Supporting Bush and the Iraq war has boiled down to advocating thoroughly un-American ideas like Farnsworth suggested earlier. There's really no other word for his opinion than "un-American."

Since we unwashed masses are unqualified to decide how to procede, who decides who the "professionals" are? I'm really curious to find out who he thinks is the sort of "professional" equipped to solve the quagmire we find ourselves in. Bill Kristol? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Our brave commander in chief? If WE can't figure out what to do with Iraq, how do we figure out who CAN figure it out?

I for one think we should follow Russ Feingold's advice that we should be listening to people who were smart enough to realize that going into Iraq was a bad idea in the first place. I think that's an excellent place to start.

Number One: Re-instituting the draft and sending 500,000 new soldiers to the middle east. Bomb what's left of Iraq. Bomb Iran and Syria into dust.

Number Two: Get the hell out of dodge.

Who's with me on number two?

What the hell does the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff do? I thought he was the war czar,if not the sec. of defense. Are those guys just glorified paper pushers?

Is it a smoking gun?

I've voted for the C & L question a few times, but I've also scrolled down looking at some of the other top vote-getters. They're ALL great! I'd love to see any of them asked. They won't though. It's gonna be slow-pitch softball all night at that debate.

Gandi was a lot like Hitler, too. But not as much as Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela.

"... lord knows I won't be using it to write letters to my son in Iraq."

So you think a Kerry administration would have gone on a rampage against a) habeas corpus; b) social security; c) sound tax policy; d) sound healthcare policy; e) sound environmental policy; f) that he would have mishandled Katrina so completely? Would Kerry be stacking hthe DOJ with a bunch of Jesus freaks? Wold Blackwater be greenlighted?

Anyway, I thought this was about the governator?

Firstly, most of your conclusions are assumptions and guesses. You present no evidence that Kerry would have gone in some of the directions you fear, other than abject pessimism. The tax policy issue is the best example. And I forgot to mention the Bankruptcy bill, too. Just because he didn’t have the balls to stand up to Bush over the Patriot Act and the original war authorization doesn’t mean he would advocate such things. There’s a big difference. I mean, Feingold was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act. Do you think Ted Kennedy and Bush are one in the same by that logic, too?

What makes Bush so radical and dangerous is his view that he has supreme authority as “commander in chief” during a time of war. Over everything. It’s not so much what he wants to do with laws; he believes he’s above them altogether and doesn’t need to adhere to them in any meaningful way. Since the draconian Patriot Act, Bush has gone significantly beyond what it advocated. I see no evidence whatsoever that Kerry thinks the same way. I just don’t see those same authoritarian tendencies with Kerry. I don't see the arrogance. I don't see the childish temper. There is no evidence to support that Kerry would have used unconstitutional tactics like “signing statements,” for example.

Look, I know the Democrats could have done better than Kerry, too. But he’s light years better than Bush. I can see why you went down the path you chose, just don’t berate us for not coming to your same conclusions, especially given your flimsy evidence. If you really think they are the same, you just aren’t looking close enough.

ps--Promising to "fix" social security, and what Bush wants to do with it are two different things. Bush wants to kill it. There's ample evidence of that. And there's no evidence that Kerry wants to do away with it.

See what happens to the country when so many people like Tyler won't do the hard work?

"...I'd leave that up to President Bush. And I think he could go either way on that."

--Sam Brownback

Geez Sam, don't go out on a limb, or anything. Tell us how you really feel!

What's the deal with the name of his show, "Special Report"? There's nothing "special" about it. It's on every friggin' day. This point illustrates a long-standing beef I've had with Fox going back to 9/11: They overhype everything. They way their ticker is displayed across the bottom of the screen, and their sensationalistic graphics--everything is made to seem like whatever story is being presented at that particular time is uniquely significant and startlingly important right now dammit!!!

If Special Report where only on once or twice a month, or only coinciding with a particularly important or significant news event, that would be understandable. Instead, it's more like The View, but with dudes. Partisan, right-wing dudes.

But even if Fox News was balanced, I'd have a hard time ever watching it just due to the constant, in-your-face-hype, 24-7.

I think it's important to note that there's a big difference between left and right partisans. By definition and in every realistic way, conservatives are narrow-minded. They have come to their partisan conclusions with blinders on. Literally, and figuratively. Liberals--if they are true liberals--have looked at the issues from all conceivable angles before coming to their conclusions and thensporting a particular partisan color or flag.