One of our regular topics here is whether the Bush government gave Halliburton a "sweetheart" contract for work in Iraq. Along with the old news that Pentagon is probing whether it was overcharged by the oil se
blogic
The news has been percolating all day that ABC affiliate KSTP had video, from an imbedded reporter, that show <a href="http://kstp.com/article/stories
Daiwa, thank you for your comment, It wasn't that I found your take too nuanced... I just didn't find it compelling. Most international law experts say the Bush administration is violating the Geneva Conventions. Daiwa says maybe not. Please don't be offended that I think it's more probable that the law experts are correct. Regarding the Geneva Conventions and stateless "armies": these types of armies are hardly a new thing
Congrats on the Red Sox. I wonder how many of these surprising endorsement will happen before Bush supporters admit that it's unusual. Do they have some alternate way of explaining how this year is different than every other year? I understand partisan loyalty, but I wonder if there will be a point when Bush supporters look back, and see that Bush governed badly. I mean, are there still people saying Nixon was ethical? Or that Kenn
"Please subtantiate this claim." Thanks for your comment, T.B., As I usually do, I linked to the source of my info -- you'll see it in the original post. The thing to remember is that while liberals may report the news, conservatives usually own the media companies. Editor and Publisher -- "America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry" -- has tons of information about news
Nice post, Steven. I'm just amazed Bush would lecture Kerry on not jumping to conclusions. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Yes, I saw that consumer confidence had continued to head down, along with the leading economic indidators. Meanwhile, the Bush supporters continue to insist the economy is strong, even as jobs have consistently increased at a rate slower than the increase in the number of people who need jobs -- in other words, the job situation is getting worse, not better.
Great post, Robert. One problem with Bush's plans is that his rhetoric is so much better than the reality of his policies. Is coal a good source of energy? Sometimes. But not when the Bush administration redefines "waste" as "fill", so that it can bulldoze the tops of mountains into the creekbeds below.
Another great post, Steven, One of my big fears is that Bush isn't simply using rhetoric when he calls this the War on Terrorism. Unlike during the Cold War, where court generally preserved peace time civil rights and due process, the Bush administration has pushed to curtail these protections because it's a "time of war". Unfortunately, since the War on Terrorism will never be completely won -- which even Bush admits -- that justification b
Yesterday, I mentioned that Bush inaccurately claimed that Kerry had blamed the troops for the missing explosives in Iraq. In fact, Kerry blamed George Bush, and Bush was the first person to suggest the idea of blaming th
Hi Daiwa, Thank you for your comment. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the timing was determined by the Interim Iraqi government and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which went public about this earlier this month. Are you saying there part of the conspiracy? Anyway, it now appears that there may be television footage showing that explosives were at the site after
Hi Daiwa, Thank you for your comment. Congrats, btw, on the Red Sox win. Go Sox! Many of the people in the current government were also in the previous government. The scientists quoted are part of the current government. Are you saying the current government is scheming to make Bush look bad? You've probably already seen this in today's news, but there's been more confirmation this morning that this site had not b
Just when you think it can't get more surprising when it comes to endorsing Kerry, The Economist has come out for him. The Economist has a long history of articles that are intelligent and balanced until the final few paragraphs, at which point they almost invariably weigh in on the side of the Republicans (when talking about American politics). As I'v
Thanks for the post GX, If you read the Republican pollster's report, you'll see that he's saying those polls may be wrong -- that they use a model that wouldn't accurately predict the 2000 minority turnout, and may incorrectly predict the 2004 turnout.
"The materials disppeared sometime between January of 2003 and April of 2003. In other words, they were taken BEFORE US troops got there. And either way, it's very old news that just happens to come up days before the election?" Hi Draginol, The reason it's
"Conservatives are known to admit they are wrong when they are." Thanks for your comment, Dr. Guy, Sure, which is why some of them are endorsing Kerry. More generally, I see little difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to admitting that we're wrong. No one's terribly good at it. The liberals I knew were fairly open with each other about Clinton's flaws. Are you telling me conservatives are as aware of
Most legal experts not in the Bush administration believe that if Bush is hiding captives, or moving them to other countries, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. There's not much debate about this, except from the Bush administration. This is like when the tobacco industry used to trot forward their scientists saying that smoking had no adverse effects, and then tobacco region politicians would argue that there was no scie
True. I think there's a longterm problem that nuclear weapons will get cheaper and smaller over time. A terrorist won't really need any recruits, and they're always be crazy, evil people no matter how well people live in this world.
Hi SSG, Because Sullivan does a fair quote, and the original Slate piece has the planned votes of lots of other people. To quote myself from the original post, Hitch is "who's ... no fan of Kerry". I think my description was fair. It really tells you how bad Bush is that even these people who are pro-war and dislike Kerry still think a Kerry vote is better than risking four m
"When was the last time that the New York Times, The Washington Post, or the LA Times endorsed a Republican? Let me know." Hi Draginol, Did I even mention those papers? My point is simple: four years ago: most papers for Bush. Four years later: most papers for Kerry. Most years, most papers are for the Republican candidate. Unless the liberal conspiracy had amazing success over the last four years, that means lots of pap
According to Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, Kerry will win if minority voters turnout at the level at which they did in 2000. In other words, current polls are working with a model of turnout that wouldn't accurately describe the vote in 2000, and may not be accurate now. <
Solitaire's point is good that Daiwa's assertions are out of date. I thank both of them for their posts. It should be noted that the Iraqi government itself says that the explosives dissapeared after America took control of the country. When this story broke out, even some Pentagon officials acknowledged that the explosives disappeared after the invasion. Now, the Bush administration is in furious damage control mode.
As has been documented by several JoeUsers, it appears that nearly four hundred tons of explosively mysteriously disappeared from a site in Iraq, apparently after the US took over the country. To many of us, this seems like somewhat of a mistake on Bush's part, and naturally enough, Kerry has pointed out that Bush handled this poorly. After all, Bush was w
How can we be doing this? Do Bush supporters really believe everything's okay as long as we're better than the terrorists? It's somewhat old news, now confirmed, that America has been hiding Iraqi prisoners from the Red Cross, Congress, and the prisoners' families. In other wo
Thanks for linking to this interesting article. What's your personal opinion regarding this?