I just pick the lesser of the evils. In this case, Bush wins. They all suck, got to pick the one which sucks the least. :(

Just curious, how is Bush the lesser of two evils?

I guess having a split-second fade-in fade-out of a blurred background image of ground zero in a campaign ad, thus briefly raising the memory of the most defining moment of his presidency, a time when our nation changed course for years to come, a time which radically altered most Americans' view of the world and changed the course of our foreign policy drastically, and showed the character and leadership that he brought to office in a way no other event in the last four years has, is a little exploitative on Bush's part. It's almost as outrageous as that commercial which zoomed "DEMOCRATS" out toward the viewer so that for 0.3 seconds the word "RATS" was visible, thus denying votes to millions of Miami-Dade county voters and hanging countless chads in the process.

I'd much rather hear Kerry blather on about his Viet Nam experience after he testified a raft of anti-war anti-vet propaganda before Congress and threw some other guy's medals over a wall in protest, or try to look moderate when he's currently the most liberal member of congress. At least that's entertaining.

I also seem to remember a whole lot of Democrats, including then-President Hillary Clinton, John F**ing Kerry, and many others swear that old Saddam had WMD's. Guess there's no sense looking in Syria where all the intelligence leads are saying the WMD's were transported to, nope, we'll just assume Bush and all the Democrats that stated that Saddam had them were lying.

Of course, for the Democrats, lying is kind of standard practice, so we won't hold it against them, we'll just assert that Bush made it all up so Haliburton could drill for oil in the Alaskan wildlife rescue and so the Bush Administration could starve children, slash education, make everyone pray in school, re-establish slavery, take away women's rights to choose to kill their unborn babies (because it's "not a good time", dang-it!), steal the Florida 2000 election from Walter Mondale, initiate global warming and nuclear winter, and destroy Medicare so that old people have to eat dog food so they can afford their cancer medicine. (Seems pretty smart for someone who's supposed to be such a dumb cowboy, but hey - let's not let contradictions slow us down.)

I'm sure despite every major intelligence report saying that Saddam had WMD's, including those of other countries, plus the fact that he USED WMD's against his own people, Bush somehow knew there were none, and just wanted to smack Saddam around for trying to hurt his daddy. Who cares if he had been trying to build nuclear missles, wanted to destroy Israel, raped, tortured, and murdered his own citizens, and threatened America? It's not like he tried to pass Welfare Reform or anything... we really should mind our own business and let the UN continue to threaten him for another few decades.

I hope Bush loses, I'd sure hate for the country to be in better shape four years from now just like it is today compared to four years ago - why, then all the doom and gloom Democrats couldn't win elections by scaring old people and minorities! We might actually prosper like in the 80's after Reagan cut taxes, and we all know he was the AntiChrist (except that we're Atheists and don't believe in all that stuff, plus Mel Gibson is an anti-Semitic kook!)

Sometimes I just don't understand why people don't just accept the PC version of politics like the New York Times and all those hyper-intelligent college dropout actors and actresses in Hollywood say we should, and just parrot the liberal dogma like all the other good mind-numbed robots. Instead, they think for themselves, see reason despite the elite liberals' efforts to obfuscate it, and support Bush and other conservatives in trying to actually protect and better our country.

What losers...

...he is the lesser of two evils because it is obvious he it trying to screw us. Maybe that is less evil than trying to screw us behind our backs.

With that said, I have not decided who I am going to vote for this year, I might just vote for an independent candidate.

Lots of hot air above too, which is much like the empty space below. Looks like you're all alone...

I suggest you go and type "iraq poison gas kurds" into google. It makes very clear that this is not a cut and dry issue. Raegan defended Iraq in the 80's when

Of particular interst, I belive, are these two articles:

1. Nerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds
2. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020902&s=hiro20020828Iraq and Poison Gas

crap, I meant to hit preview....

anyway. It isn't cut and dry, and you can't pretend that it is.

Do you let a guy you know is crooked, and stupid to boot, sit in the White House or do you cast a vote on someone who seems just as ruthless, but haven't actually verifiably double-crossed you personally yet?

OK - so maybe the mass graves are full of just the tortured, raped, murdered, and so on, but not the poison gas fatalities... That seems to exonerate him, yep, uh huh.

Most people went ahead and voted for Clinton, but I didn't think Dole was really "ruthless", I thought he was just kind of stiff.

Huh? I don't understand the relevance of your reply.

I don't think anybody on this blog is saying that Saddam is a nice guy. Some people just think that we overstepped our bounds when we jumped the gun on the UN. Especially when you consider the fact that the Reagan administration kept the UN out when Saddam was poison gassing his own people.

Also, a lot of people doubt that it is possible to set up a westernized style of government in Iraq.

Furthermore, a lot of people don't see why we should target Iraq over, say, the other worst dictatorships in the world: North Korea, Saudi Arabia (our ally!), Liberia (okay, so that might be getting better), Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Turkmenistan, Libya (also sort of resolved recently, but why was this country let off so easy when Iraq wasn't?), Cuba, Belarus, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Laotia, and China (now a big trading partner of ours).

With that said, I am not opposed to our invasion of Iraq. However, I find Bush's motives highly suspect. I also question if it is a hopeless endeavor to try and install a democracy in Iraq. Finally, there is the whole question over whether the Bush administration may have falsified intelligence reports and/or just lied about the whole mess.

Of course there is a whole slew of other stuff people don't like about Bush. The one on the top of my list is insisting that US Citizens can be held incommunicado without a trial. This irks me way more that anything else he has done. Oh, and some people don't like his economic policy.

What irks me is that all Bush's opponents now assume he lied rather than the more valid assumption that he acted on intelligence reports which overwhelmingly and unanimously stated in concert with the intelligence from our allies, that Saddam had WMD's. The question is not likely DID he have them, it's WHERE ARE THEY?

This hate Bush stuff is so infantile, you're the most mature poster so far. All the rest have such a personal animosity that they assume the worst rather than looking at reasonable explanations.

It doesn't mean they can't use a flag. Read it.

Seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you think it really means?