From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Bush takes the lead...

August 31, 2004 8:18 AM

Florida and Pennsylvania just flipped.

For the first time since June 23rd, Bush has over 270 electoral votes at the Electoral Vote Predictor. Based on polls released before the RNC.

More from the archive in Bush, John Kerry, Politics.

Bush takes the lead... (08.31.2004)

Next Entry: It's like a cottage industry... (08.31.2004)
Previous Entry: Operation Sibyl: the Plaza Hotel (08.30.2004)

Read the 41 comments.

evil conservative666:

damn, the convention just started and we're already seeing a bounce. it's not even gonna be close in november.

Tue Aug 31 2004 8:32 AM


Right Wing Robby:

I predict an 8 point bounce by the end of the convention. Its becoming more clear by the day the trend we are seeing.

On a side note, It was wondeful to see what happened when McCain mentioned Moore(not by name) in his speech last night. Granted, he was sitting in the middle of an area full of republicans, the bias is obvious. But it was nice to see an arena full of people tell him to stuff it.

Tue Aug 31 2004 9:03 AM


evil conservative666:

i just wish last night was tonight, i go out on mondays and had no chance at catching mccain's or giuliani's speech. national review is already shouting giuliani 08, and i want to know what i missed. if it's as good as advertised, i gotta wish the dems luck getting a decent candidate in 08 or it could be a long time for them.

Tue Aug 31 2004 9:18 AM


Vee Cee:

Mayor Giuliani didn't say anything that Bush's TV spots already haven't. I found it was in cheap taste that he had to resort to quoting Kerry's "I voted for the $87 billion..........". If the Dems had used Bush's quotes, each speaker could have used around 10 of Bush's most ridiculous, idiotic, contradicting, incompetent quotes and still have many more left unused. Mr. Mayor, we expected a lot better from you. Shame!

Tue Aug 31 2004 10:39 AM


Right Wing Robby:

Giuliani outlined Kerry's flip flopping very well. Since Kerry seems unwilling to discuss his 20 years in the senate, Giuliani took it upon himself to do so.

Maybe I could get some liberal help on this one. Kerry won’t stop talking about his 4 months in Vietnam. He never shuts up about it. But Kerry remains very silent on his senate record. Why is this? Certainly a proud member of the senate would be happy to talk about his record. Yet at his own convention he mentioned 1 or 2 lines about a 20 YEAR CAREER. What gives libs?


Tue Aug 31 2004 11:19 AM


Paul:

I flipped around a little bit to see how the convention was covered, and I noticed that CNN really gushed about how great the speeches by McCain and Giuliani were. PBS had Jack Germond on among others, and Germond commented that nobody is going to vote in this election based on these speeches. Nice to have a little perspective from a real journalist. The PBS discussion pointed out that the speeches ignored domestic politics and that they don't address the current situation in Iraq at all.

I can't remember where I saw this, but someone pointed out that the only choice of the Republicans in defending Bush's unwise, unplanned, reckless foreign policy was to be similarly bold and forceful in their applause for it. Basically, they have no choice but to swing for the fences. They may strike out, but it's their best hope of winning the election.

Bush is basically fighting a holding action in Iraq, trying to keep events under control until November.

Ultimately, Bush is vulnerable on both Iraq and the economy. Whatever bounce he gets out of the convention probably won't last long.

Tue Aug 31 2004 11:59 AM


Anonymous:

".....commented that nobody is going to vote in this election based on these speeches. Nice to have a little perspective from a real journalist."

I agree, the convention is for the party faithful, and most its the ardent supporters that watch on TV (Fear Factor won the night at my house after mowing the lawn).

"......in defending Bush's unwise, unplanned, reckless foreign policy was to be similarly bold and forceful in their applause for it. Basically, they have no choice but to swing for the fences. They may strike out, but it's their best hope of winning the election."

Problem is there is no choice between in Bush or Kerry on that subject, Kerry has said you would continue the war in Iraq - same as Bush. Want something differant do me a favor and vote for Nadar.

Bush is basically fighting a

Tue Aug 31 2004 12:07 PM


evil conservative666:

Bush is vulnerable on Iraq and the economy. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that one out. You can call it what you want, but most call it conviction. He's decided what's best, and he's doing it, and we haven't seen a president do that since his dad. Beats telling you what you want to hear and me something different fifteen seconds later.

The fact that his numbers are rising BEFORE his convention shows more an understandable distrust and distaste for John Kerry than it does support for Bush. The support is coming, don't worry about that one, just try to roll out someone better than Kerry in 2008. No, not Hillary.

Tue Aug 31 2004 12:13 PM


Roy DeMeo:

Just read in USA today that Michael Moore won't be returning to the GOP convention because of the all commotion last night. This is typical of the right wing neocons. As I recall that fuckin tool Hanity was walking around on the DNC floor safe and sound. Even interviewing people. The Dems were polite. But, Moore gets heckled when he's sitting in a booth. Hanity spews three hours of lies and diatribe every day; Moore’s film was, what 90 minutes. It’s sad. It really is. Good Christians. Who would Jesus heckle? Also, Bush misspoke this morning on GMA regarding ever winning the war(s). Well, guess what, he’s on Rush this afternoon doing damage control with the faithful. Karl Rove is on top of things, I gotta give them that. These assholes have got to go. Vote! Make sure your friends and family vote. It’s too important. These people have to go….

Tue Aug 31 2004 12:51 PM


evil conservative666:

Man, how does Michael Moore keep the wool over peoples eyes like this? Even people who liked the movie should be able to admit that it's terribly one sided. I can't figure out that nobody can realize that when he's asking senators or Bill O'Reilly would they give up their kids for Iraq that it's a bs question to begin with. Nobody under 18 is over there, it's not the choice of anybody but the person serving what they are doing with their life.

Karl Rove is on top of things. I'm sure nobody heard Bush on Rush Limbaugh's show earlier, when he admitted that me misspoke yesterday and clarified his remarks. Moreso, nobody should want what he said yesterday to be right. No American anyway. Blind hatred for this man and wishing him ill when he's running the country does none of us well, so we might as well support him and let our votes speak in November. That's what matters. If by some horrible occurence John Kerry is selected I'll hope I'm completely wrong about him and wish him well. Doesn't mean I have to like him.

Tue Aug 31 2004 1:31 PM


Right Wing Robby:

There are some differences between the two conventions for sure. Democrats were welcomed to the City. The Republican Mayor made special coupons for protestors to stay at hotels and their needs were accommodated.

On the flip side, at the DNC convention....

Protestors were put in a cage. They weren’t allowed to march. They were kept behind a fence. Let freedom ring?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007397.html

http://www.vulnwatch.org/misc/pics/free-speech-pen/

Imagine the RNC did that?

So what was that you were saying about your Hezbollah endorsed movie maker?

Please....

Tue Aug 31 2004 1:58 PM


Right Wing Robby:

I apologize. The first link is not to the DNC convention. Not sure what it is.

Tue Aug 31 2004 2:38 PM


dhermesc:

The delegates for the RNC have their names and addresses posted on anarchist sites along with proposed itineraries. At shows and restaraunts thoughout New York delegates are heckled, threatened and assaulted by imported left wing nuts. The RNC is supposed to worry about one big fat stupid white man?

Wed Sep 1 2004 5:49 AM


Tom from Madison:

Of course Michael Moore isn't even-handed, but he makes many points that need to be addressed. Perhaps the biggest one is ACCOUNTABILITY.

It matters what this war is costing. It matters how we're paying for it. It matters that George W Bush sent troops to Iraq without body armor or amored vehicles and THEN asked for the funding--after hundreds died and many more were maimed. It matters that Paul Wolfowitz told us that oil revenue would pay for the cost of the war.

Finally, it matters how many Iraqis have been killed in the process of liberating them. The man who needs to explain this is President Bush. It seems he never gets around to having a REAL discussion of anything resembling accountability.

That would bother a true patriot. Poor planning by this administation has killed & maimed American soldiers. How many more will die due to continued poor planning?

Wed Sep 1 2004 8:14 AM


evil conservative666:

*yawn* "and THEN asked for funding," blah blah blah. John Kerry voted against it! Why isn't anyone questioning that? And the rest of his scary senate record. Go ahead and don't like George Bush, I don't care, and I'm sure he doesn't either. But don't act like John Kerry would fix all this. Incompetents don't do well running this country, ask Jimmy Carter.

Wed Sep 1 2004 8:23 AM


Tom from Madison:

As far as funding for Iraq is concerned, Kerry favored rolling back the tax cuts to pay for the LARGE COST OVER-RUNS due to Bush's poor planning. This is the responsible thing to do. As it is, we are leaving a huge debt for future generations.

War without financial sacrifice is one of many instances of wishful thinking trumping sound judgement. We need a president who will deal with reality, not the fantasies of neo-con think tanks.

Wed Sep 1 2004 8:38 AM


evil conservative666:

Yeah, roll back the tax cuts and completely screw the economy, which has done a nice job recovering from 9/11 and an oncoming recession from the tech bubble bursting. The tax cuts got people willing to spend money again, the Fed has been able to raise interest rates again, and the Dow Jones is hovering around 10k. So yeah, raise taxes. Sounds brilliant.

Don't forget these cost overruns were caused by the Clinton administration cutting defense budgets, which if they weren't cut would have prevented a lot of the necessary extra spending now. It never ceases to amaze me that how we can ever determine that defense budgets can be cut in peacetime, though I'm not surprised it's always a democrat cutting it for a useless, abuse-prone social program.

Wed Sep 1 2004 8:55 AM


Tom from Madison:

Clinton wisely didn't build a huge army for the purpose of invading and occupying Iraq. In the 2000 campaign, Candidate W didn't call for it either.

The cost over-runs are based on Bush going to war without a realistic plan. We are now out of bullets because Rummy & company didn't have a clue about how long we would be in Iraq. They also insisted on going it alone rather than getting allies to share the troop and financial burden as Bush 41 [aka the 'lower father'] did.

We also have the Guard & Reserve deployed when there never was an imminent threat--not smart.

The question remains. How are we going to pay for the cost of this war? The $ has been spent and the deficit is gargantuan.

Wed Sep 1 2004 9:26 AM


evil conservative666:

Not an easy question to answer, I'm glad I'm not responsible for figuring it out. But I understand the importance of the cause, the gravity of the situation. If you don't, no amount of logic will make you change your mind.

Also, please stop making the claim that we went alone. We got help from many countries not France (owed large debts by saddam, which disappear when he's out of power), Germany (who inexplicably isn't helping), or Spain (who we had until a terrorist attack shook them into picking a leader who had to have been French in a previous life.) Arguing that we were alone makes you look ill-informed or purposely blind.

Wed Sep 1 2004 9:58 AM


Tom from Madison:

Like I said it's about accountablity. A President shouldn't go to war without legitimate reasons why and a plan of how to pay for it. It's plain irresponsible. The sad thing is we are still spending billions of $ without an end in sight.

In fact, we sent the VAST MAJORITY OF TROOPS who are actually fighting this war--138,000 US troops. The only significant help is from Great Britain. Their presence is an order of magnitude smaller than ours. The long list of token forces from all the other countries adds up to a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the TOTAL TROOPS on the ground and the TOTAL CASUALTIES suffered. If you won't admit this, your're sadly misinformed. Please look it up!

We did go it alone when it comes to PAYING the cost for this war. This is VERY different from the last Iraq war.

Another HUGE difference between this and the last war is the lack of Arab allies involved.

I haven't heard much logic coming from the right on this subject--just wishful thinking. When do we get showered with flowers & chocolates?

Wed Sep 1 2004 10:58 AM


Right Wing Robby:

There are over 30 countries in Iraq right now. Who cares what the French think. Saddam had them in his pocket.

“They also insisted on going it alone rather than getting allies to share the troop and financial burden as Bush 41 [aka the 'lower father'] did."

Oh you mean when Saddam invaded another country and Kerry voted AGAINST the war? It is as clear as history makes it. Feel free to explain that vote to me. I think the President of the United States should be willing to help a little country from an evil dictator who invades them. Apparently the leftwing hopeful has different ideas. Hell, even France was with us on that one. It’s unreal.

Wed Sep 1 2004 11:16 AM


evil conservative666:

Preventing a dictator from being strong enough to attack another country is a perfectly sound reason, in and of itself, to go to war. He'd gassed his own people, he tried to kill Bush 41, he was known to have WMD at one time (please don't, I've heard it all already), and it was a matter of time till he did again. Given that and 9/11 changing the rules, Bush 43 was and is absolutely justified in taking care of this.

As for the troops, I didn't mean to imply that anybody was sending equal forces to us, and they didn't have to. Some understood why this needed to be done and helped as they could, but ultimately, we're the nation that can be hurt the most from the presence of a dangerous world power, and we should be responsible for being the leader in our own defense. I'm not trying to minimize the cost now and in the future, but it is necessary. It would've been nice if we could've done this in 1992, but at least it's getting done.

This is my last post regarding this. I'm not going to continue to respond to the same arguments that are so easy to disqualify.

Wed Sep 1 2004 11:37 AM


Tom from Madison:

Yes Saddam was evil. He was evil when he came to power in the 1970s--and we knew it! He achieved the ability to gas his people, in part, because of US support. We were strangely silent about that for a period of time after it happened.

After being defeated in the first Iraq war, Saddam was no threat to anyone but his own people. Recall the aftermath of the first Gulf war. After encouraging Sunni's to rise up, we failed to support them and allowed Saddam to slaughter them. This obviously contributes to the skepticism with which Iraqis greet their US "liberators" today.

Remember what Colin Powell said about Saddam in early in 2001? He [Saddam] was caged in--not a threat. September 11th didn't change that. Bush simply used it as an excuse to go to war.

Saddam had no nukes, no drone planes, no WMDs of any kind. He was certainly not an imminent threat; not a reason to sacrifice hundreds of lives.

I wish the knee-jerk neocons would discuss historical context. There is meaning beyond the talking points.

Wed Sep 1 2004 12:04 PM


befuddled:

wait a minute. so florida (surprise, surrpise, the day after their primaries) has now flipped over to the "bush" ledger? and pennsylvania too? am i the only one who keeps feeling these polls have as much to do with the contemporary problem of inane politics (and pundits) as do the inane politicians (and pundits)? while i hear complaints about my generation's sort-of MTV-esque ADD, well, we may have discovered it, b ut we ain't the m,asters of it.

it strikes me that the folks who have politically capitalized on our national, collective need to be stimulated with zestier! livelier! slickery! headlines and news are those exact inane politicians (and machines) and pundits (and its network).

with apologies sincere before i even say this -- but the political scene, polls, SBV, abugharib, rumsfeld, ashcroft, etc. expects us to behave like leoplod bloom in "ulysses" insofar as we expect nothing and are not disappointed.

seriously, it's like watching an EKG of sorts -- one hour it is kerry +2 (but within the margin of error) and the next minute it is bush on a bounce +2 (but within the margin of error).

how many "polls" are designed to guage the exact pulse of the populace at not just that specific time but with predictive certainty?

i take to the polling data like i take to the new way of explaining our unethical and unjust involvement in iraq -- i don't.

talk about displaying a contempt for the truth -- no it is NOT acceptable to suggest that since saddam COULD have (at some later date and time) WMD'd etc. that our invasion was justified.

which makes me think -- and i am thinking in paraphrase, not exact quotations here"of the woody allen line "but what if everyone walked into the same deli at the same time and ordered cheese blintzes. there'd be chaos. but they don't and there isn't." this administration, however, would diverge from woddy allen's line is that they would edit out everything after "chaos."

so, like pre-vatican 2 times, thinking the thought is as bad as commiktting the sin. we were told factually of WMD and the rest of that crap. but we compromised with the truth when we were lied to about the supplies that could make WMD and the likes. now we are being fed, and eating, and embracing, the explanation thaty "we had to go in and make sure that his POTENTIAL to be bad is eliminated." bush/powell et al did not seek the congressional resolution and/or UN help to topple saddam because he had the potential.

it's typical of this administration in its own hubris, to tell us that the illusion is real.

poll thst.

Wed Sep 1 2004 1:07 PM


Right Wing Robby:

I think you need to smoke another joint and go back to the march.

Wed Sep 1 2004 1:24 PM


Right Wing Robby:

I think you need to smoke another joint and go back to the march.

Wed Sep 1 2004 1:26 PM


Tom from Madison:

I have to wonder if the Bush-Cheney "team" look at manipulating the polls as practice for the "big game", i.e. stealing another election.

I'm not sure what brother Jeb will come up with this time around to make sure Blacks are denied access to the polls. The bogus list of felons in 2000 was truly one of the sorriest chapters in US voting history. It's very sad to see conservatives TOTALLY IGNORING this issue!

Diebold & the boys need to be watched in the worst way. Somehow they don't seem to like creating a paper trail so that votes can be verified.

Wed Sep 1 2004 1:47 PM


Right Wing Robby:

Maybe he will steal a play from the Gore playbook and try and block the soldiers votes from counting.

Wed Sep 1 2004 2:02 PM


evil conservative666:

Tom: It goes both ways, Gore had all the military vote (70% for Bush) thrown out for lack of a postmark, so it's easy to "totally ignore" broad stroke accusations.

befuddled: I and most people follow a rational thought pattern to determine our beliefs, the thought of republican mind control from Karl Rove is worthy of late night TV, not someone trying to make a point. I'm afraid you'll have to try harder.

Robby: I'm glad someone else with a brain that functions on a decent plane accidently walked in here, you've made this a lot more fun.

Wed Sep 1 2004 2:05 PM


Paul:

evil said: "Incompetents don't do well running this country, ask Jimmy Carter."

That doesn't bode well for Bush's reelection chances.

Wed Sep 1 2004 5:29 PM


Paul:

evil said, "Yeah, roll back the tax cuts and completely screw the economy, which has done a nice job recovering from 9/11 and an oncoming recession from the tech bubble bursting."

What planet do you live on, evil? More importantly, how are you able to connect to the internet from there?

Wed Sep 1 2004 5:32 PM


Paul:

"Maybe he will steal a play from the Gore playbook and try and block the soldiers votes from counting."

Maybe, Bush should pursue that strategy, since he can no longer rely on the military vote to fall his way.

Wed Sep 1 2004 5:40 PM


anti-bushkrieg:

why is terrorism absent in new york during the convention? Oh wait it's hosting it....

Wed Sep 1 2004 5:50 PM


Paul:

evil said: "I'm not trying to minimize the cost now and in the future, but it is necessary."

Since you mention it, as of right now, the cost of invading Iraq appears to be as follows:


* Over 10,000 Iraqi civilian casualties.

* 7,000+ American soldiers maimed.

* Nearly 1,000 American soldiers killed before their natural time.

* Roughly $200 billion.

* Iraq destabilized and ungovernable. Iraqi oil exports almost completely shut down (as of today). An Islamic hardliner waiting in the wings, with the intention of bringing Iranian-style Shiite fundamentalism to Iraq, and gaining power every time he humbles the Great Satan.

* American credibility reduced to ash by numerous false statements.

* Popular worldwide opinion of America at an all-time nadir.

* Universal resentment of the U.S. in the Arab world, and increased popularity of jihadist movements, such as Al Qaeda.

* Korea and Iran given the green light to manufacture and sell nuclear weapons to terrorists.

* One-third of U.S. troops deploying out of the Korean peninsula as a show of "strength".


All of this just to remove some two-bit dictator who didn't even control large parts of his own country. What a waste.

Wed Sep 1 2004 6:24 PM


Paul:

evil said: "Tom: It goes both ways, Gore had all the military vote (70% for Bush) thrown out..."

That is a categorically false statement.

Wed Sep 1 2004 6:37 PM


evil conservative666:

I promised to be done arguing with bullshit, and I am. Thank Paul for crashing the party everyone.

Wed Sep 1 2004 8:52 PM


Tom from Madison:

Neo-Conservatives have a funny idea of what a "party" is. Apparently it's an opportunity to harangue in the style of Rush Limbaugh. BTW speaking of corrupt Floridians, shouldn't he be in jail by now?

I would like to REALLY thank Paul. Of course Gore didn't have the military vote thrown out. This kind of charge is yet another attempt to avoid being held accountable for REALLY denying votes to citizens. The Republicans in Florida need to be held responsible for this!

...The war on Iraq is expensive, immoral, and counter-productive to the interests of America and the world. If we really had the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart we would be counting their casualties and doing everything we could to minimize that number.

When the charge of "incompetence" is mentioned, the name of Donald Rumsfeld should follow shortly. How many more are going to die before we quit spending more $ in this futile cause?

Thu Sep 2 2004 6:42 AM


Mickey "Buster" Emmerson:

Liberal liars are spouting crazy propaganda against our president!

A recent investigative report's findings contradict allegations that Bush avoided military service but also explain why the president has remained vague about his activities during those twelve months.

The secret organization was called SUMS and Bush was actually in Vietnam during part of the time where he completed several special operations. Just do a search on Bush and "Missing Years" and you'll find it.

And quit complaining about our super president!

Buster

Thu Sep 2 2004 3:09 PM


befuddled:

for evilconservative666: why try harder to convince you of something you know is accurate, or at least factual? am i reading newspapers and blogs from an other dimension? it must be the case since what i have read have laid bare an administration which has shifted both the rationale for the war in iraq and the measures of success/admissions of failure.

nothing in my post had anything whatsoever to do with karl rove and mind-control, unless you somehow equjate my assessment that the addled, ADD-MTV-quick-fix type of information we are fed (and which we either embrace, tacitly condone, or do nothting to refute or make more robust) as somehow my tipping my hand towards believing some form of uber-mind-thought-directional-control.

make no mistake, though, i do fault the media for being lazy, shoddy, unprepared and, worst of all, timid. their insistence on not reporting but rather "composing" makes us all the poorer and more ill-equipped to have legitimate and factual conversations about salient issues. where was the hue and cry by the press for cheney's unbelieveable assertion about claiming nuclear-growth in iran when on the same day we learned iran is EXPANDING their capability? or the press taking bush to task for touting (for example) his half-baked, underfunded and thoroughly inadequate "No Child Left Behind" plan even as the data do not warrant such a touting?

so, it is with this scenario that i find polling data so unhelpful. or, in the case of a numbed, underinformed and not-very-demanding-for-improvement-in-the-media's-depth-and-saliency populace, i find polling data to be a "quick fix" against which one can compare one's own momentary feeling to see the degree to which one is either "with us" or "against us."

polling data is supposed to be instrcutive. i do not suggest that any or all social science data techniques, like polling or rapid assessment or perspectives sampling, are irrelevant or frivilous. what i am suggesting is that the over-relince on poll data to be a cornerstone of media reporting of the campaigns is shoddy and that the cumulative impact of these polls bring about in the general populace a sort of nerve fatigue.

i believe that to be bombarded with poll after poll after poll based on "the impact of the weather in tampa florida on the kerry/bush election possibilities" ad nauseum is both unfair and a distraction. btw, the make-believe poll i suggested's data will be soon made moot when we hear the numbers from t"he rabbit stew and other foods and their impact of the campaign in swing states" numbers.

zell miller voted similarly to john kerry, identically on defense and intelligence authorization bills. so where was the screaming in the aisles when zell miller at the podium and on "hardball" instructs us to look at kerry's voting record as proof of his inability to lead the country, when that record is REMARKABLY akin to miller's own?

i do not attempt to understand polling data decontextualized from the evening news reporting from the new york times reporting to web logs. the ecosystem of sorts they create of information (or lack thereof) nhas a habit of becoming a self-sustaining and closed network and also has a tendency towards self-fulfillment.

i would lose no sleep if not another poll was done or no more data released until after november2nd.

Fri Sep 3 2004 2:27 PM


befuddled:

for buster: in the case of W and SUMS, what we should do, therefore, is have W canonized a saint NOWE, since he ius able to be in two places at the same time, doing the lord's work in both places (if as you suggest he was in vietnam duing the "missing months" he was not only seen but seen peeing on a car in alabama the same time period).

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Fri Sep 3 2004 2:31 PM


Michael:


Do not try and answer all the Republican criticism of liberals. They would like nothing better than to keep liberals constantly defending themselves. Aside from the few talk show hosts who are backed up with large support staffs intent on slanting everything in their direction, all the Republicans rhetoric is baseless, unsubstantiated and hate filled talking points against liberals. They are like parrots.

The problem with liberals is they listen to them. The Republicans are great at ignoring opposing points of view while ranting on with religious conviction.

Part Two:

Kerry is the best man you could have on the job. Imagine a thinking president instead of a knee jerk president. What is it with the Republicans? They just have to have a 'daddy'. Who will kick their ass and anyone else's ass that gets out of line. I don't know about you, but I tend to listen to others and change my mind about things if I get new information or find out that what I knew was false. I tend not to decide on a moral stance and then kick anyones ass who disagrees.

Here is a question? Does our present stance toward Iraq and the muslim world deter terrorism or create more of it? This is actually a crucial question, because if all radical Islamic persons are unwilling to change their support of terrorism, then the seemingly logical conclusion would be to have to kill them all.

But is that really the best solution? Or, would making a coalition of civilized countries that are united in thought and deed against terrorism so that all but extremists would be ashamed of such acts in the eyes of the world, deter terrorism more effectively for future generations?

Mon Sep 6 2004 10:02 PM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart