BTW for those that might be interested, I've passed through a full month
without smokes or any nicotine in my system.

It would've have been closer to 2 months if not for 3 smokes I had a month
ago ... so there ya go!

"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote in message
news:BFD4d.26571$pA.1601116@news20.bellglobal.com...

Interesting little article ... a fun read.

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17737

Bush must answer for Iraq
'Kerry plan' is irrelevant until Bush notices reality


No matter what prism one looks through, the recent events in Iraq are bad.

The New York Times reported last week that a new report on Iraq's illicit
weapons program is expected to conclude that Saddam Hussein had a clear
intent to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if the United
Nations sanctions were lifted.

But, like former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay's report 11 months
earlier stated, it finds no evidence that Iraq had begun any type of
large-scale weapons program at the time America invaded.

The New York Times also reported that President Bush received a classified
National Intelligence Estimate in July that suggests the best case

scenario

for Iraq through the end of 2005 is "tenuous" in terms of political,
economic and security stability.

Last week, 47 Iraqis were killed by a car bomb in Baghdad, 11 slain by
another in Baquba, eight dead in a clash between U.S. troops and

insurgents

in Ramadi -- and those were just the major incidents. American casualties
have risen every month since the June handover of political authority to

the

interim government.

We also witnessed last week that insurgents became even more brazen as

they

took civilian workers from their homes, which has already led to the
beheading of two American hostages.

As Iraq burns, our Nero-esque commander in chief plays the tune of

optimism,

reminding those who attend his campaign rallies that Iraq will soon have
free and fair elections, and is on the road to democracy.

So, while we obsess with the whereabouts of President Bush and Sen. John
Kerry 30 years ago, and CBS tries to survive a self-inflicted gunshot

wound

to the head, Americans continue to die in a war that now has key

Republicans

concerned.

On three different Sunday news shows, different Republican senators urged
the president to be more forthcoming with the American people

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News on Sunday, "We made serious
mistakes." In terms of the president communicating the problems in Iraq,
McCain added that the president was "perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd
like to see."

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chair of the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee,

criticized the administration's handling of Iraq's reconstruction, using
"incompetence" as one of his adjectives. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.,
lamented on CBS's "Face the Nation," "The fact is, we're in deep trouble

in

Iraq."

The critiques of three well-respected Republican senators elevate the
concerns about the war beyond a mere red-state, blue-state affair.

How many more 19-, 20- and 21-year-olds must die before we are willing to
demand that the president be more forthcoming? Any modicum of critical
thinking reveals that America has strayed from its raison d'etre.

It is easy to declare, as the president often does on the campaign trail,
"The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein in jail," but recent

reports

and actions on the ground contradict that notion.

The president was wrong about weapons of mass destruction; Iraq's threat

to

the United States; links between Saddam and al-Qaida; the reliability of
Ahmed Chalabi; that Iraqi oil would pay for the war; the number of troops
required to provide stability; and that we would be greeted as liberators.

In fact, the only thing that the president has been right about is the

evil

of Saddam Hussein. Did we need over 1,000 American casualties to figure

that

one out?

Yet, the response from supporters of the war is, "What is John Kerry's
plan?"

How can we debate Kerry's plan, or lack thereof, when we have a president
that is not forthcoming about reality? Given the circumstances created by
this administration, Kerry, like the president, has few options that do

not

include a sustained American presence in Iraq, little support from

European

allies and further loss of life.

More than a plan, we need a president who is willing to be accountable for
his actions. Both candidates rhetorically have plans; just go to their
respective Web sites. But in the words of former heavyweight champion Mike
Tyson, "Everyone has a plan until they get hit."


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.767 / Virus Database: 514 - Release Date: 9/21/04

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.767 / Virus Database: 514 - Release Date: 9/21/04

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:24:27 -0400, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvin@galaxy.com> wrote:

Interesting little article ... a fun read.

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17737

Bush must answer for Iraq
'Kerry plan' is irrelevant until Bush notices reality


No matter what prism one looks through, the recent events in Iraq are

The New York Times reported last week that a new report on Iraq's illicit
weapons program is expected to conclude that Saddam Hussein had a clear
intent to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if the United
Nations sanctions were lifted.

But, like former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay's report 11 months
earlier stated, it finds no evidence that Iraq had begun any type of
large-scale weapons program at the time America invaded.

The New York Times also reported that President Bush received a

National Intelligence Estimate in July that suggests the best case

for Iraq through the end of 2005 is "tenuous" in terms of political,
economic and security stability.

Last week, 47 Iraqis were killed by a car bomb in Baghdad, 11 slain by
another in Baquba, eight dead in a clash between U.S. troops and

in Ramadi -- and those were just the major incidents. American casualties
have risen every month since the June handover of political authority to

interim government.

We also witnessed last week that insurgents became even more brazen as

took civilian workers from their homes, which has already led to the
beheading of two American hostages.

As Iraq burns, our Nero-esque commander in chief plays the tune of

reminding those who attend his campaign rallies that Iraq will soon have
free and fair elections, and is on the road to democracy.

So, while we obsess with the whereabouts of President Bush and Sen. John
Kerry 30 years ago, and CBS tries to survive a self-inflicted gunshot

to the head, Americans continue to die in a war that now has key

concerned.

On three different Sunday news shows, different Republican senators urged
the president to be more forthcoming with the American people

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News on Sunday, "We made serious
mistakes." In terms of the president communicating the problems in Iraq,
McCain added that the president was "perhaps not as straight as maybe

like to see."

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chair of the Senate Foreign Relations

criticized the administration's handling of Iraq's reconstruction, using
"incompetence" as one of his adjectives. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.,
lamented on CBS's "Face the Nation," "The fact is, we're in deep trouble

Iraq."

The critiques of three well-respected Republican senators elevate the
concerns about the war beyond a mere red-state, blue-state affair.

How many more 19-, 20- and 21-year-olds must die before we are willing to
demand that the president be more forthcoming? Any modicum of critical
thinking reveals that America has strayed from its raison d'etre.

It is easy to declare, as the president often does on the campaign trail,
"The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein in jail," but recent

and actions on the ground contradict that notion.

The president was wrong about weapons of mass destruction; Iraq's threat

the United States; links between Saddam and al-Qaida; the reliability of
Ahmed Chalabi; that Iraqi oil would pay for the war; the number of troops
required to provide stability; and that we would be greeted as

In fact, the only thing that the president has been right about is the

of Saddam Hussein. Did we need over 1,000 American casualties to figure

one out?

Yet, the response from supporters of the war is, "What is John Kerry's
plan?"

How can we debate Kerry's plan, or lack thereof, when we have a president
that is not forthcoming about reality? Given the circumstances created by
this administration, Kerry, like the president, has few options that do

include a sustained American presence in Iraq, little support from

allies and further loss of life.

More than a plan, we need a president who is willing to be accountable

his actions. Both candidates rhetorically have plans; just go to their
respective Web sites. But in the words of former heavyweight champion

Tyson, "Everyone has a plan until they get hit."

Those anti-semite, treacherous, republican weasels! How dare they go
against their commander-in-chief like that!