Disappointed in Giuliani!

[Mitch Cronin]

He says, of GWB: "He's a great leader" ...!

Good grief, what's wrong with those people!

A "great leader"!!?? the guy's a putz! ..a goof!... a flippin' maroon! ...and a dangerous man!

Sad day for planet Earth.

[Jumpy]

I saw good old Rudy being interviewed recently and he said "a vote for Kerry is a vote for the terrorists". This guy is a serious nutbar and his credibilty is right out the window.

As an aside, New York, the victims of the terrorists attack didn't buy the scare mongering of the Republicans and voted for Kerry. Unfortunately the trailer park vote will win Bush re-election....truly a sad day for Western Civilization.

[Homerun]

He says, of GWB: "He's a great leader" ...!

Good grief, what's wrong with those people!

A "great leader"!!?? the guy's a putz!  ..a goof!... a flippin' maroon! ...and a dangerous man!

Sad day for planet Earth. 

If that's the case, it doesn't say much for Kerry and the Democrats then, does it?

[B75/76]

If that's the case, it doesn't say much for Kerry and the Democrats then, does it?

Actually, it doesn't say much for the majoity of American voters.

They vote this bozo back in because they think he makes them safer. This is the guy that quit hunting for Osama in Afghanistan, so he could be a hero and stomp the Iraqis. So they are safer now, with the architect of the attack cotinuing to plot and no WMD in Iraq. Oh yea, those WMD didn't exist.

[Mitch Cronin]

If that's the case, it doesn't say much for Kerry and the Democrats then, does it?

... Please elaborate?

I don't for a second think Kerry is any kind of "great leader" either, but Bush really scares the hell out of me.

I'd prefer to see my dog, or the kid next door as president of the US, rather than Bush. I'm pretty sure we'd all be a lot safer!

[ChicoChico]

It would seem that the Democrats on this forum are sore losers. Go Dubya!

[Mitch Cronin]

Chico... whaddya see in this guy??

[RFL]

Mitch: This may be of interest and FYI Mr. Frum is a Canadian working in D.C.

David Frum's first book Dead Right (1994), was praised by William F. Buckley Jr. as "the most refreshing ideological experience in a generation" and by the New York Times as "the smartest book written from the inside about the American conservative movement." A 1996 collection of essays was hailed by a Wall Street Journal reviewer as marking Frum's emergence as the outstanding conservative commentator of his generation. His third book, How We Got Here, was described by National Review as written in "a voice and style so original it deserves to be called revolutionary." Frum is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard in Washington, D.C., and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise institute. In 2001-2002, he served as speechwriter to President George W. Bush. His fourth book, The Right Man: The Suprise Presedency of George W. Bush, will be published by Random House in January. Frum is married and the father of three children.

And this:

NATIONAL POSTWednesday » April 16 » 2003

Who's the next target? The UN

David Frum

National Post

Saturday, April 12, 2003

WASHINGTON - As freedom comes to Baghdad, America's friends and

enemies are wondering: Who's the next target in the war on terror?

The right answer should be: the United Nations.

The United Nations is now trying to insinuate itself into the

reconstruction of Iraq. Earlier this week, Kofi Annan announced that

only a UN resolution could give "legitimacy" to the American

liberation of Iraq, and this view is echoed by liberal-minded

pundits around the world.

The truth is that the UN has no legitimacy to give. In the world's

three-decade long struggle with terror and terror states, the UN has

with rare exceptions been an instrument of the wrong side.

In the three decades since the PLO attack on the 1972 Munich

Olympics, the UN has passed dozens of resolutions condemning Israel

-- but never once has it delivered an unambiguous condemnation of

the terrorist attacks against the Jewish state.

Meanwhile, the UN aid organizations inside the Palestinian towns and

refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank and elsewhere

have been exploited to sustain hatred and resentment. UN officials

lead Palestinian children on tours of Israeli cities and tell them

that the wealth they see is rightfully theirs. They distribute

hateful textbooks and co-operate with terrorist groups in the

administration of social welfare programs.

The UN is as responsible as anyone for the survival of Saddam

Hussein's regime in Iraq. Yes, the Security Council voted to eject

Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. But that same resolution was also

understood to forbid the United States, Britain, and their allies to

follow the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and finish the job by freeing

Iraq as well. To this day, President George H.W. Bush cites the

terms of the UN resolution as the single most important reason he

halted the war short at the Kuwait-Iraq border.

Over the next few years, the UN-authorized regime of inspections

plus sanctions gradually fell apart. Yet every time the United

States and Britain mobilized to force Iraq to comply, the UN and

Secretary-General Kofi Annan interceded to protect Saddam. When

Saddam finally forced the inspectors out of Iraq altogether in 1998,

France and Russia warned they would veto any war resolution -- and

President Clinton backed down.

The UN's oil-for-food program, originally intended to protect the

people of Iraq from the worst effects of sanctions, was swiftly

transformed into a tool of the Saddam regime. Saddam siphoned

billions out of the program to buy weapons and enrich his supporters

-- and UN officials looked the other way.

Now Saddam is finally gone, no thanks to the United Nations, and the

United States and its allies must begin the work of building a

peaceful, decent, post-Saddam regime. Nobody would dream of inviting

Saddam's local allies into that regime. How then would it make sense

to give power to his closest foreign allies -- not just France and

Russia, but also temporary Security Council members Germany and

Syria?

French companies helped Saddam evade sanctions. German companies

sold Saddam the ingredients for his poison factories. Russian

companies provided him with arms and ammunition. The government of

Syria gave refuge to his top aides -- and may now be hiding some of

his weapons of mass destruction. And these are the people who are

supposed to confer legitimacy on Iraq's new leaders?

A UN role in Iraq means a French veto over Iraq. Such a veto would

have large consequences for Iraq's future.

For example: Many people suspect that the Iraqi archives contain

interesting revelations about the relationship between Saddam and

French President Jacques Chirac. A UN role in Iraq would enable

Chirac to keep those documents secret. You can see why such secrecy

might appeal to the French government -- but would it "legitimate"

Iraq's?

For another example: Some of the oil contracts between Iraq and

France are hugely disfavorable to Iraq. Saddam seems to have

believed that these special deals would win him France's political

support. A new Iraqi government might want to renegotiate or even

cancel these contracts -- how would it benefit the Iraqi people for

that to be prevented?

Behind all of these problems is a larger one: The UN is inherently

incompetent to deal with the problem of terrorism. The UN Charter

forbids states to use force against other states -- which was the

UN's excuse for condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's French-built

nuclear reactor in 1981. But the Charter has nothing to say about

the use of force by non-states or quasi-states -- which is why the

UN kept silent when Hezbollah, with Iranian help, bombed the Jewish

community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing more than 100

people.

There are circumstances where the UN can play a useful role. But

political legitimacy is not a gift from the UN. Political legitimacy

comes from the consent of the governed. Iraq's government will be

legitimate when it is elected.

And the allied war in Iraq is justified by the rightness of the

allied cause and the horrors of the tyranny that the allies

overthrow -- and that the UN bureaucracy and so many UN Security

Council member states worked so hard for so long to preserve.

dfrum@aei.org

© Copyright 2003 National Post

Copyright © 2003 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global

Communications Corp. All rights reserved.

Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.

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

I respect your opinions Mitch but I do not support the southern Ontario/Quebec anti-American mindset.

[Super 80]

Rudy was never anything more than a politically oppertunistic douchebag to begin with, he was just elevated out of his swamp by 9.11

[RFL]

Mitch: Another opinion for your interest:

NATIONAL POST Thursday October 24 2002

Our best friend -- whether we like it or not

J.L. Granatstein

National Post

Wednesday, October 23, 2002

Historian Frank Underhill had a deft touch with words. The Canadian,

he said almost a half-century ago, is "the first anti-American, the

model anti-American, the archetypal anti-American, the ideal

anti-American as he exists in the mind of God." He was absolutely

correct, and if Underhill were alive today he likely would be

scrambling to explain the burst of anti-Americanism that once again

is consuming many Canadians.

The furore is surprising -- to me, at least. In 1996, in a book

called Yankee Go Home? Canadians and Anti-Americanism, I argued that

after the 1988 free trade election, "Canadian anti-Americanism

seemed as dead as the dodo ... marginalized, by-passed, and

overtaken by events." Moreover, to judge by Michael Marzolini's

Pollara opinion poll, reported in the National Post on Monday, two

thirds of Canadians favour closer integration with the United

States, a result that should suggest a waning of anti-American

sentiment.

But anti-Americanism continues to flourish. After the terrorist

attacks of September 11, 2001, many Canadians were quick to suggest

that the Americans "had it coming." Professor Sunera Thobani brought

a crowd of women activists cheering to their feet with a

denunciation of the United States a few days after 9/11, and a CBC

Town Hall, crowded with students, was an appalling festival of

gloating.

The Afghan War drew little criticism until the "friendly fire"

deaths of four Princess Patricia's soldiers. Then the floodgates

opened and, to cite just one personal example, The Globe and Mail

called me for a comment and (on what I subsequently learned was an

editorial directive) fed me questions designed to elicit

anti-American remarks. I ended up shouting at the interviewer who

professed not to understand that accidents always have and always

will happen in warfare. The national outpouring of grief was, I

hope, sincere, but I cannot escape the thought that if the soldiers

had been killed by Canadian gunfire, the reaction might have been

much more muted.

Now the possibility of an American-led war against Saddam Hussein

has revved up the anti-American engines once more. Pierre Berton,

Margaret Atwood and the country's other foreign policy experts have

denounced the United States as a warmongering superpower and

demanded that Canada refuse to participate (as if the Canadian

Forces had the capabilities to join in a war).

As part of a book tour this fall, I did phone-in shows or gave talks

in most of the nation's big cities and, with the exception of

Halifax, still a good navy town, the anti-American bile that spewed

out at me was distressing. Part of it was spurred by the widespread

sense that President George W. Bush is a boob in hock to the oil

industry and the captive of his Vice-President and Secretary of

Defence. Part of it was a sincere belief in the United Nations and

opposition to American unilateralism, though how anyone with the

eyes to see can pretend the UN is an effective agency for peace is

beyond my ken.

But most of the anti-Americanism was motivated by hatred and fear,

by the sense that Canada somehow was next on the Administration's

agenda, that Canadian sovereignty was threatened. They want our

water, a few said. Their Northern Command is a device to take us

over militarily, others feared. And as one student in Montreal

argued, it would be better if Canada had no army at all than that

the Americans should use Canadian troops in their wars.

Canadians believe they know their neighbours and not a few commented

that some of their best friends were Americans. But most Canadians

clearly have missed the full extent of the shock caused to the

American body politic by 9/11. The historic sense of American

invulnerability was destroyed that day and replaced by fear. If they

understood this, Canadians might be more understanding.

We ought to be. Our history is different, of course, and

anti-Americanism existed here even before the United Empire

Loyalists turned it into a state religion. Our system of government

differs, as do our political traditions. But there can be no doubt

that Canadians' values are very close to those of the Americans'. We

are democratic, pluralist, and secular, just like the Americans (and

this, parenthetically, makes us a target for fundamentalist

terrorists too).

Moreover, Canada's economy and economic infrastructure is all but

completely integrated with that of the United States. This economic

merger has been underway since the 19th century, but the Canada-U.S.

Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA for all practical purposes made

integration irreversible. With 90% of Canada's trade either going to

or through the United States, Canadians must recognize that their

options have been severely constrained.

What Canadians need now is a good stiff dose of realpolitik. We can,

of course, disagree with George Bush's Washington but we should pick

our spots carefully. On minor issues, Canada can be as vocal as it

chooses, slanging the Americans upside and down. Americans argue

amongst themselves too, and they won't be offended by this. But when

Americans believe that their vital interests are at stake and their

security is threatened, Canadians should have sense enough to

recognize that Washington is a superpower with global concerns that

are different from those of our small, weak nation. Canada likes to

think itself a moral superpower, motivated by higher things than the

crass, materialistic United States, but this is fantasy. The

Americans, when they think of us at all, see us as a nation of

carping complainers that regularly fails to carry its weight in the

world. Why feed this perception?

Thus when the United States feels threatened and we disagree, our

leaders' dissent should be expressed quietly through diplomatic

channels. Anything else, any harsh disagreement or outright

wobbling, hurts us immeasurably with the Administration, Congress,

and the U.S. media. The Chrétien government's "yes I will -- no I

won't" policy on the Iraqi question is a perfect example of

pandering to the home folks and squandering political assets south

of the border. Realpolitik, picking one's spots and doing what one

must, is the only way to deal with the giant to our south.

Robert Thompson was the leader of the Social Credit party in the

early 1960s, a politician almost wholly without gifts. But Thompson

uttered one sentence that encapsulated Canada's American problem.

The Americans, he said in a wonderful malapropism, are "our best

friends whether we like it or not." Exactly. The United States isn't

going to go away and Canadians must be on good terms with their

superpower neighbour. With our integrated economy and our shared

values, mindless anti-Americanism does us only harm with the United

States. Moreover, anti-Americanism is an unworthy way of expressing

Canadian nationalism. It's long past time for Canadians to grow up.

J.L. Granatstein is most recently the author of Canada's Army:

Waging War and Keeping the Peace.

© Copyright 2002 National Post

Copyright © 2002 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global

Communications Corp. All rights reserved.

Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.

[Steam Driven]

Mitch, while you and I seem to agree with most things Aviation, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.

For your consideration from David Frum:

OCT. 31, 2004: THE WRONG MAN

My column in last week's National Post:

I am not going to waste time and space on an endorsement column. I am sure you already know who I am supporting in the 2004 U.S. presidential election and why. Instead, let me offer something more useful: a sober assessment of what a Kerry victory would mean and what consequences it might have.

If John Kerry wins the presidency on Nov. 2, Champagne corks will be popping all over Europe. Radio and television broadcasters worldwide will assure their audiences that the United States has repented and given up its aggressive, provocative ways. "Neoconservative unilateralism" will go out of style; multilateralism and consultation will return to vogue. The international conference circuit will buzz with activity. The leaders of the European Union will plan a royal welcome for President Kerry on his first tour abroad. It will be a joyous first three or four months.

And then reality will kick in.

John Kerry will not have won the presidency, if he wins it, by promising to get out of Iraq and create a Palestinian state. He will have won it by promising to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush has waged and to gain more foreign support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Europeans will quickly discover that President Kerry has no more power than president Bill Clinton had to ratify the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court: Ratifying treaties is the Senate's job, and there probably aren't more than six votes in the Senate for either agreement. They will discover that Kerry has no power on his own to stop the death penalty or to ban genetically modified foods.

At the same time, Europeans will find themselves under harsh and immediate pressure to produce troops for peacekeeping in Iraq. If there is any one thing that American voters will believe John Kerry promised them, it is that he could do a better job than George Bush of winning international support for the U.S.-led anti-terror campaign in the Middle East.

Producing those troops will constitute a Kerry administration's first and most important foreign policy test. Kerry cannot afford to fail. And the more it becomes apparent that he will fail, the harder he will twist European arms to give him something, anything, he can call a contribution to the Iraq mission.

Underpinning all these frictions, Americans and Europeans will soon be waking up to a more bitter and intractable problem: the problem of American "unilateralism." This is a word that means very different things on either side of the Atlantic. When Americans hear Europeans complain about the Bush administration's "unilateralism," they tend to think that Europeans are complaining about the Bush administration's manners -- its failure to consult widely enough or listen carefully enough before taking military action.

But that is not what Europeans and European governments tend to mean. They tend to think that American military force is only legitimate when it is approved by an international organization -- that is to say, when they themselves have a veto over it. Many in Europe think it is only the detested "neocons" who would deny Europe this veto. But no American president, not even John Kerry, can concede such a thing, and it will be a very nasty shock for Europe when they learn the truth.

Not so nasty, however, as the shock in store for the Islamic Middle East.

Should George Bush lose on Nov. 2, you will see the cities of the region erupt in delirious celebration. His political defeat will be interpreted as an American admission of military defeat, not only in Iraq, but in the larger struggle against Islamic militancy. But if Kerry wins in November, it will only be because he has persuaded a majority of the American people that he means to fight the war on terror with just as much determination as George Bush.

It's not true of course. Kerry will fight the war in a weak and vacillating way. He has no vision, no plan, no definition of success. But it will be politically very important to him to conceal his inner weakness from the public. For that reason, anyone hoping that he might -- for example -- relax visa requirements for Middle Eastern visitors to the United States is due for a nasty disappointment. Ditto for those who might hope that a President Kerry would rehabilitate Yasser Arafat or order Israel to tear down its security fence. Ditto for those who think that he would release the detained terrorists in Guantanamo or other secure locations.

John Kerry is popular around the world because he is seen as a president who will lead an American retreat. And that may be the kind of president he wants to be. But Kerry does not even have the courage of his weakness. He will veer unpredictably between appeasement and anger, between strong words and weak actions, between wooly excuse-making and panicky over-reaction.

By the end of it all, Kerry will have left the world angrier and America's alliances weaker than ever before. I think Americans will sense that. I think they already do sense it. Which is why I confidently expect that they will never put this inadequate politician to the test of leadership - why they will on Nov. 2 return George W. Bush for four more years.

[deicer]

Actually, it doesn't say much for the majoity of American voters.

Who says the majority of American's voted for Bush?

Only 52 out of a hundred WHO VOTED, voted for Bush. It was encouraging to see that it was a higher voter turnout this time, and in my opinion, Bush did do a better job of fearmongering amongst the trailer parks than Kerry.

This whole election was a fiasco. C'mon people, even in Canada we have a consistent electoral process across the whole country. If I remember correctly, there were 5 different voting systems across the country from electronic ballots to the old chad system. Couple that with the way they messed up the absentee ballots, and the whole "provisional" ballot thing.....

The recent election in Afghanistan was better run!

It all comes down to the old saying,,,,,

"Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!"

Iceman

[B75/76]

Who says the majority of American's voted for Bush?

Only 52 out of a hundred WHO VOTED, voted for Bush. ...

I never stated the majority of Americans. I did stay 'American voters'.

[deicer]

It would seem that the Democrats on this forum are sore losers. Go Dubya!

http://www.watchersweb.com/funnyfarm/24054f.htm

'Nuff Said

[Mitch Cronin]

RFL,

Ok, so David Frum scares the hell out of me too!

I respect your opinions also... as I do anyone's opinions. That's what brings me here... reading other's thoughts and opinions is, to me, a never ending source of fascination and enjoyment....

But....

"As freedom comes to Baghdad"

??? Huh?? "Freedom" eh?... is that what we call what they're experiencing?

"Who's the next target in the war on terror?

The right answer should be: the United Nations." Good grief! Is he serious!? Are you buying that?

"The truth is that the UN has no legitimacy to give." ...and the USA alone does?

"German companies sold Saddam the ingredients for his poison factories. Russian companies provided him with arms and ammunition. The government of

Syria gave refuge to his top aides -- and may now be hiding some of

his weapons of mass destruction."

I see the date (April, 2003) on what he's written there.... and I wonder what he'd do with these comments now... He forgot to include (I think) that America also provided Saddam with weapons at some point.

"In the three decades since the PLO attack on the 1972 Munich

Olympics, the UN has passed dozens of resolutions condemning Israel"

I'll be the first to admit I'm something of a political moron, but it seems that this quote may illuminate quite well the source of Frum's (apparently extreme) bias.

I reckon Israels actions, several times in recent memory, ought to have been condemned by anyone who values peace... Not that their enemies' actions shouldn't likewise be condemned...

"And the allied war in Iraq is justified by the rightness of the

allied cause and the horrors of the tyranny that the allies

overthrow"

Ahhh... it's an "allied war"... right, I forgot... somehow (!?) I'm afraid the "rightness" of their cause has been somewhat lost on me... and as I compare "the horrors" the Iraqi's lived with before, and then after, the "allied" invasion, I'm convinced I'm being fed some kind of Orwellian newspeak.

Right... "Operation Iraqi Freedom".... "WMD"... "ties to alQaida" .. "Saddam's buddies with Osama"... The World Trade Center... the payback... oil...Dear old Dad... money.... .... and David Frum wants me to believe the UN is the enemy now?.... I'm very confused.

[B75/76]

RFL and Steamdriven,

Your quoted editorials are from (Frum ) neo conservative editorialists. Like you and I, they are just their opinions. There are numerous contrary opinions available.

This idea Bush has made the world safer, to me, is a well orchestrated farce. The man responsible for devising the 9/11 attacks still has not been caught/killed. He is free to plot another attack. How does that make the Americans safer?

[Steam Driven]

How about the realization that he is out there, precautions have to be taken, and an effort made to stop him and those like him?

As opposed to "reaching consensus", and "dialogue", and pursuing channels. Pulling out and "leaving them alone, so they'll leave us alone"...

[B75/76]

How about the realization that he is out there, precautions have to be taken, and an effort made to stop him and those like him?

As opposed to "reaching consensus", and "dialogue", and pursuing channels. Pulling out and "leaving them alone, so they'll leave us alone"...

My point exactly. Why did the Bush administration divert their attention form getting Osama to the WMD of Iraq? (Or was it freeing an oppressed people and giving them a better life?) Osama isn't an Iraqi.

Since Bush left him to get on with his terrorist business, what makes anyone think the next four years will bring us a "safer" world?

[Fido]

....Ok, so David Frum scares the hell out of me too!

....

Geez you guys scare easily.

[GDR]

in my opinion, Bush did do a better job of fearmongering amongst the trailer parks than Kerry.

It is this type of social bigotry that so often gets used as a legitimate argument.

In the first place, many of us who favour Bush don't live in trailer parks.

In the second place, what makes you think that you are superior to those who do live in trailer parks? In my own personal opinion, those in the trailer parks are sometimes far better judges of what is good for us than are the ruling classes in this country and in the US.

Saying that people don't have a legitimate voice because they are of lower income fits right into the idea that democracy is only a vehicle to get the "right" people into a position power. The right people then will, largely without reference to the population they supposedly represent, enact legislation that will separate us from our income, and often from our freedoms, with the idea that they know what's better for us than we do ourselves. In my view this is the basis of Liberal ideology.

I believe this is what has happened to us in Canada and that it is what the Americans are turning away from in this election.

Greg Robinson

[Jumpy]

I believe that Bush was reelected by playing to peoples' paranoia and and a belief that they themselves are personally at risk of being attacked. If they happen to live in a trailer park so be it, but there are many Americans who I believe couldn't look at the facts because GW was telling them that a vote for Kerry is an invitation to terror. This made me extremely angry that he could wage a war on the gullable by going after fundamental fears. Jeanne Garrafallo was on the Late Show last year and she said "a vote for Bush is basically a character flaw" which I wholeheartedly agree with. If you can't see the lies, the changing stories, the corruption, the misplaced ideologies of western civilization then you're not seeing the forest for the trees (I think I see wolves in that there forest!!!). Weapons of Mass destruction turned into liberation of the Iraqi poeple which turned into Imminent threat....ah crap better make that Gathering threat. If the fundamentals of going into Iraq had been sound they would be sticking to the one story. If he had said in the beginning...you know what, the Middle East is a gathering threat and we have to start somewhere, we are confident that starting in Iraq is the best solution to achieving Middle East peace that would have been fine. But to dumb it down to Big Bad Scary Weapons, Evil Dictator with bad moustache....must eliminate, is insulting to me as a human being. If the educated upper class didn't buy it good for them but someone did buy it. In fact 54 million bought it and the other 51 million are left holding the bag.

So....the defecit is sitting at 6% of GDP when the highest it's ever been is 4%. The population is ageing with no way to pay for it I hope that Americans feel safer today from the big scary wolves. However, I hope their kids and grandkids don't mind paying for the mess that they've created.

[AIP]

"This made me extremely angry that he could wage a war on the gullable by going after fundamental fears. .....

If you can't see the lies, the changing stories, the corruption ...."

Sorry to paraphrase on your post, but doesn't it sound a whole lot different than what went on up in Canada during our most recent election.

"Stephen Harper cannot be trusted, he will gut medicare"

Talk about playing the gullable and fundamental fears.

I was told that Ontario "Saved" the country" because they voted Liberal.

[newgirl]

I was given this opinion by my 58 year old Albertan cousin who has been a rancher now involved with oil.

His opinion was that with Bush re-elected , Canada may see the borders open to our cattle industry . With Kerry elected he flt that it would take much much longer if ever as Kerry projects a more protectionist attitude!

My relatives in the States -Seattle and San Diego both hate Bush.

Looking at the demographic map last night, most agricultural states went REP.

What do I know, I come from a have-not province with grain, beef , forestry and oil/gas reserves. The first 3 have almost bottomed out and the last unfortunately we don't have enough of.

Personally though, I would rather have looked at Kerry's horseface for the next 4 years than the chimpanzee again.

[RFL]

RFL and Steamdriven,

Your quoted editorials are from (Frum ) neo conservative editorialists. Like you and I, they are just their opinions. There are numerous contrary opinions available.

This idea Bush has made the world safer, to me, is a well orchestrated farce. The man responsible for devising the 9/11 attacks still has not been caught/killed. He is free to plot another attack. How does that make the Americans safer?

B75/76:

Thank you for your rating of Mr. Frum. I think he is of value in countering the CBC/C. Parrish/Toronto Star type of far left extremism. When the world gets ugly I want the "neo conservatives" running the place and not the looney left (unless you think all countries should just sit on the fence Canadian style and do nothing). Regardless of WMD, Saddam killed over 300,000 people, many of them children, and no one but the USA had the fortutude to do anything about it. It's probably better that they did not find WMD for the lefties would just have accused the Americans of planting them there.

[FA@AC]

Regardless of WMD, Saddam killed over 300,000 people, many of them children, and no one but the USA had the fortutude to do anything about it.

Actually, the USA was a firm supporter of Saddam when Saddam gassed the Kurds and when he killed most of the other people he killed. The Americans said nothing about Saddam's brutaility at the time, but then almost 20 years later used it as an excuse to start a war as a result of which far more people have died (upwards of 100,000 Iraqi civilians according to recent estimates) than would have died without Bush's war.