Axxman

Reminds me of the time my mom told me to quit throwing rocks in a lake. "If everybody throws rocks in there is will be nothing but rocks." As if rocks make water disappear. If everyone throws thrash on the ground...it makes the ground a mess, but it doesn't make the Earth disappear. It just reconstructs the view of the Earth as trashy. Secondhand smoke is just about as controversial as global warming. There is no proof that 2nd-hand smoke gives people cancer...but libs sure try to use that to legislate people's lives. Liberals couldn't get smokers to stop smoking so now they want to convince people that they are killing others. There are plenty of studies to the contrary. It seems ludicrous to blame the smoker for a families health...when the family can get up and leave, or they can stay...it should be their choice. I am anti-smoking because of its addictive nature that attempts to remove choice from the equation. If I multiply my personal responsibility of adding CO2 to the atmophere (which is .0000000006% approx.) by several billion people...the we wind up with 1% assuming a 6 billion person population. Humans account for 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere approximately. There are 785 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere...humans produce 8.3 gigatons. All figures are approximate of course...but it is quite easy to see that libs are trying to make a whole lot of changes for VERY LITTLE effect. At which point, logically, one must start looking to see what other motives liberals may have in this. Also...we MUST remember that the earth has certainly been warmer (and colder) in the past, and that the earths temperature has ALWAYS fluxuated. So if the Earth has survived warmer periods than we are threatened with now...we must examine other possible motives. There is ONLY one reason that liberals are pushing this as hard as they are right now. The trend will change. It could be five years, it could be twenty...but the Earths history has shown us that IT WILL CHANGE. The cooling trend of the 70's lasted for 36 years...this current warming trend has lasted about 35 years. If the warming trend starts to downturn before liberals can inact their wide-sweeping changes and assaults on personal liberties...all of their work will be in peril. The MUST ACT swiftly in order to preserve their ideologies since they have basically put ALL of their pennies in the global holocaust theory. It should also be of note that these "temp trends" we are speaking of are very small temp changes...less than .5 degrees in either direction. I personally find it kind of comical (if it weren't so serious for American freedoms) that in a few short years of American history we went from global coolong to global warming...and people jumped on the bandwagon like it was nothing. I know why liberals made the jump...it astounds me that so many people are so naive as to fall for the propaganda and not call you guys on it. Libs are NOT afraid of global warming...they are afraid of loosing an ideological avantage to forever change America.

She was a punk kid...raised by a punk mom...with no RESPECT for authority. I don't care WHO she is, or what she looks like. The ONLY racism in this story is a bunch of people of one race dressing up like Black Panthers and marching in front of the courthouse to protest a judge from another race...who apparently wasn't raised to be a public nuisance and made something of his life. If my kids EVER assault somebody they better hope for jail time. Of course, my kids are raised to respect people and to listen to authority. This kid attacked a man for telling her she couldn't enter the school early...I don't feel one IOTA of pitty for her.

Anything that interferes with your right to live as you want to live should be up to you? What about the things that you do when you live that affects the rights of OTHERS, and interferes with THEIR right to live as they want to live? We're all in this world together. If someone smokes in a non-smoking area in a restaurant, they are living the way they want to live at the expense of 5 other tables nearby. The environment is similar. If your way of life involves dumping trash in a neighboring yard, you are interfering with their right to live. Of course there are limitations, and points where you draw the line. I am not advocating an extreme culture shift, nor am I advocating a wind mill in the back of everyone's yard. But we as a country can certaintly do much more to protect this earth than what we are doing. Ah liberals...the champions of incomparible comparisons. I am responsible for .0000000006% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and suddenly I am giving people cancer and dumping trash in their front yards...lol. Obviously my personal rights cannot interfere with the personal rights of others. The problem with global warming is that libs are using it to infringe upon personal rights by claiming that we are at some kind of imaginary impasse ecologically. Your comparisons (if you can call them that) have immediate impact on the property rights of others. There is NO immediate impact (if any) by my sixth-billionth of one percent addition of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, liberals are claiming that my smoking in a restaurant in New York is at the expense of five tables in Tokyo...and thats just ridiculous. If you want to do "much more to protect this Earth" because you believe that you are somehow responsible, or that your insignificant actions can destroy the planet...then more power to you. I happen to see it differently and I shouldn't be forced to lower my standards of living based on financially compromised science, and liberal ideology. Libs are so frustrating. What does Texas have to do with my neighbor? Texas is a pretty accurate representation of EXACTLY what I said would happen if my neighbor discovered oil....we'd all be drilling for oil. Also, most (not all) of those housing developments in Texas were built around the oil pumps. Irregardless...I don't live in Texas, and so that has little to with my situation, nor does it change my answer to that ridiculous notion. You and Hammy, both of the incomparible comparison club, make some crazy analogies. Sitting on my front porch, shooting at cars, is in NO WAY comparible to the violation of rights that global warming liberals are trying to impose. Shooting at people is an immediate threat on someone's life...there are NO human rights to kill people, although liberals make an exception for babies. There are no individual rights for killing...but if there were...global warming is more comparible to trying to shooting a car in India from my front porch. My shooting towards India has a negligible effect on India, if any, from my front porch. Lastly...I never said that there were NO intrusions on personal freedoms in the USA. There are definitely intrusions on personal freedoms, and there should be. However, there are NO personal freedoms in regards to the immediate threat on another persons life. There are also no restrictions saying that I have to live my life to make other people feel better. If you libs wanna live in fear (and I am not naive enough to believe ANYONE is actually afraid of global warming), then so be it...it is not my job to live my life to make you less paranoid. My personal involvement in global warming is sooooo negligible that it is a serious infringment upon me to make laws that affect my lifestyle.

Saddam attacked Iran...approx. 1 million dead. Anfal campaign against the Kurds...100,000 dead 1991 Shia/Kurdish uprising...30,000 to 60,000 dead Genocide of Marsh Arabs...approx. 400,000 dead Internal imprisonment...300,000 Iraqi citizens dead. These are just the BIG numbers we know about. All figures are approximate of course.

ANYTHING that interferes with my RIGHT to live as I want to live...irregardless of what somebody else thinks...should be up to me. I know its "commonplace" for libs and enviro's to act as though humans are responsible for ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere...but technically thats not true. There are about 750 gigatons (we'll use approximate terms) of CO2 in the atmosphere...of which humans add about 8.3 gigatons...thats a bit more than 1%. Get back to me when we hit 25% cuz I'm not walking to work, buying solar panels, or recycling to lower a 1% number to .043 or whatever. I am not against electric cars. I happen to have a friend who drives one, and its pretty nice. I am against the gov't telling me that I cannot drive whatever car I want. I am not against solar panels. They just are impractical. It would be too expensive to buy a solar panel to run my entire house...let alone to have one that runs the flat screen tv I watch while enjoying my jacuzzi bath. It takes more energy to MAKE a solar panel, than the energy the panel will produce. If people WANT these things, good for them. The problem with libs and enviro's is that they want to force me to have them. Thats a problem. Your "oil well" analogy is ridiculous. First, if there were oil under my neighbors house...there wouldn't be a housing developement in this area. There would be a thousand acres of oils wells. Secondly, if my neighbor struck oil...for some odd reason...you can bet that EVERYBODY (the smart ones anyway) in my neighborhood would be drilling. There would be a shortage of oil drillin' parts in the local Home Depot...lol. You see, Conservatives want an America that allows people to LIVE free. I support your right to believe in Global Warming, and that humans cause it. I support your right to drive whatever car you want, recycle, live in a sun-powered mud shack, and grow you own food. More power to you. Liberals want an America that is subservient to the government. They want me to conform to their ideology, by force if necessary. They don't like how I live, and don't believe in my right to live as I wish. They want the gov't to protect me. Global warming is a means to that end.

Just want to chime in on Burning Embers 655k figure. The ONLY way that those "professionals" came up with such a high figure was by using "cluster sampling." It is widely known that cluster sampling is an ineffective sampling method for this type of data. Also known as snowball sampling. I find it hard to believe that the liberal agenda doesn''t know that when they throw these outrageous numbers around. Irregardless, it is doubtful that the death toll will top the 2 million mark set by Saddam during his regime.

You can watch the entire program at Google video. I'll link it...hopefully the mods won't mind. The Great Global Warming Swindle This video is very informative. Leading scientists and even IPCC guys contribute. Its fairly scientific...but interesting and cool. When the co-founder of Greenpeace showed up and started talking about the ideological aspects of Global Warming for enviro-wacko's I was impressed. I view global warming as a political tool for liberals to enforce their big-government ideologies on people. It is a pathway for liberals to take away our freedoms. Global Warming is against everything that America stands for in regards to personal freedom.

Perhaps you are making a sarcastic remark (I hope) because I can't think of anything worse than sending our nations young to die in a war that shouldn't have been. If you don't like the war then point the finger at those liberals you elected...because the Iraq war would have NEVER happened if they hadn't signed on to it. AS far as your sig...You do realize that you are quoting a President that was so ineffective that a WAR broke out in his OWN COUNTRY and led to the deaths of more Americans than Iraq will even come close to. He also enslaved American's forever with his high taxation principles...of course, thats why liberals like him.

Ted...I so agree with you. I've said before that Bush has shown of late the "wimpiness" of his father. Its like he is so eager to appease the liberals that he has completely lost his backbone. For someone like me, who has tirelessly defended him in tough times, its like getting completely disregarded by him. Its like he doesn't realize that he CAN'T make them happy no matter how hard he tries to appease them. They hate him, so why does he even try. The stupid thing is that liberals hate him so much they don't even realize he's trying to give them something.

Greed? I would just like to say there is NOTHING wrong with making an honest buck. Those who persue Christian music do so at their own financial peril more often than not. Christian musicians don't come close to making what their secular counterparts do in most cases. The ONLY Christian musicians that even come close are those that have been in the business for a loooonnnngggg time. Being involved in the Christian music industry is a sacrifice that MOST pastors wouldn't leave their "cushy" jobs for, let alone most Christians who criticize them. If Christians did a better job of supporting the Christian musicians then they wouldn't have to go after sponsorships. The fact of the matter is that people who claim to be Christians STILL support secular music better than Christian music. Seems to me that too many people need to quit judging Christians in ministry while they've still got a "plank" in their own eye. It is a RARE occasion when a Christian musician quits talking about Jesus. More often than not, they never mentioned Jesus in the first place. Rock group POD got their start in Christian music...and now they rarely mention the name of Christ or Godly principles in their music. GUESS WHAT....they never were that type of band. All the way back when they first came out they had the same message they do today. Thats how it usually works. Audio Adrenaline ALWAYS sang about Christ, the christian life, and Godly principles...whether they were singing about girlfriends or going to Heaven. When PFR sang about "Goldie's last day" (the "dead dog" song") it was a fun tribute to a family pet. Now I realize how unemotional and stiffling the christian life is "supposed to be" for some of you....but Christians are not EVIL for singing about things that happen to us in our lives. PFR was a victim of lack of Christian support. They sang incredible music and had an incredible desire to serve God. (I met and worked with them when they became "Eager".) For people to complain about a tribute to a pet and miss the overall message is garbage to me. I am tired of the notion that ALL Christians songs have to be about salvation. Thats just ridiculous. If I went to a Church whose ONLY message was "salvation" I'd quit going....BECAUSE I'M ALREADY SAVED!!! Sometimes I want to hear about love, hope, the future, life in general...and *gasp* sometimes I just wanna laugh. If the Holy Spirit guided you to listen to ONLY one style of music I think you should reflect more on why that is so. I suspect it has ALOT more to do with YOU...than with problems in Christian music. Of all bands...lol. What is he possibly going after the Newsboys for? I think that people who are doing all this "judgement" on CCM need to start going to see them, and meet them. Swaggert would probably feel humbled if he spent 10 minutes talking with Peter Furler (lead singer of the Newsboys.) If people have a problem with a specific Christian band...fine. However, to judge a whole industry as if it were somehow tainted over some of the whack reasons people have listed is sad. Its no wonder that "High School Musical" outsold nearly the top 10 Christian artists combined. Thats really upsets me.

I Prefer the Gospel music channel They have all different varieties. Rock, pop, soul, country, contemporary. They have a radio channel and video's. I think that ALL forms of music are fun. I like to hear different Christians in music minister in their own unique way. Like everyone I have been disappointed from time to time in the decisions that certain Christian musicians have made in regards to "toning down their message." But I don't allow that to reflect on EVERY Christian singer out there. It should also be noted that many Christian artists are singing songs directed at fellow Christians. If I'm talking to my fellow brother in Christ there is NOTHING inappropriate with me saying "He has answered all my prayers" or "He shows me amazing love, " etc, etc.... The same goes with music...just cuz a singer doesn't say "Jesus" every 15 seconds doesn't mean he has fallen away...it means that you should have a clue what he's talking about. You can often tell when a Christian singer is being evasive in his message without being so nit-picky about the lyrics. I think many Christian artists are held to a standard that not many Christians could live up to in their daily lives. Christians are harder on fellow Christian singers than they are on their favorite secular singers.

Hey...I don't really have a problem with your approval of Clinton. Its an ideological preference. I think you give him kind of a pass...but you could definitely say the same thing to me about Bush (although I'm pretty tough on Bush in some areas.) I read your above paragraph and had to pause because not only do I agree with you...but I believe that President Bush does too. I believe that President Bush has tried VERY earnestly to do the things you suggested in the above paragraph. 1. Less business and corporate interests... Bush paved the way for the Corporate Responsibility bill. This bill was designed to hold executives and directors accountable. To protect small investors, pension holders and workers. Exposing and punishing acts of corruption. Bush's 2001 tax cuts offered little for Big Business. Big companies were resigned to waiting longer for the concessions, such as a cut in capital gains tax and faster depreciation allowances. 2. Less pork, less monetary waste and poor management of funds... President Bush has repeatedly set caps on government spending. While the war has certainly not done us any financial favors, pork projects are way down. It has been a Bush mantra from day one that he wanted to reduce gov't spending by 5% each year. It has been a consistent part of his plan to lower the deficit. Problem is that congress hasn't agreed (on either side of the aisle), and spending has not gone down as far as Bush has proposed. In fact, each year Congress exceeds Bush's spending cap. Either way, pork spending is less than half what it was. 3. Lower taxes AND supply more for our nation in terms of public funding... This has been a Bush strong point. He has put through three huge tax cuts that puts more money in the pocket of the average American. He has had to fight democrats every sstep of the way. Then once they were passed he has had to fight to make them permanent, cuz the dems want them to be temporary. The jobless rate in at an all-time low. In January jobless claims were a measly 272,000. Economy.com say that can only mean that the labor market is expanding at a fast pace. Bush has increased public funding in many areas including a HUGE increase for public parks, faith based initiatives, medical services, and education. Although the media hates him because he has limited public funds for the media and PBS. President Bush has made some errors (especially in how to win the war), and his social plans haven't always run to perfection, but you gotta remember that it isn't ONLY his responsibility to make things run right. If you have half of congress fighting to make you look bad...they can do that. I truly believe that Bush has had the right idea's in how to run this country...but with so much bias and partisanship...it will be difficult for ANY President in the future...especially if the "impeachment" virus catches on.

Hey Kat...I'm not sure it was a non-story. It shouldn't have been blown up the way it was, but it was a story. Most people believe the entire unit of guards at the prison were corrupt just because of the way the media presented it. In fact, it was just 3-4 people with NO moral compass who were brutalizing people and glorifying it in pictures. I can tell you...A picture speaks a 1000 words...and not all of those words are accurate or truthful. Just cuz you see a bloody guy in a picture doesn't mean he didn't get that way for a reason, or that the law was broken. Just cuz you see a picture with a dog and a prisoner in it...doesn't mean the dog shouldn't have been there. In other words not ALL those pictures showed something.

Stunning. You'd rather have a criminal as President who violated the "rights" of who knows how many women...then sent bombs into another country to deflect attention from it. You dislike Bush because of ideological differences...thats fair. But to say you'd rather support a criminal who agrees with you, rather than someone you disagree with...thats why I am so anti-liberal.

Hey Ted, Thanks for clearing that up. I am in total agreement that if people were intentionally breaking the law, and doing things they KNEW were illegal...then throw the book at 'em. I also agree about the chain of command being responsible. I just disagreed with his wording that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were "following the examples" of their superiors. I just think the liberal media is being sensationalistic (like they were during memogate) in an attempt to pressure Repubs. At this point we don't even know what the 22 possible violations were. Peace.

This is why Dems struggle so much politically. Do they really think they are helping their cause by siding once again with the extremists in their party? Its like, "Hey, lets ONLY debate in front of people who have already drank the kool-aid." That doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. Were they afraid moveon.org and its cronies would start supporting Newt Gingrich if they didn't do what they said? Once again the Dems have shown they don't have a clue what they should do and are making decisions based on polls and internet petitions...typical.

complete article at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...n_as_extensive/ Okay...first of all I remember that story from over 3 years ago. It was investigated for three whopping months and died when it ALL fell on two staffers. The kicker is that it was found that BOTH staffers had been told NOT to access those files, and that Senior staffers had informed their democrat counterparts about the problem. The Dems called in a tech who "thought" he had fixed the problem, but didn't notice another previous error. This issue died before it began. Mostly it died because the democrats didn't want to defend the extremist nature of the memo's. On a personal note i think its funny because isn't it always the liberals who are demanding a "more transparent" government??? Transparency isn't all its cracked up to be...lol. Abu Ghraib was a bad thing. However, I don't think its fair to say these soldiers "learned" that behavior from their command staff. That behavior happened because there was inadequate training and inadequate oversight at the prison. That is also why the US Gov't began soliciting experienced Corrections Officers to go and work in those locations in a supervisory role. I think it is highly unfortunate that we had to suffer the black-eye of Abu Ghraib because of a few untrained nutjobs who let that power go their heads. There is simply no defense for it. I just don't tink its right to say that their superiors "taught" that type of action. There were only a few soldiers involved in that mess...many others acted professionally.

Ah...another history lesson from Time magazine. Its too bad that liberals write all the history books, cuz we may never remember what actually happened in history...at least not properly. Clinton lied in front of a Federal Judge. Thats perjury. Thats breaking a federal law. Clinton was charged with obstructing justice. Newt wasn't. Libs will re-write history and say it was about the sex...but it wasn't. It just so happened that Clinton broke the law to hide his infidelity...Newt did not. Newt said, ""I don't think the Congress could move forward only on Lewinsky." He wanted to go back to Whitewater and other investigations. Newt told the Washington Post that he believed only "a pattern of felonies" and "not a single human mistake" could constitute grounds for impeachment. So much for "heading up the push for the impeachment" as you like to put it. Now believe me...I am not naive enough to think that Newt was being all "christianly" in his softness toward the Clinton affair...he was clearly crossed up and needed to protect himself. I dislike Newt very much for his personal choices, and his very "ugly" treatment of marriage. He clearly does not view marriage the way I do. He clearly needs to learn sexual self-control. And I don't really like that he NOW feels the need to speak on issues of morality. Newt is a good politician, but I wouldn't wanna be married to him. Now...I don't hate Clinton for having sex with Monica Lewinski, (I don't really "hate" him at all) I truly don't. I very much dislike that a list of respectable women came forward claiming that he grabbed their breasts, or exposed himself to them. One woman claimed rape because he shoved his hand down her pants and fondled her while she struggled to get away. She never testified, and was entered as Jane Doe during the Paula Jones trial. Most of his security staff while he was Governor admitted under oath that they propositioned 100's of girls on Clintons behalf. Thats a little more than an affair in which two people lost their self-control and made a mistake. Clinton is a political genius. But I wouldn't want him to be in the same building with any female I know...or any female you know. Lastly: This is NOT news. Newts affair has been known for about...5 years now, at least. There is only ONE reason this is coming out AGAIN. Leftist political smear tactic. Liberals own most of the media and they use it to influence people. I find it HILARIOUS that all those hack reporters who told us that "sex was a private matter" it was "none of our business" are gleefully splattering Newts business on the front pages and blogishere's as if it was everybodies right to know....too funny. Newts two affairs were ugly, and disappointing vs. Clinton's perjury/obstructing justice and laundry list of sexual harassment/rape. Oh, and the lovely wifey (Hiliary) who stood by her man as he raped and pilliaged feminism...literally, lol. Its not even close.

When did Steve Camp get all self-righteous? I can kinda see his point about the Chevy tour...but geez, he makes it sound like Third Day and Max Lucado have turned their lives over to satan or something. I guess now that his career is dead he can sit back and criticize everyone else. Not that all CCMs are perfect...I know from personal experience they are not. He sounds like a KJV-only lyrics kinda guy. I read all three articles and all it did for me was make me sad for Steve Camp.

What do you propose Ted? You wanna fire these guys? Lock them up? Maybe banish them to Mexico? Mistakes are made. Nobody got hurt here. If one of these "mistakes" would have busted an Al Queda cell in Brooklyn...this would made the Front page. I would understand if some nutjob in the FBI was looking up cute girls addresses or something...but thats apparently not the case. These guys were given a new range of powers and they screwed up the paperwork. These guys have families and they are regular people just like me. I'm not gonna ruin their livelihood based on "22 possible errors." At the very most they should receive a progressive discipline...starting with a verbal warning.

AD...I kinda agree with you. I don't think anybody should have to "excuse" Bush for the errors he's made. You could say the same about ANY President. I know its fashionable to go after a President you dislike (Lord, knows I had a go or two at Clinton) but even I knew that impeachment of Clinton was a farce. Honestly...it wasn't even the "affair" that upset me about Clinton. It was the lie. You know people like me got Clinton elected...not that I voted for him. I voted for Ross Perot (save me the lecture,lol) because I refused to vote for Bush for a second term after he LIED. Then I get another lie told to me by Clinton who pointed at the camera and acted like I was too stupid to figure him out. Bush Jr, has made some mistakes and has really let me down in some ways...but I've never felt like he lied to me. That puts him over his dad and Clinton in my book. Last I heard, Newt wasn't Commander in Chief of one of the largest nations in the world while he was being a public embarrassment. I dislike cheaters, so I won't give Newt a pass...but its kinda disingenuous to link Newts affair to Clinton's sexual laundry list... Remember these: Kathleen Willey, Beth Coulsen, Monica Lewinsky, Shelia Lawrence, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning, Paula Jones, Marilyn Jo Jenkins, Cyd Dunlap. Those are women that testified UNDER OATH that Bill Clinton either fondled...exposed himself...or raped...thats NOT diversionary...its NOT a tactic...its a plain spoken REAL WORLD fact that Bill Clinton was the sleaziest scum to ever sit in the Oval Office...bar none! So pardon me if he happens to come up in a convo in which bad/embarrassing politicians are being discussed. I don't agree that Republican plans are bad. I think ideologically the Repubs are right where I like them. I think they are not showing very much wisdom in how to carry out their plans. Thats been an issue since day one for me.

My point is that it doesn't matter. I'll bet that everyone of us been "looked up" or "spied on" in some way that we are completely unaware of...and it hasn't HURT YOU one bit. Anybody at ANY agency could be dishonest...but that applies anywhere. Sure there are dishonest guys at the FBI who may scratch below the surface of a persons identity for nefarious reasons...it's illegal. Does that mean we have to have a public investigation and overhaul of the FBI? Uh...no! This should be an internal thing and dealt with as such, IMO. NOBODY gets hurt over this type of crime. Anybody who claims to have been hurt is a fruitloop who needs to be a bit less sensitive. And it has not even been revealed why the FBI cases involved were "possibly" targeted for deeper investigation. Its possible the agents involved had a hunch and ran with it. Furthermore...they haven't said what those "possible" investigations found. Your ready to crucify the FBI and you don't even know what they dug up. I can say with a straight face..."I have NOTHING to hide, and nothing to fear." I don't care. If the FBI showed up tomorrow and wanted to go through my house...I'd let them in and pour them coffee. I don't trust the average American citizen any more than you trust the gov't. Your "camera in the bathroom" comment has NOTHING to do with the convo, and you know that. Saying I'm not afraid of the gov't and its "alledged" abuse of power...has no reason to be ramped up to private in home monitoring. Thats the problem with you government phobia types...you think they are "out to get you." You can't discuss the gov't on logical grounds. I don't have your "fear of gov't" issues...therefore I "don't value my privacy AT ALL" and I should be open to 24hr gov't monitoring. Its just ludicrous. "Anti-Government Phobia" (AGP) is actually a psychological condition that has been tied to paranoid schizophrenia. For more info on AGP

oh no...the draft scare tactic... Why is it always "the draft?" It would almost be comical to see democrats trying to convince people that they seriously wanted to win the war by being MORE deadly. We have the numbers to win the war, so we can toss the draft idea. The problem is that everytime a soldier shoots somebody they are questioned to see if they "wanted" to kill...or their psycological reasons for "shooting" their gun. The liberal mindset is diametrically opposed to using force in Iraq...let alone "GO BIG." I wish the libs would tell Bush to "Go Big." We could end this in a week without all the liberal fallout that would ensue.

Name ONE US President that was perfect in every decision and action he did while in office. Good...glad we settled that! Bush has not been the best President...nor is he the worst. He made some bad mistakes in regards to how to fight the Iraq war. But he also made a some real positive moves in other areas. He did his best to protect this country from harm. Its been 6.5 yrs since 9/11 and not ONE terrorist attack has happened on US citizens, outside of war. Not one attack in our country, or on US soil. George Bush isn't Reagan who woulda smacked Iraq down hard. Reagan coulda probably had Saddam and Osama without starting any war. He was tough. On the other hand, he isn't as bad as Clinton who never saw a woman he wouldn't sexually harass (besides maybe Janet Reno)...and the Clinton who allowed multiple attacks on US targets including the WTC, embassies, and even the USS Cole...without ANY retaliation or consequences. If you don't like Bush...fine...but quit worrying about impeaching a President that is basically shutting it down as his term ends. Start trying to show America what your plan is for the future (besides constant whining) so that you stand a chance in the next election. As it stands now...the libs have shown America EXACTLY what conservatives have been saying all along..."The Democrats have NO plan."

Ahhhhh...the sky is falling!!! Check the wording of this article... ...found 22 possible breaches... are we talking about 22 POSSIBLE breaches??? This is news? ...could not be sure of the scope of the violations but suggested they could be more widespread, though not deliberate. So they don't actually KNOW how many...but they do know they "we're NOT deliberate." ...the Bush administration has asked the board to review and recommend changes in the FBI's use of national security letters. This was requested by the Admin. in order to fix any errors...so you can't even blame Bush (sad day for libs.) The WHOLE rest of the article is typical liberal bias and fear mongering. This is nothing new, and this was basically chalked up to user error. Happens ALL THE TIME. A police officer can access a national datacase and look-up just about ANYBODY. Thing is...it's illegal, and its not supposed to happen, but it happens all the time. Thats all this is. As I said before...if you have nothing to hide (which most people don't) then this is nothing at all. As Director Mueller said...their needs to be stricter rules to keep this from happening again. End of story.