge Hades]

Doctrine is only half the social structure of religion. The other half are the people who represent it.

[Nartwak]

I cannot speak for Zaine, but i have a minor in the field of Religious Studies and due to the historical references since the time of Jesus to the present, along with my own personal experiences in Christianity I can honestly say that I hate Christianity.

Christianity covers a lot of ground. I would have to say though that Catholicism seems pretty bad.

 

(My one formal 'Christian' experience was when I attended a sermon with a girl I was dating in high school. There was hugging and hymn singing and that sort of bull****. Pretty banal.)

 

Zaine wasn't speaking of Christianity specifically though, just religiousness itself. Unless he was ignorantly conflating the two.

[Judge Hades]

Religion as a whole has done more harm than good, but I don't see Bhuddist fundamentals blowing up Planned Parenthood sites.

[xanas3712]

Religion as a whole has done more harm than good, but I don't see Bhuddist fundamentals blowing up Planned Parenthood sites.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think there are some violent Buddhist sects, they are just more rare because the religion in general isn't as large. I'll have to look into it but I think I'd heard of some groups before.

 

Regardless, fundamentalists is the wrong term here. Those who are "fundamentalist" in regard to Christianity literally interpret the Bible, but if they do so they would have to know of verses like "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21) Those you are referring to clearly rate other principles higher. This has everything to do with the people and their hatreds than anything that the Bible or Christ told them to do.

 

And considering you aren't really aware of the good that Religion does, you really cannot speak on that, because it has as much to do with internals of a person as it has to do with how they relate to others. Considering most religious principles are good I find it very difficult to believe that it's primarily a harmful force, and I place the blame of harm on people.

[Rhomal]

Religion as a whole has done more harm than good, but I don't see Bhuddist fundamentals blowing up Planned Parenthood sites.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think there are some violent Buddhist sects, they are just more rare because the religion in general isn't as large. I'll have to look into it but I think I'd heard of some groups before.

 

Regardless, fundamentalists is the wrong term here. Those who are "fundamentalist" in regard to Christianity literally interpret the Bible, but if they do so they would have to know of verses like "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21) Those you are referring to clearly rate other principles higher. This has everything to do with the people and their hatreds than anything that the Bible or Christ told them to do.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This we agree with. They use the bible as a excuse for hatred.

 

On that note, Bush is little better, stating in a 2000 tv interview he does not consider paganism/witchcraft a 'real religion'. (also 6 months ago one of his people also said the same thing (in a more PC way) when someone asked him if wicca gorups will get federal funding under the 'faith based initiatives' programs he started.)

 

Last I knew freedom of religion ment freedom of ALL religions not just his. His religious intolorance is just one of the many things that turns my stomach about him. Again, how you can support such a person is beyond me.

 

On the topic of 'the liberal media', please stop tooting that horn. You know you have more consertaive media on radio and cable then liberal. So stop with the 'media is all liberal' I can make a list a mile long of the consertative talk show hosts, and a only a handful of liberal.

[Judge Hades]

Religion as a whole has done more harm than good, but I don't see Bhuddist fundamentals blowing up Planned Parenthood sites.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think there are some violent Buddhist sects, they are just more rare because the religion in general isn't as large. I'll have to look into it but I think I'd heard of some groups before.

 

Regardless, fundamentalists is the wrong term here. Those who are "fundamentalist" in regard to Christianity literally interpret the Bible, but if they do so they would have to know of verses like "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21) Those you are referring to clearly rate other principles higher. This has everything to do with the people and their hatreds than anything that the Bible or Christ told them to do.

 

And considering you aren't really aware of the good that Religion does, you really cannot speak on that, because it has as much to do with internals of a person as it has to do with how they relate to others. Considering most religious principles are good I find it very difficult to believe that it's primarily a harmful force, and I place the blame of harm on people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But the people get their justification and motivation from biblical texts. The root of the problem is religion.

[Phosphor]

How about steering this back on-topic? Religion certainly is pertinent to the US election, but let's keep the religious discussion here contained to that topic and not religion as a whole.

[Judge Hades]

Well, saying a candidate is a Christian is one way of not getting my vote. Religion is a private affair anyway. Those going out and about saying "LOOK AT ME! I'M SAVED!" are a bunch of stupid asshats. I don't need people like that holding any sort of public office.

[chemchok]

So, what's up with Pat Robertson making his recent allegation that Bush said there would be no casualties in the Iraq war? CNN Link

 

I don't believe that Bush thought there would be no casualties whatsoever, but it does seem quite obvious by now that the Pentagon and the Bush team severely misjudged the Iraqui response to US occupation.

 

Still, it seems strange that Robertson, who professes to be an ardent Bush supporter and holds sway over a good chunk of voters, would allow Kerry any fodder at this point in the election campaign.

[Judge Hades]

I never place any weight to what Robertson says. He is in the same boat as Farwell, a religious nutjob.