Thats right folks, if you like iraq, your gonna love iran, get ready for bush and repubs to send more American kids, fathers and mothers to DIE in iran, any war(so long as none of them serve) is a good war to bush and chicken hawk repubs.  So start saving your $ so you can afford to go Arlington and visit your sacraficed loved ones and while your there, say thank you to bush and repubs.

  Once again we find the American public wringing their hands and saying "We don't want war with Iran,but Bush says we have to,What can I do to stop it"?.It's really quite simple.Re-instate the Draft so that more than one percent of American families have children in harm's way.I gaurantee the sight of eighteen year old young men and ladies being sent to fight a war,without the choice of fighting or not,will end these stupid cnflicts.And to make sure the law is upheld evenly,take away every deferment such as Cheney and the other Chicken War Hawks sleazed by on,and evryone,Rich and Poor will give such a cry of injustice,that the Military-Industrial machine will be forced to use other means for profit.God Bless our Troops,and please call your local elected official and DEMAND that we care for our wounded soldiers.

Hillary is leading in IOWA? Well this is what real voters in IOWA are saying:

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1296

"Although I'm still a big supporter of Bill Clinton, I don't feel the same way toward Hillary," Boeve added. "In fact, she's at the very bottom of my list, and I can't see how she's leading in the polls. I haven't met anyone who is supporting her, but I keep hearing she's leading by significant margins. Who are these people supporting her, and where are they?"

The voters are questioning the credibility of the endless 24/7 polls. MSM, you know the answer.

Arrrrgghhh!!

If the GOP wants to ensure the complete annihilation of their party attacking Iran is just the way to accomplish that.

typical GOP QUIEN ES MAS MACHO garbage vis-a-vis Iran when they are all chickenhawks except McCain and we know where his poll numbers are. The GOP still think they can rely on that they are strong on defense. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What about the big elephant in the room regarding Hillary's judgement on Iran? President Bush stated a connection between Iran's nuclear capability to World War 111. That would leave her open to criticism from both sides especially Barack Obama who as been tooting judgement over experience for the better half of his campaign. It also makes the connection between Bush and another Clinton presidency which could hurt her in both primary and general elections. This could potentially affect her negatives further from the left wing anti-war voters and the Republicans as ammunition in the general election if this issue with Iran intensifies. President Bush may have taken a page out of Karl Rove on this one. Tell me what you think.

How in G-d's name can the Republicans try to outpiss one another in terms of Iran when none of them have no conceivable idea of what to do in Iraq????  Who do they propose to send to Iran?....There aren't exactly hundreds of thousands of soldiers waiting around for their call to duty; they are already engaged to the seams.  They need to campaign on a more humble platform.....asking for dialouge, trying to repair our shattered credibility in this world forum, and quit trying to look and act like the lead in a John Wayne film.

The cheerleading chickenhawks have the rhetoric and bumper stickers...just not the right stuff to actually go fight

obama,,, his judgement: against the war when running for senate, FOR funding and AGAINST troop withdrawl as a senate, against the war when running for pres.

We've seen his judgement.. it's called "count on the fools" like bush did.

Doc - The problem is not with public opinion.  The problem is with the president's opinion, and the Republicans in Congress who are unwilling to break with the president's opinion to do what the majority of Americans have asked them to do.  

While it is true that most people have not really felt the effects of this conflict the way Vietnam or WWII was felt by the average American family, reinstating the draft is not necessary to sway public opinion.  The American public does not need to see 18 year old kids getting drafted and marching off to war to think that it needs to stop - they already think that.  

I think the exact opposite will happen....

The more Hillary opens herself up to ridicule for ideas that have either been tried or stolen from other candidates and the more the public learns about all the back room deals and the dirty dealing she has done over the years and the more people study her record in the Senate and realize this woman has done nothing for her state and the more stories about people who are criminals either working for her election or raising money for her campaign, then people will realize she just is not worthy to be President of the United States.

Arshad - My grandparents, my mother and my uncle all grew up in Tipton.  I lived there the first 10 years of my life.  Not everyone there is experiencing this so-called Clinton fatigue.  Some are, I'm sure, but just as some are wary of another Clinton adminsitration, so are others wary of Obama's abilities to effectuate any of the change about which he speaks.  

I am still not supporting any particular candidate but Senator Clinton and her advisors should be complimented on knowing how to play the political game.  Bringing up the gender issue herself, and using humor to deal with it is a very effective tactic, makes her look more warm and friendly and points up the fact that gender shouldn't be an issue at the same time. No dummies, they!

Yes, how could letting a fanatical Muslim country obtain nuclear weapons ever end up with a whole in the ground were Israel once was or a weapon being smuggled into this country by one of their terrorist allies.  Certainly it's nonsense to think such a thing could happen, or a failure to hold Iran and its Russian and Chinese allies accountable for bringing about such a possibility.  Yes President Bush is a real Cowboy for alluding to such a possibility.  After all the peace movement, or doing nothing, certainly will see us through to a safe Liberal utopia.  Why should we even be talking about Iran?  It's just a big scare tactic, right?  There is nothing to fear other than George Bush and our new Democratic leaders will keep us safe without making anyone mad.

George Bush,and dick cheney,should be tried for crimes against humanity,for the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in iraq and afghanistan. according to this administration anyone against the american policy is a terrorist or an insurgent.it has to stop!

Carrie,
First thanks for being the 1st Clinton supporter who disagreed without being disagreeable.

I understand people's concern about Obama's ability to deliver the changes. Obama has a strong record of delivering change, both in IL state senate and US senate. He and his record is less known to people because he is such a fresh face on national stage.
He is huge on ethics. He implemented most sweeping ethics reform of last 25 years in IL, he reformed death penalty system sending innocent people in death row. There was a NYT article shows Obama introduced some 800 bills in eight years in IL senate.

Take a look at the attached article suggesting some very bright mind is working with him on domestic and international agenda. I am highly confident and optimistic about an Obama presidency. So are many many people. Believe in him, he won't let us down.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-obama_mon_nusep17,0,3844054.story

Arshad,thanks for that article. It just proves a point. The Bush presidency has put a drift between the Republican and Democratic parties for the last 7 years. The Congress has not passed a "significant" bill in conventional terms since January all they seem to be voting on is the Moveon.org bill to two non-binding resolutions. One of which may give Bush an incentive to authorize war with Iraq. Then we had the triangulation of the the Clinton administration and Hillary is still using it to this day. Senator Clinton  is seeking the "centrist" theory of politics. She says just enough to please the audience of front of her depending on the demographics and but not too controversial to stir too many critics on the right.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me... this is absolutely ridiculous.. First they said Iraq had nuclear weapons and look how that turned out. Does anyone know what the shape of Iran's economy is? They wouldn't have the nerve to attack us.. Iran is not a threat at this point.. And thanks to our senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one who voted for the Iran Resoultion which was written up by Lieberman who is Obama's advisor and Barack doesn't show up to vote for it.. Both of them will take us into some kind of war with Iran..

The only two who had proper judgement to begin with are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.. They both voted against the Iraq war and now want out of the Iran War.. we neeed to secure ourselves here

I suggest that anyone who is anti-war and wants lower taxes to get behind either Ron or Dennis...

Why don't the GOP frontrunners explain in detail, how many of their family members will fight in the proposed Iran War, and the following World War Three.

Carrie: What public opinion poll are you reciting? Most of these polls are conducted in very blue states with blueist of blue constituents. Most republicans answer the question this way: Pollster: Do you think the Iraq war is going good? Answer:No, but I say that because I think we need to use more brute force. Pollster: A simple no is sufficient.. Polster: Do you think Bush is doing a good job in the War on Terrorism? Answer: NO, because I think he needs to tame Iraq with brute force and be done with it.....So you see how a pollster makes a poll say whatever, depending on the agenda. I say this because I was called for the first time. I asked him why did he ask my party affiliation first as opposed to last because I didnt want my answers to get twisted. He said that the campaign (whoever it was)wanted questions asked in this order. BTW: The caller ID identified this as an ABC affiliate.

Beware, gutless George and the chickenhawks have their pom-poms out again.

Here is a good article about how far Hillary will go to get what she wants.  Basically, saying that she thinks she is above the law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sandy_berger_and_the_real_hill.html

Now is the time to think about this.  Do we really want more of this crap?

Here is a good article about how far Hillary will go to get what she wants.  Basically, saying that she thinks she is above the law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sandy_berger_and_the_real_hill.html

Now is the time to think about this.  Do we really want more of this crap?

I for one would love to see a women president.  Unfortunately, Hillary is not the person to do this.  There is so much hidden baggage about the Clintons that will come out in the general election.  If it doesn't cause her to loose the election it will definately set a very nasty tone to her presidency.  She talks of how she is being attacked now - all people are doing now is pointing out policy differences.  Just wait until the real attacks come in the general election.  I don't think she will be able to survive them.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democratic_iowa_caucus

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The first Rasmussen Reports poll of the Iowa Democratic Caucus for 2008 finds Senator Hillary Clinton on top with support from 33% of Likely Caucus Participants. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is supported by 22% and Illinois Senator Barack Obama attracts 21%."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_jersey_2008_presidential_election
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Hillary Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 51% to 40% in an early look at the race for New Jersey’s Electoral Votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Presented without comment to the reality-based community.


Van

Fred Thompson has been MORE aggressive.  Maybe so, but the bar was set pretty darn low.  Indeed, it would be pretty much impossible for anyone having a pulse to be less aggressive.

While going to war with Iran may be reprehensible, it is probably the best chance the Republicans have for keeping the White House in 2008. It will remove some attention from Iraq - which, if left alone will doom the Repubs - and place more on Iran. Regardless of how things have turned out in Iraq, Republicans are still seen as being strong on national defense. What better way to mobilize those defecting Republicans than to give them a new, fresh war to get excited about? Sure, it is a risk. But it is also their best chance, and they know it. What do they have to lose? Don't expect Iran to go away any time soon.

Jessica. I do agree with regarding Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to an extent. The  number one problem that they have is not having a record of both passing legislation that both the Democratic and Republican party can agree on. I researched both of their records but I just do not see it but I maybe wrong. That is the main reason why I am choosing Obama because he managed to pass the reform and surveillance bill while under a Republican majority as co-sponsor of those bills in just 5 years in office. Its more significant when its in Illinois. Hillary Clinton has not passed one bill as a co-sponsor in her seven years of elected office.

Here is a good article about how far Hillary will go to get what she wants.  Basically, saying that she thinks she is above the law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sandy_berger_and_the_real_hill.html

Now is the time to think about this.  Do we really want more of this crap?

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:34 AM)


No Jessica, we don't want any more of this crap. If you can't support Obama without demonizing Clinton, please stop.

It seems some have taken to posting on every thread.
I apologize for posting this twice, but I'm following the lie.

"According to reports in Newsweek, The Washington Post, and other liberal news media not commonly associated with a "vast right wing conspiracy," Hillary Clinton has selected a team of national security advisers led by the "triumvirate" of Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and Sandy Berger."

"WASHINGTON —  Hillary Clinton claims Sandy Berger has "no official role" in her campaign after Republican lawmakers blasted her Monday upon learning that Clinton's campaign is taking advice from the former top aide to President Bill Clinton who admitted stealing classified documents and disposing them."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300005,00.html

At the end of an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a short while ago, USA TODAY's Susan Page inquired about reports that former Clinton administration national security adviser Sandy Berger is advising her.

Susan asked whether Clinton has any qualms about having Berger as an unofficial adviser to her campaign, given his mishandling of sensitive, classified intelligence documents in 2003?

"He has no official role in my campaign. He's been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn't have any official role," Clinton said."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/sen-clinton-san.html



Your own publication can cite only a refutation;

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/sen_clinton_sandy_berger_has_no_official_role_in_my_campaign/

Yet you take reports from legitimate news outlets denying any special status for Berger, and deliberately overlook the fact that there is no record anywhere of Berger being tapped by the Clinton camp for any position at all, let alone as one of her, "top three" advisors, except for an uncorroborated statement in a single magazine article. You then use this tissue-thin item and construct an entire analysis from it. I read somewhere that you're a lawyer, I hope you have a better grasp on the facts when your not swinging that partisan axe that you are so obviously grinding against the Clintons.

Even more despicable is that this item is almost TWO MONTHS OLD, has been refuted dozens of times, officially by the Clinton campaign, and has never been corroborated by any other source but the author, and you are still running with it like it's not just FACT, but Breaking news.

Richard Nixon spent the final years of his life as a free-lance foreign policy advisor, with several books on the topic to his credit, this despite his national disgrace. Henry Kissinger, he of the secret bombings and Vietnam era scandals, is now an ad hoc advisor to the Bush administration. These are true and verifiable facts.

Were the republican establishment and now the Bush administration, "guilty by association", because they were willing to seek the counsel of the disgraced?

It's a foolish premise, and a biased one at that. Even if the rumor of Berger's involvement was true, the conclusions you draw would still be highly questionable.

Would you go to equal lengths to leap to your conclusions based on such flimsy evidence if your target was a republican? I find your sloppy scholarship and seemingly deliberate and multiple blind spots to be the work of a partisan hack.




Van

Van,

It looks this poll is from roughly the same time as the one you posted, yet the results are different.  I wonder why you didn't post this one?

Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican cacus goers and 600 likely Democratic cacus goers, aged 18+, and conducted October 12-14, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

5. If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were held today between, Joeseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote? (Democrats Only; Names Rotated)
Hillary Clinton 28%
Barack Obama 23%
John Edwards 20%
Bill Richardson 9%
Joseph Biden 6%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 12%

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_101807.htm

Why don't the GOP frontrunners explain in detail, how many of their family members will fight in the proposed Iran War, and the following World War Three.
Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:22 AM)

Should the Democratic candidates they explain how many of their children will run to Canada?

Jessica, we spent over $50M in taxpayer dollars and managed to prove that Bill Clinton likes women.  The only dirt you're likely to find exists only in the imagination of the right wing smear machine.  Hillary isn't my favorite candidate, but she's battle proven.

1984 is here if you want it.
War without end - vote Republican.  
Your children will be told to thank you for it.

The American voter spoke very loud last november.The echo all you warmongers hear next year will be " Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat happppppppppppppppened to our religious War, we so wanted". Sit back in your barco lounger & watch the Gay Ole Party be destroyed. But on the plus side, you will still be able to listen to rush & sean. Aint life grand!!!!!

If indeed we are on the precipice of WWIII..then the seriousness cannot be underestimated.  One would expect the Draft to be re-instated, and those with last names such Rove, Cheney, Bush, et al will gladly supply their children for the cause.  If the fear of WWIII is not real then George W. Bush is once again a mass of lies... and his playing the fear card (once again) should be ignored.

All of you people would have flunked geo-politics. It is simplicity to the point of mundane stupidity to cluck over ''chickenhawks''while yet ignoring the central thesis of Bushs remarks which are sound. And for the reasons you people ignore to the worlds peril. Opening moves are already taking place.[as this poster observed long before Hersh began writing his idiotic paranoid pieces for the NEW YORKER].

         Apart from the Democrats utter stupidity in angering Turkey to the point where it has now moved mechanized armoured columns up to and across the Iraqi nothern border with Kurdistan,is the dire worry,quite justified,of the Europeans over the Iranian attempts to create a three-stage ICBM using the SHAHAB missle platform. Using an arc with its centerpoint placed just north of Tehran,Berlin,Rome,Vienna,Lyon,Sarajevo,Budapest,and Warsaw can be struck with this missle.
            In the spirit of this fear,the EUs diplomatic lines to Moscow are melting down with warnings that in the event of Iranian nuclear ICBM acquisition,they must be placed under a US missle shield.[Israel is already working on theirs to counter the Iranian threat].In response,the Putin government,which has been offering training to Iranian missle scientists,has convened the Caspian Sea Conferance this week of the so-called ''Stan''nations in order to deny EU and US nations their lands and airspace in return for Russian ''protection'',while at the same time,pressuring and threatening former member states of the Warsaw Pact.[Thus Poland,Bulgaria,Rumania,are drawing closer to the US seeking its protection. Romania is now offering forward bases to the USAF/USA,creating a new ''Fulda Gap''should Russia mass armies on its western borders].
          Iran,now emboldened by American weakness as evidenced by its Democrat Party,as well as EU confusion,goes forward with its centerfuge uranium enrichment and missle program backed by Russias veto vote in the Security Council of the UN which will be effectively neutered in offering any sanctions against Iran,Russia,now coming into the light as Iranian partner and nuclear co-sponsor.
                    Israel,having been assured that it will be ''wiped off the map''by Iran,is readying its nuclear defense systems. Persian Gulf states worry that this region will be among the first areas invested by Iran in a Nasser-like attempt to nationalize this sea,the transhipment point of the majority of oil supplied to the West.
                Even Hillary Clinton ,in recent remarks in response to Sen. Obama,has stated plainly that she would move as president against Iran should it seek to take over the Persian Gulf,as it did in 1986-1987. Thus,a ''war for oil''cooked up as a fantasy under Bush critics,will become a reality under supporters of a president Clinton.
           Iran is the linchpin to the threat of a third world war. That it is being stupidly ignored by those who sling ''chickenhawk''labels around proves that there are also those who run around like chickens,with their heads cut off,who are also willfully choosing to ignore the threat posed by a united Russian-Iranian confederation. Spin your fantasies while ye may. This is only the beginning. It will get worse.[and yes,even under a president Hillary or Obama].

Arshad - Point taken.  I like Obama; I have consistently said that I think he is a good leader and a brilliant speaker.  I'm just not sure this is his time.  If he gets the nomination, I will support him completely.

By the way, I'm not a Hillary supporter.  I would call myself more of a Hillary defender than anything else.  I haven't found a candidate that really inspires me yet, so I am continuing to weigh my options.  

George:  I'm not citing any public opinion poll, although I'm sure in a matter of minutes I could find a dozen or more that show that the majority of Americans want out of Iraq sooner rather than later.  At the very least, the majority of Americans don't think it is wise to continue on our present course when it's clear we don't have the first flippin' clue what we are doing there.  

By the way, you don't think the same thing is done by the pro-war pollsters too?  

Van,

It looks this poll is from roughly the same time as the one you posted, yet the results are different.  I wonder why you didn't post this one?
Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:57 AM)

I had addressed my post to the reality-based community.

This is only about the HUNDREDTH time that someone has posted something like this when I have the link in my post. Don't you even BOTHER to look at something completely before you accuse? Apparently not.

From my post;

Hillary Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 51% to 40% in an early look at the race for New Jersey’s Electoral Votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Presented without comment to the reality-based community.


Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:43 AM)


Please note and follow the THIRD link entitled, "latest polls", and you will, of course, find it right there.
I have always posted complete info without regard to who the numbers favor. I don't have to edit or cherry-pick and if I did, I wouldn't do it because it would be misleading.
I am sure that when you see that you were wrong, you'll readily admit your mistake.


Van

It is beyond rational thinking that the Democrats in Congress have not started impeachment of this nutcase that calls himself President.  He's already caused the biggest mistake in US history by invading Iraq.  Are we going to allow this maniacal, narcistic individual the power to annihilate and destroy innocent lives with nuclear capabilities?  God help America and the world!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democratic_iowa_caucus

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The first Rasmussen Reports poll of the Iowa Democratic Caucus for 2008 finds Senator Hillary Clinton on top with support from 33% of Likely Caucus Participants. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is supported by 22% and Illinois Senator Barack Obama attracts 21%."

Ah Van,

This is what you had at the top of your post.  You are correct in stating that you included a link to the latest polls on real clear politics.  But at the top of your post you singled this poll out while not citing any information from the poll that I cited.

Lee Holmes:

You posted " Apart from the Democrats utter stupidity in angering Turkey to the point where it has now moved mechanized armoured columns up to and across the Iraqi nothern border with Kurdistan" and that's where I stopped reading.  The reason why Turkey is mobilizing forces along the Turkey-Iraq (note:Kurdistan does exists ONLY in the minds of the Kurds) is because the Kurdish terror group the PKK has repeatedly attacked targets inside of Turkey and coalition forces have done jack squat to reign them in.  Turkey is about to invade northern Iraq because this administration can't manage to keep the mess they started from spilling over into another allies territories.

You would know this if you had any concept of geo-politics that you claim liberal flunked.  It's a valiant try on your part to sound all academic.  But it was flawed from the begining considering the source.

Lee

I don't think calling for intense diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the Iranian nuclear issue should be considered ignoring the Iranian threat. Talking about WWIII before diplomacy has been given an honest chance of success just seems premature. Some may say President Bush is trying to put us in a position of negotiating from strength but to others it may seem like a scare tactic, saber rattling if you will. And the tactic seems hollow given that the Iranians can see our lack of success in Iraq.

Perhaps the time will come when we have to face the threat of WWIII, I pray not, but I would hope if that time comes it will be the last resort of a free people who exhausted every diplomatic effort to try to avoid it.  

Yes Bush is a nutcase and Congress especially Hillary are the enablers of this nutcase by passing the Iran amendment.  Just as Obama was correct about Iraqi he is correct about Iran.  Iran is a threat but you don't give any opportunity to a nutcase to go to war.  And all of Bush's saber rattling is an indication that he will use the Iran amendment (even though it's non binding) as a pretext to go to war.  Congress didn't authorize Vietnam.  Bush still has control over sending airstrikes which would preciptate a war with Iran with Russia on their side.  Americans stop this madness- vote all the old guard thinking politicans out of office and do not vote for Hillary who is just the same in this ill fashion thinking.

"All of you people would have flunked geo-politics"

And you've been SOUND asleep for El Presidente Jorge's 7 years of accomplishing nothing but spreading misery, lying and looting the treasury.

There's no reason to trust Bush over the Iranian president - they're both dangerous and crazy.

Dot, Illinois good post I am a Hillary supporter and will be an Obama supporter eight years from now. Senator Clinton has been handling the barbs thrown at her by the republicans for fifteen years and I am sure she can handle the Rove smear machine. She is what we called "One tough broad" in the days of my youth and that is what it will take to stand off the dirty tricks of the opposition party.

Ah Van,

This is what you had at the top of your post.  You are correct in stating that you included a link to the latest polls on real clear politics.  But at the top of your post you singled this poll out while not citing any information from the poll that I cited.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:21 PM)

I wonder why you didn't post this one?
Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:57 AM)

You said I DIDN'T post it.

I accept your apology.


Van

Lee-Who is going to fight your meglomaniac war with Iran? Who is going to pay? The neo-con Israel lobbiests... I presume? Maybe we can go further in debt with China? Furthermore, please spare us your long meandering sudo-intellectual blogs.Most of us I think really do not read the majority of it. You are just the grand poohpa apologist of this blog.

Since Bush invaded Iraq, the price of oil has more then doubled. Expect the same result when he starts bombing Iran. By this time next year, expect to be paying $6-8 a gallon for gas while Bush's cronies at the oil companies  rake in ridiculous profits and Haliburton gets more multi-billion contracts to build prisons for all the "enemy-combatants" (regular Iranians captured defending their country from an illegal invasion) we capture and need a place to torture. This is obviously becoming Bush's trump card that he will use to cancel the election and declare himself president until we win the "war on terror."

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):