Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

The LA Times carried an article about a month or so ago about the religious right and I wished I had saved it after reading your post. The article essentially stated the religious right was intending to send some of their members to act as spies to other congregations that might express a favorable opinion of the Kerry/Edwards ticket and report back to their leaders about the evil errors of their ways.
Why do they have an affinity for the republican party?

Assuming for a minute that the president of Pakistan was correct in his statements yesterday and his belief that the war in Iraq has made the world less safe and Bin Laden is alive and well(and by implication, doing what that MF normally does), I believe additional assumptions could offer a potential timeline of when Al Queda may strike the US.
First here are my additional assumptions: The polls are correct and the number one priority of the public is security and the belief that George Bush is the man who can provide it and this belief system prevails in the elections in November. Furthermore, the statement as reported in the Los Angeles Times is correct: "officials warn that the Bush administration's upbeat assessment of its successes is overly optimistic and masks its strategic failure to understand and combat the Al Queda evolution". Additionally, the CIA report(as well as others) is correct and civil war is likely in Iraq.
The beliefs of americans that we are safer as a result of our war in Iraq and the sense of security provided by the Bush presidency lulls the the country into a steady state of self-confidence and prosperity, in the eyes of the public.
IF the above is accurate, an enormous opportunity exists for Bin Laden to undermine the belief system of the american public and to dissolve the confidence of the public in its leadership. I would suspect an attack or series of attacks shortly after the re-election of Bush or after the inaugration of his presidency.

Well, it appears we forgot a lesson learned in WW2 when George Patton said he didn't want to pay for the same real estate twice meaning he didn't want to have take the same battlefield twice. It just makes sense.
Colin Powell announced today that US troops will have to enter "no-go" zones to tidy things before the elections (theirs and ours). This presumably means Fallujah where we have already taken casulties and where the Brookings institute figures 20,000 insurgents are hunkered down in their own turf. However, I have to cut some slack to the men at the top for being forgetful and not remembering what Patton said since WW2 was a long time ago.
Today, however, an Iraqi general was caught with his pants down, collaborating with the enemy. Didn't we learn that lesson from Vietnam or was that one too long ago as well?

A new poll reveals much about the thinking of the american electorate:
1. World Affairs: On who is less likely to alienate world leaders (even though he already has) George Bush!
2.Iraq: Should we send in more troops and who should do it? George Bush! How could it be any other way?
3.Terrorism: Who would fight it the most? George Bush. Afterall, he got us into Iraq!
4. The economy: who's the best: George Bush! Nevermind that silly 420 plus billion dollar deficit, Who's counting anyway?
5. Kerry was wrong for making anti-war statements about vietnam: you betcha! Nevermind history has PROVEN him to be correct...
6. Did the Bush presence (or more correctly, his absence) during vietnam affect your vote" No way!
7. Does Bush give you that warm and fuzzy feeling? Oh Yeah! I added this one but you know George does it the best! Nevermind Chenney, Rumsfeld and the others (who are they anyway?).
8.Will the debate influence your vote? There's a debate? Doesn't it come after the election?
The american electorate: informed, knowing and deftly stepping in. To it...

Well, my wife reinerated a news story today about an interview with a speech professor and his expectations for a victor in the upcomming debates. Basically, he said the winner will not be decided by his debating skills but by the ability of the speaker to express his ideas in a simplistic, folksy manner. A speaking style, that for all intents and purposes, any moron could relate to and we all know who that speaker is going to be...

In an embarrassment to Bush, his hometown Texas newspaper has endorsed Kerry for president. In this republican mecca of the west,a Texas newspaper has it's own tongue. I don't recall the name but it's probably something like, "The Daily Texas Longhorn". One thing is clear though, they want the GWB Brand off the range!
The Texas tune they sung to keafer, the twin jims and ronald is something like this:
Those of you who are shoveling that conservative stew,
Beware, the Daily Longhorn is hunting for you,
Take the cue,
Before they draw down on you,
Get out of town,
Before sundown!

In reference to the current election campaign, the Los Angeles Times calls George W Bush a coward.The Times notes,"Bush happily benefits from the slime his supporters are spreading but refuses to take responsibility for it or to call point blank for it to stop."The Times asks, will he get away with it?" "The answer is yes".
Specifically, Bush supporters have stated "Terrorists support Kerry" and Kerry "supports the terrorists". The Times notes," Bush criticism of him and his Iraqi policy "can embolden an enemy" and called Kerry "obstructive" to the war on terror.
These inane statements by Bush are now attracting criticism by members of his own party. Perhaps there is still time...

Although I felt differently about the outcome of the VP debate, ABC news reported 45% thought Cheney won versus 35% for Edwards with 19% calling it a tie.
Speaking of factcheck, ABC cited them for having numerous tapes showing Cheney's claim regarding Al Quaeda link with Iraq, a claim Cheney denied during the debate.
There were at least two times Cheney could have used 30 seconds for an argument or opinion but declined to use it. I don't see how that resulted in a more favorable impression of him with those who were polled but that's just my impression.
There appears to be consensus that this debate will be quickly forgotten by Friday.

Jim,
You and the Bush zealots ARE out of touch with reality. If you bothered to read the WMD report you would know the UN sanctions were, in fact working, and Iraqi ability to develop WMD was crippled and that is why NO WMD were found in the first place.
Your assertion of Kerry's global test is taken way out of context and it is YOU who should read the transcripts wherein Kerry clearly states how he will defend us from terrorist threats. If Bush had the forethought and intelligence to seek global support in Iraq we might not be in the mess that we now find ourselves in.
Bush takes us to war against Iraq for imaginary WMD and you buy it.
Figures...

Although there's no real suprise in the report of the top US inspector, I see the interesting conclusion that the capability of Iraq to produce WMD significantly weakened after the first gulf war and degraded in the following years.
Yet, we have still seen hawks within the Bush administration claiming to have seen "smoking gun" evidence of such weapons as late as a few months ago, as reported in Time magazine. This turned-out to be false, of course, but the stubborn inability of the Bush administration to accept reality is disconcerting, to say the least.Unfortunately, the inability of George Bush to acknowledge the realities of Iraq continues unabated with our only hope being the possibility of a change in our leadership.