Kerry also opted for sanctions when he was asked to vote for a mandate for Bush Sr. to remove Hussein from Kuwait. Imagine the toll on the Kuwaiti people if they had suffered alongside the Iraqi people during the decade of sanctions and oppression...

But, more on topic, I don't think Bush is throwing the election. I think the first debate was horribly mismanaged. I think Bush was told how to behave and what he was given didn't fit with Kerry's behavior, and he stood there, torn as to whether to go on his own or stick to his lackey's talking points. He should have just winged it...

As for the approval rating, sadly, I think the Democratic lies are falling on accepting ears. Over and over you hear colelge students saying that they are afriad that if Bush is elected he will reinstitute a draft. The imaginary gloom they are putting on the economy is believed by people who want to do better and want to blame their hardship on someone. The dour state of our international affairs is somehow thought to be Bush's fault, when these countries have hated us and been at odds with us both politically and economically for decades.

Misinformation is working, sadly, helped along by a rablidly pro-Kerry press and entertainment industry. If Bush does lose, the only solace we have is listening to 4 years of WTF! when they see how Kerry really handles the office...

You wrote, "Sanctions were NOT working, but instead they were allowing Saddam to purchase nations on the UN security council! You know, those same nations that were pushing for sanctions on Iraq to be lifted? These guys were getting rich from Saddam, and we now have documentation that Saddam was buying these officials in France, Russia, China and elsewhere, and had promised them more riches once sanctions were lifted!"

If you tone down your rhetoric, you'll be making a fair point rather than sounding like a right wing conspiracy theorist. Saddam wasn't purchasing "Nations." He was purchasing weapons from weapons manufacturers, i.e. private companies. This IS proof that sanctions were undermined (that would be your fair point). It is NOT proof that the governments of nations like France, Russia, and China were in Saddam's pocket (that would be your conspiracy theory).

The people in Saddam's pocket were people in the weapons industry. And frankly, what these weapons industry people were doing is a lot like what Halliburton was doing in the 90's (for which it's under investigation right now) selling weapons to questionable regimes in the middle east because it was profitable to do so.

Incidentally, several of the people and companies who profited from the Saddam's oil for food program were Americans (though their names are deleted in the report because of "American Privacy Laws). By your logic, I guess that means Bush was in Saddam's pocket too.

BakerStreet: Actually, instead of "WTF!" we'll hear how everything is President Bush's fault. Kerry has already started to lay that on thick, by talking about he's not cure how bad the Iraq 'mess' will be on Jan. 20th.

These guys are just too far out to be believed.

And you're right (heh), it won't be President Bush's fault if Kerry wins, I'm just getting irritated that his campaign is missing the easy stuff.

IronRob: Conspiracy nothing. The report by Duelfer stating there were no WMD's also points to the Food for Oil program being used to pay off UN officials from at least three seperate countries, perhaps many more. The documentation is there, the investigation is building momentum...

Reply #2 By: Iron Rob - 10/8/2004 1:51:18 AM The people in Saddam's pocket were people in the weapons industry. And frankly, what these weapons industry people were doing is a lot like what Halliburton was doing in the 90's (for which it's under investigation right now) selling weapons to questionable regimes in the middle east because it was profitable to do so.

Wrong answer my friend! Halliburton is under investigation for it's accounting practices by the SEC. It has nothing to do with weapons or weapons parts sales.:

Why is Halliburton under investigation by the SEC? A little more than a month ago, Halliburton announced that the SEC had begun a probe into the company's booking of cost overruns on energy-related construction jobs. This practice accounted for the overruns as revenue, even if customers had not yet approved the charges, and inflated Halliburton profits by almost $100 million in 1998. According to a June 2, 2002, Washington Post story, Halliburton said a shift in its mix of business mandated the new accounting policy, and that it conformed to generally accepted accounting principles. The accounting change was approved by Halliburton auditor Arthur Andersen.

Link

"Saddam wasn't purchasing "Nations." He was purchasing weapons from weapons manufacturers, i.e. private companies."

Iron Rob: Don't limit it to weapons manufacturers, that's just ignoring the many public officials of these nations he bought off.

""The CIA report stated that the Iraqi ambassador was instructed to 'utilize [the $1 million] to remind French Defense Minister Pierre Joxe indirectly about Iraq's previous positions toward France, in general, and the French Socialist party, in particular.'... ( LINK)"

Hussein didn't get enough weapons to warrant the kind of pay he was dishing out to public servants of anti-war countries. What he was doing was buying their support.

It is NOT proof that the governments of nations like France, Russia, and China were in Saddam's pocket (that would be your conspiracy theory).

If you would have left out France, I would have agreed with this statement However, there is ample proof that Saddam did purchase Chirac. And like the good toady he is, once bought, he stays bought.

Just because the media has chosen a single point of the 8 given..

Er, NO. The Media didn't accentuate that point so much so as the White House did before we went to war in Iraq, let's not play revisionist. When supporting stories of Saddam's attempts to gather materials for weapons faltered, the change in reason was sent from the White House that this War was about removing "bad man" Saddam. When some attacked this reason as not showing consistancy when dealing with other nations, the call to Americans to support the war changed to "We're liberating the Iraqi people!" I'm interested in hearing about the other 5 given reasons, but let's not forget the point people were sold on or the shell game we've been presented with.

Deference: Youre showing how people dont actually listen to The President, to Condoleeza Rice, to Powell and others. I work from home and keep the cable news networks (all three) in constant rotation. I cant count how many times someone from the administration would hold a press conference before the war listing reason after reason, then the news corrospondant would cut in and only talk about WMDs. Not revisionist, just irritated that people care more about what Connie Chung has to say than Powell does.

President Bush has also had the lowest apporval rating in history, and that is because he SUCKS as president.

the war listing reason after reason,

Are you talking about us enforcing the U.N. resolutions? Are you referring to the shoulder mounted ballistics? I think quite a few people did hear what the president had to say about there being WMD's in Iraq, I remember Colin Powell presenting a canister to people, and I even think Condi Rice stated something akin to Saddam posing an imminent threat. I would actually go scrounge for quotes, but I think it's pretty apparent to all of us that the threat was exaggerated and that we were sold on the war on crap that didn't pan out. Don't for a second fool yourself in to believing that any other reason or compoundance of reasons other than an imminent threat of WMD's would have enabled Bush to gain access to Iraq from congress without dissent from the majority of the American people.

Youre showing how people dont actually listen to The President

You're correct about the reporters who would kind of boil some White House statements down to some sort of WMDs comment. I caught about a weeks worth of network cable news this last summer. I thought my mind would melt and drip out the side of my ear when I watched anything besides "from the horses mouth" C-Span. At that point I began to gain all my news from internet sources, newspapers, magazines, and the occassional guilty indulgence of C - Span, your attempt to use me as an illustration of one who is simply plugging in to talking points gleaned from the mainstream news is not accurate.

Reply #9 By: sandy2 - 10/8/2004 2:04:43 PM President Bush has also had the lowest apporval rating in history, and that is because he SUCKS as president

If he's doing such a lousy job then why is this?

Link

President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 38.7% Somewhat Approve 13.4% Somewhat Disapprove 10.0% Strongly Disapprove 37.0% RasmussenReports.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rasmussen Reports Home Economic Confidence Today Bush vs. Kerry Today Bush Job Approval Congress - GOP vs. Dem Electoral College State-by-State Polls Learn More About RR Contact Us -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friday October 08, 2004--Fifty-two percent (52%) of American voters say they approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove. The President's Job Approval has not dipped below 51% since the Republican National Convention. During all of 2004, it has ranged from a high of 57% in early January to a low of 48% on May 17. For the month of September, it has moved in a narrower range from 51% to 54%.

"President Bush has also had the lowest apporval rating in history, and that is because he SUCKS as president"

Jeez Sandy, you just make this stuff up as you go along? Bush has had huge approval ratings during the last four years, and his rating now is almost identical to Reagan's and Clinton's at the end of their first term. I suggest you out of your MOUTH for a while...

Jeez Sandy, you just make this stuff up as you go along? Bush has had huge approval ratings during the last four years, and his rating now is almost identical to Reagan's and Clinton's at the end of their first term. I suggest you out of your MOUTH for a while...

Yep.. I make up everything. No.. actually I'm well read. According to the gallup organization, Bush had a 39% apporval rating in the days before september 11th.

. Nixon had a 24 in 1974 and Carter, beloved of Leftists, had a 34 during his campaign against Reagan. Bush has had approval ratings in the high 70's, even in the 80's on some polls back at the beginning of this supposedly unpopular war.

Link please for your 39%. Not some make-it-up-as-you-go Kerry site, either, let's see it from the gallup people or a reasonably reliable news organization.

Funny thing, but as a Kerry voter, I have been thinking parallel thoughts -- could Kerry be a Republican mole hired to throw the election to Bush?

Actually, I think that these are arguably the worst two candidates for President ever, taken together as a team. Each man is getting worrisomely close to 50% of the voters who say, "Anybody but __________." I would describe myself as a definite Kerry supporter, but would give him only a D, and I could list a whole slew of Democrats and Republicans I would vote for in preference to him.

I think most of America is united on one thing -- the other candidate is so awful, we can't believe a single person would vote for him. And looking at it from that perspective, I think most of America has it just about right.