It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us."

They have heard from us! They heard from us in Afghanistan, and we removed the Taliban. They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

They heard from us in Libya, and without firing a shot Gadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction.

They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists.

So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism?

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun. The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government. Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer. They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish. Some of those terrorists were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise."

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

...The president announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there." It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

And since September 11th President Bush has remained rock solid.

It doesn't matter how he is demonized. It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.

They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.

But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.

"Our enemies have made clear the danger they pose to our security and to the very essence of our culture...liberty...Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war. Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs. But we must fight. We must.

If elected president, John Kerry would offer Iran a deal allowing it to keep nuclear power plants and have a guaranteed source of fuel if it gave up the right to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, said Ashton Carter, an adviser to the campaign and former assistant secretary of Defense under the Clinton administration.

Carter said the proposal would apply not only to Iran but to other countries, such as Brazil, that have indicated they want to possess a full nuclear fuel cycle, which means they would be capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

"Nobody who does not have a fuel cycle should acquire one," Carter said.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Edwards said that if Iran did not accept this "great bargain," this would confirm it was building nuclear weapons under cover of a nuclear power initiative. If Iran rejected this proposal, Kerry would ensure European allies were prepared to join the United States in imposing strict sanctions against Iran, Edwards said.

Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon.

"If you don't get it done the way you expected to," Iverson said, "I think it's important that you get it done the best way you can. It's important that we come out and fight, and get the people proud of us back home."

Nobody conducted himself better, nor behaved like a better representative of this basketball team than he did in the games. Maybe everyone believed Iverson needed to bring back a gold medal to use the Olympics to rehabilitate his image. They were wrong. There was far more virtue in defeat than victory here. America found out much more about Iverson without him winning the gold, than it ever would've with him winning it.

"It's an honor to be named to this team," Iverson said. "It's something that you should cherish for the rest of your life. And honestly, this is something that I will cherish even without winning a gold medal. I feel like a special basketball player to make it to a team like this."

...On his way home, Iverson started recruiting teammates for 2008. He wants to come back again. He had the time of his life wearing the red, white and blue, and just hopes the United States will give itself its best chance for gold medal in Beijing.

"For as anybody who grew up in the U.S., and was able to be a basketball player in the NBA, you understand the things that your country has done for you and your family," he said. "It gave you an opportunity to be able to support your family and be recognized as a household name. It was just an honor to be able to do something like that, and I would advise anybody selected to a team like this to take that honor and cherish it.

"It shouldn't be a question in your mind. When you get a chance to represent your country, what's better than that?"

Maybe it's time everyone understands that even not winning a gold medal is better than that. And most of all, maybe it's time everyone takes a moment and looks past the cornrows and tattoos and bronze medal -- all the things they swore they never wanted to see on an Olympic basketball player -- and see what they believed they always did: one hell of a proud American.

The minute the ads of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had begun to draw blood, the Democrats attacked them as a giant, malevolent plot. The same plot, drawn up by a diabolical genius of unsurpassed malice and cunning, that has been causing Democrats trouble for so many years now, always unwarranted, always malicious, and always unfair. In today's Democratic imagination, there are no political accidents, no spontaneous movements, no genuine issues, and never a genuine weakness in a candidate. There are only diversions, cooked up and cleverly sold to a gullible public, "dirty tricks" supervised by conniving Republican masterminds, and schemes to undermine democracy.

...Most of the charges against the Republicans fall under the heading "dirty tricks." A "dirty trick" is any tactic used against Democrats in an election they later lose. Dirty tricks are invariably orchestrated by a dark genius (think Karl Rove or Lee Atwater), who has the power to exert mind control over vast populations. Usually, the trick consists of hanging a lantern on a glaring flaw in a Democrat that anyone not a Democrat could already spot miles away.

...RATIONAL PEOPLE think differently. As David Broder points out in the Washington Post, the Swift boat controversy is part of a war that will die only with the last boomer, and one that John Kerry should have foreseen. "Kerry may be judged naive to have thought that Vietnam would be a golden credential . . . and not an inevitable source of controversy," Broder writes. "In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that 'I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War,' apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record." In short, the Swifties' reaction was predictable, and rooted in Kerry's behavior and choices. Kerry, like Dukakis in 1988 and the 2002 Democrats, made his own problems. But don't tell that to the Kerry campaign.

As Tod Lindberg notes in the Washington Times, contemporary Democrats are almost unique among modern political groups in the extent to which they tend to trace all of their setbacks to monstrous and sinister plots. But perhaps they may have to, as a way of reframing a set of reversals they would otherwise find it extremely painful to explain.

Ok, you've got to reanswer, because you're misunderstanding my point apparently.

First: "The whole "Bush lied"-matter again, appears, at least to me, to be linked more to your preconceived notions about the President."

There are many things that I feel about Bush that definately come from my preconcieved notions about him and about his policies, take for example the FMA, which I think is abhorent to American Ethos of freedom, but that is neither here nor there. In the case of some of Bush's statements leading up to the war, Bush was objectivly dishonest. In my reading of your responses, you keep redefining the
question so that you don't have to get to that logical step.

Second: "I've never once felt that the President used 9/11 (vis-a-vis a connection between it and Iraq) as justification for attacking Iraq."

I think this may be a part of your preconcieved notions getting in the way. Bush, and Cheney, and others of the Administration did use that as a reason for war, either explicitly, or in my "emotional shove" sense, which I will get to next. Bush used it in, I forget if it was his State of the Union, or another speech, where he technically said "blah blah blah Al Qaeda. "terrorists, blah blah, Saddam" (real technical transcript, I know) but with every intent, and plenty of success in linking Saddam and not just any terrorists, but Al Qaeda and thus Osama and 9/11 in many peoples minds. Cheney also repeatedly linked 9/11 and Saddam in speeches. I'm not saying these were the only reasons they gave for the war, I'm just saying that these had a lot of convincing power for a lot of people, and perhaps congresspersons and senators as well, and it was dishonest, because he gave the impression of "proof" where none existed (or as you contend, as much as could have existed did, but not enough to ever be 'legal' proof) Yet Bush, nor Cheney didn't argue the 'as much as we're gonna get' argument, they said "it's there."

Third: "You've even shifted your focus. Originally, you said that you felt that Bush lied about a connection between Iraq and 9/11, and now, you say that you feel instead, that he lied in that he used 9/11 as an "emotional shove" to make the American people buy in."

I did not shift my focus, if you read it that way, perhaps I was not clear enough in my writing. Again, if your interpretation were what I had said, I would not have an argument, I have no problem with Bush's saying (though I may disagree with the outcome) some sort of "remember 9/11, Saddam could do it in the future." But that wasn't all that Bush said. What I was trying to get across was that Bush (and by Bush, I mean the administration principals, not just him personally) used the idea that Saddam had ties to the actual 9/11 attack. This argument is that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 (at least in part, and provably) and thus by attacking we're going after the culprit, not just another threat. That was the emotional shove i was talking about, Bush's saying "lets go get the guy who caused 9/11". This had a great affect on a number of Americans, I don't have any specific poll #s in front of me, but it was (and probably still is) the fact that very larger percentages of the public believed Saddam had something material to do with 9/11, despite any sort of actual facts. My interpretation of those poll #s? People listened to Bush and Cheney link 9/11 and Saddam publically, and trusted him, even though it wasn't true.

Fourth: "Similarly, there is nothing even remotely dishonest in relating the fact that Al-Qaeda is not the be-all and end-all of Islamic terrorism."

That wouldn't even be remotely dishonest, but that's not what was done. In public statements, as said above, Bush didn't just say Saddam funds Hezbollah, et al, and this is a terrorist threat that we must meet now. Bush and Cheney, et al, publically linked Saddam to Al Qaeda, saying there was "proof".

But see, again, you're not refuting my point, at all. You interpret the President's speech (because of the duplicity you assume in regard to Bush, et. al.) in regard to 9/11, Al-Qaeda, and terrorism in general (including Iraq) as an attempt to link Iraq to 9/11, whereas I viewed it (because of MY mindset in regard to foreign policy) as a simple statement entailing the obvious philosophical and strategic connections between 9/11, and the overall phenomenon of Islamic terrorism - as embodied in this case by Saddam Hussein's support of Islamic terror throughout the region, and indeed throughout the world. Again, my point isn't to say that you're lying - not at all; it's simply that what you interpret as a falsehood - as a duplicitous and intentionally misleading statement, I interpret as a self-evident statement entailing the war on terror in its broader (and most appropriate) context. No conspiracy on either side - simply a conflict of worldviews.

I also tend to think that you're coming dangerously close to trying to read minds and intentions in this case. The fact of the matter is that, while not everyone agrees, it is certainly not out of the mainstream of foreign policy analysis to view the attack on Iraq as a natural outgrowth of the events of September 11th. Within the context of a broad-based war on Islamic terror (the conditions of which were clearly spelled out by the Administration), Iraq is a plainly legitimate target in a conflict that was, by necessity, touched off by the attacks of 9/11.

This line of criticism is, to my mind, rather like attacking FDR for declaring war on Germany in the days following December 7, 1941. After all, Japan attacked us, not Germany, so why should we attack on a second front when only the one nation had physically attacked us (despite the fact that Germany and Japan were allies)? It is a mindset built on reaction, rather than positive action. While this, too, is a legitimate mindset, the President spelled out, in no uncertain terms, that we would no longer wait until actually being hit to confront those who have declared their intentions to hit us. Again, you may certainly disagree with this policy (and many do), but it is by no means duplicitous, deceitful or out of the mainstream.

If I've misread your line of quesitoning (in regard to my claim that you "shifted your focus"), forgive me. I don't like it when others put words in my mouth, and certainly didn't intend to do so in your case. I was simply reacting to what you had written, and may well have misunderstood your intention.

Again, nothing that the President (or his surrogates) said has ever once led me to believe that they were claiming that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 - even before this became a Democratic accusation against the President (that is to say, I haven't conveniently "forgotten" a conclusion that I came to earlier). So, while you may feel that they made such claims, I hardly feel that this is conclusive proof to the contrary (no offense intended - I simply mean to say that they can't, in all fairness, be held responsible for the conclusions that you came to).

Again, I've a feeling that this all, once again, comes down to a matter of "burden of proof"/interpretation, but there is, in fact, proof that agents of Al-Qaeda met, through the years, with agents of the Hussein government. Does this mean that there was active collusion? As I've said, I don't know, but it's not stretching the truth to say that there is proof of a relationship of one kind or another.


-Jared

This is going to dismay my pastor, whom I adore. She sees me as a faithful member of her small but vibrant United Methodist Church, which I am. What she doesn't know is how frustrated I've become with Christianity in particular and religion in general. (emphasis mine)

Our 150-member church in Louisville (Hmmm...he's in the Boulder area - surprise, surprise) is warm and loving. It truly cares about people and their deep-felt hurts and problems. It conducts a fantastic food-basket program for those in need throughout the community. Names on the church's prayer list reach far beyond the membership. The pastor preaches regularly about the keys to happiness, the two most often cited being trusting Jesus and learning to forgive.

All of the above is what I like about attending church and being a part of its leadership.

What I don't like is how the rising tide of conservatism in national politics is trying to redefine Christianity and claim it as an ally. Suddenly, being a follower of Christ has greater meaning than loving your fellow man, turning the other cheek and caring for the less fortunate.

Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[5] 37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. - Matthew 10:34-39

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no-one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.
3 In reply Jesus declared, I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. - John 3:1-3

And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out.

One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons...The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam...

As long ago as last December, the press was laughing at John Kerry and his chances to win the nomination. Now, they seem deeply offended that President Bush has even decided to run for re-election. Where it gets really weird is to watch the same people who were deriding Kerry just a year ago, [who] now are willing to 'go to the mattresses' for him.

The media “wants Kerry to win” and so “they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” and “there’s going to be this glow about” them...

Without erecting a gold dome, copper roof or 100-year masonry building, the University of Denver last week took a giant step toward becoming a world-class institution.

DU's Graduate School of International Studies hosted billionaire philanthropist George Soros at its annual Korbel Dinner. Soros received the school's first Global Philanthropist's Award and delivered the keynote speech to 650 of Denver's old guard and new - conservatives, academics, progressives and the well-heeled. A few walked out, some hissed or booed, but many others interrupted the 20-minute address with applause.

Soros received the school's first Global Philanthropist's Award and delivered the keynote speech to 650 of Denver's old guard and new - conservatives, academics, progressives and the well-heeled. A few walked out, some hissed or booed, but many others interrupted the 20-minute address with applause.

The 73-year-old, Hungarian-born entrepreneur has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in more than 50 countries. Through his Open Society Institute, Soros establishes foundations, directed by local citizens, committed to advancing the values of an open society and the institutional and economic reform necessary to sustain them.

The "open society" concept, Soros said, "is based on the recognition that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth and a critical process is essential to avoid and correct mistakes."

In Soros' view, the Patriot Act and the authorization to pre-emptively and unilaterally attack Iraq - and dismissing debate as unpatriotic - were fundamentally wrong. Both were a dangerous reversion "to the cynical pursuit of our narrow self-interest."

In The Open Society, Popper had provided not only a devastating philosophical critique of the underpinnings of totalitarianism, particularly as they had been realized in the then-contemporary evils of both Marxism and fascism, but a passionate defense of democratic liberalism.

In the present context, it seems both sad and necessary to point out that the term "open society" as Popper used it means almost exactly the opposite of what those words are nowadays meant to imply in the mouths of the political actors on whom George Soros is currently lavishing millions of dollars. For Popper, the enemy was totalitarianism, especially in its two most devastating 20th-century manifestations, Nazism and Communism. For many if not most of Soros's current beneficiaries the enemy seems to be the United States of America itself. They, of course, would say that they only mean to make the country a better place. Yet when spelled out in greater political and legislative detail, "better" somehow ends up meaning more antinomian at home and more at the mercy of those who wish the country ill abroad.

Now whether Mr. Soros supposes that the ambition for America to rule the world was George W. Bush's own all along, or whether he believes that the president was at some point pushed, or perhaps pulled, into adopting it, he does not actually venture to say. But there is clearly no doubt in his mind that the American government's setting out to achieve global supremacy had originally been the idea of a certain dangerous, and dangerously influential, "cabal"—indeed, he would probably characterize the group in question as a downright full-scale conspiracy.

...The author points out that until September 11, 2001, this cabal had no way of turning their real thirst for global power into policy and were thus required to hold back from revealing the true nature of their plans for the administration they had infiltrated so successfully.

...Then of course came the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Thus, to Mr. Soros's version of events, it was not surprising that the war on terrorism which resulted from the events of September 11 gave the president just the opportunity he and his neocon fellow conspirators had been waiting for. In order to silence criticism and at the same time keep the nation united behind him, he deliberately fostered the fear of terrorists in our midst that now gripped the country. In doing so, Bush found himself at long last in a position to pursue the old neocon-inspired and supremely dangerous dream of American global supremacy. And it was precisely this dream that not very much later would send the United States into Iraq, where it would all too deservedly come a cropper—if not during the war itself then certainly during its aftermath.

And listen to George Soros's own application of what he imagines he learned at the feet of the master. In his view, the outcome of the Cold War which ended in the defeat of Communism did not, as people seemed to believe, prove that capitalism was the superior system. While there is no doubt, he says, that the Communist model turned out to be inferior to free enterprise, that is "only because the free enterprise model has been pursued in a less dogmatic, extremist way than the Communist one."

Reading the above passage, one finds it difficult to believe one's eyes. Somewhere, either between Hungary and London, or between London and New York, Mr. Soros seems to have misplaced the terms democracy and freedom—the latter, of course, having been the main "model" counterposed to Communism, particularly from within the Soviet world—and from without, of course, there was in addition the mighty and, as it would turn out, liberating power of the United States.

Finally, Soros tells us that he used to be more balanced in his relation to the two main parties, leaning only slightly more toward the Democrats. In any case, previously he did not consider it a matter of life or death which party won the elections, but he does now. The defeat of George Bush is essential, as the book's subtitle puts it, to "correcting the misuse of American power."

Thus the mountain of social philosophy has labored and brought forth…John Kerry. Soros's intellectual vanity and social ingratitude have been well requited.

the Patriot Act and the authorization to pre-emptively and unilaterally attack Iraq - and dismissing debate as unpatriotic - were fundamentally wrong

...and dismissing debate as unpatriotic

Perhaps graduate school Dean Tom Farer expressed it best in describing his reaction to a patron who informed him that she would never give another dime to the school or to the university. "Aren't we a society open to critical thought?" he asked. "Isn't that the genius of the American way? Isn't it un-American to try to use one's wealth to coerce a university into limiting the range of views? A patriot should help the university foster a broad and open public debate."

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[2] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[3] 32This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. - Ephesians 5:25-33

The bill clearly violates the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. If the bill passes, it will place Sweden on level with China, with the state defining which theology is permissible....Europe, still a stronghold of religious freedom, seems about to change directions in an alarming fashion. The churches must awaken to the danger. - Johan Candelin, Finnish Lutheran pastor, and President of the World Evangelical Alliance's Religious Liberties Commission commenting on Sweden's constitutional amendment (2003) that, among other things, declares religious condemnation of homosexual behavior to be hate speech, punishable by imprisonment.

A Swedish court sentenced a Pentecostal pastor to one month in prison after finding him guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon. The case was the first trial test of the national law against incitement as applied to speech about homosexuals.

Last year during a sermon delivered in the east coast town of Borgholm, Ake Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He called homosexuals "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God."

During proceedings, the public prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, played a tape recording from the sermon. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, he justified the arrest by saying, "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech." (Emphasis mine)

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. "Fair" is whatever the rules are before the election starts, that everyone agrees to play by. For years, my friends would argue that the NFL needed more wild card slots, since it wasn't "fair" if someone ended up in a division behind the Cowboys. I never understood this logic. If it's understood that you need to win your division to get in, that's what's "fair." You want to trade away every draft pick for the rest of the decade because "the Future is Now?" Fine, just don't come crawling back when half your team is on Medicaid next year. I didn't understand the logic then, and I don't understand it now. Besides which, nobody's good forever.

This logic is also applied selectively. Diana DeGette's going to win with 70% of the vote, and I don't hear her complaining about how my vote doesn't "count."

As a small businessman and farmer, I know that private enterprise, not government, creates jobs. But government policies and priorities can make a difference to families and businesses, and Washington has an obligation to act responsibly, and fairly, when it comes to federal spending, the deficit and tax and fiscal policy.

Unfortunately, too many families are struggling, feeling the pain of job cuts and insecurity, and their dreams for the future put on hold or changed forever. I want to be a voice in the Senate for those families.

One of my highest priorities will be to promote policies that create jobs and economic opportunity. I will work with business and community leaders throughout Colorado to achieve that goal.

Government should be a responsible steward of the money entrusted to it, and it should prepare now to meet its future obligations. Yet in just three years, the federal budget has gone from record surpluses to record deficits. Today, the national debt has grown to more than $60,000 for each and every American household. That must change.

As a Senator, I will be a strong voice for fiscally conservative policies that don't saddle our children and grandchildren with even more debt. America's long-term economic health is at a crossroads. It is simply immoral to pass the responsibility of paying off the national debt onto our children and their children.

I am committed to work on crafting deficit reduction proposals. Our nation needs a balanced approach, a combination of spending cuts, budget reforms, and tax reforms that spread fairly the pain of deficit reduction.

Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you...We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

No one likes paying more taxes. But we must have a fairer tax policy that rewards work, not just wealth. We need to be realistic: we cannot fund a strong national defense, homeland security, continue the war and nation-building in Iraq, as well as address education, health care, infrastructure and other domestic needs, at the same time that we permanently and significantly reduce our revenue base. Those who suggest we can safely increase spending while we permanently decrease taxes risk crippling the economic future of our nation.

I will also be an independent voice for agriculture and our rural economy and small towns. Economically, Colorado has become two states -- many parts prosperous, dynamic, and growing, and others poorer, stagnant, and shrinking. I want to prevent the permanent creation of "Two Colorados."

The federal government has had a long and important role in helping rural economies, from the Homestead Act designed to bring settlers west to the efforts of President Kennedy to revitalize Appalachia. The time is ripe for a similar effort today.

the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 35 percent of the income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay 65 percent; and the top 25 percent pay nearly 83 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay barely 4 percent of income taxes.

I support responsible, common-sense tax cuts for low- and middle-income workers and their families and small businesses. For example, we should make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty; make permanent the expanded bottom 10% tax bracket; continue the child care tax credit for the middle class; make sure the alternative minimum tax does not reach middle-income taxpayers; and raise the estate tax exemption to $10 million to allow family farms, ranches and small businesses to stay in the family. I will fight to close unfair tax loopholes that encourage big corporations to move their headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes, and other unfair tax breaks, while supporting corporate tax changes that encourage domestic investment.

Over the past decade, America has lost an average of 7.71 million jobs every quarter. The commonly cited Forrester Research prediction of jobs lost to outsourcing estimates that 3.3 million service jobs will be outsourced between 2000 and 2015 - an average of 55,000 jobs outsourced per quarter. According to these numbers, at worst, jobs lost to outsourcing represent only 0.71 percent of all jobs lost per quarter as part of normal turnover in the economy.

Other consulting firms have jumped on the bandwagon, but the author of the original Forrester study "now says his numbers were hyped" and expresses frustration that the issue has spun out of context. The context, of course, is the net positive impact of trade and technology. America has averaged gross gains of 8.11 million jobs per quarter over the past decade - an average net increase of 400,000 jobs every quarter, swamping the impact of outsourcing.

The new interest in outsourcing is producing a wave of new research, and the overwhelming consensus vindicates the position espoused by Greg Mankiw, renowned Harvard economist and current chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, that trade-induced labor flows are a net positive for the U.S. economy.

First, the gains of trade have been shown to vastly outweigh the costs, even when job dislocations are factored into account.

Second, the U.S. economy is going through a permanent structural change, so the labor force dislocations are more severe than during normal recessions, which means the productivity gains are higher as well. The data support the theory here, with the U.S. economy experiencing record high gains in productivity.

Finally, even net jobs are gained due to outsourcing, as emphasized by a recent Global Insight study:
While global IT software and service outsourcing displaces some IT workers, total employment in the United States increases as the benefits ripple through the economy. The incremental economic activity that follows offshore IT outsourcing created over 90,000 net new jobs in 2003 and is expected to create 317,000 net new jobs in 2008.

Believing that offshore outsourcing causes unemployment is the economic equivalent of believing that the sun revolves around the earth: intuitively compelling but clearly wrong.

The highest duty of any government is the protection and safety of its people. As Colorado's Attorney General, I am keenly aware of this solemn obligation. The security of our country and our citizens, at home and around the globe, is one of the most significant challenges for America. Unfortunately, although Washington talks about the war on terror, our homeland is not more secure.

Until recently, our enemies were hostile states, with governments that, however misguided, were nonetheless keen on their own self-preservation and ultimately hoped to avoid war with the United States. Today, however, our enemies include a constantly changing array of terrorists, weapons proliferators, organized crime affiliates, and shadowy individuals and organizations. Longstanding religious, ethnic, cultural or tribal conflicts and grudges form the basis for some of their hateful motivation. In the 21st century, our enemies are diverse, dynamic, unpredictable, and constantly evolving. Although there is no military power that can challenge America today or in the foreseeable future, these new enemies pose new challenges. They embrace conflict and do not care about self-preservation. Their goal is not to defeat our armed forces, but to defeat our spirit.

The extermination of international terrorism is our highest national priority.

We need to regather our friends and allies to this essential international goal, a goal we all share. Our foreign policy is most effective when we act as the leader of a broad coalition of nations. The free world was united in its revulsion of the September 11 terrorist attacks and in its commitment to wage war on terrorism. After September 11, the U.S. acted correctly in pursuing, with international support, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, that international unity dissolved with the invasion of Iraq. Although it was argued that the attack on Saddam Hussein was part of the war on terror, many of our closest allies doubted our intelligence and questioned the need for the invasion.

The President and his administration presented a case to Congress and the American people on the imminent danger presented by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, President Bush committed a grave mistake in how he pulled the trigger of war. That decision was based on faulty intelligence, a failure to develop the international coalitions needed to succeed, and an underestimation of the difficulty and costs of the war in Iraq.

The men and women of our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have served with bravery and professionalism, and we must do all we can to support these young men and women -- and their families at home -- as they fight to establish peace and stability in foreign lands.

Even though sovereignty has now been officially handed over to Iraq’s new leadership, the United States will likely remain there for the foreseeable future. As we work to bring greater stability to the region, we need to take a hard look at the lessons learned by acting without broad international support, and with intelligence that has proved to be faulty and misleading.

We must also commit ourselves to fight terror without sacrificing the very freedoms we are fighting to protect. Many terrorists see our way of life and our personal freedoms as a direct challenge: We are democratic, they are autocratic; we value diversity, they demand religious, cultural or political uniformity; we look forward to a future of peace, they look back to a past of violence. If we sacrifice our freedoms and values in the name of war on terror, then we give the terrorists their first victory. By protecting the rights and liberties that define America, even as we fight terrorism, we demonstrate that our strength and justice flow from these American principles.

None of what we must do to meet the challenges of national defense and homeland security is easy or inexpensive. But failure to act aggressively and wisely will cost more in the long run, both in terms of human lives, and the impact on our economy, security, and freedom.

[An] unidentified leasing agent, caught on audio tape earlier this year by former mall tenant Simon Campari, had said her office was gearing up for a marketing campaign aimed at helping the mall attract more white shoppers.

The agent also said, "We just want to reduce the negative, um, aspects of the center - one of them is the young, black customer," according to the audiotape.

The leasing agent, who has not been identified, was suspended Tuesday by Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group.

As far as appearance and whatnot, I think people have the freedom to choose what image they're going to project, but they have to accept the consequences that it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Some people are gonna hate regardless, but sometimes, we provoke it ourselves.

Republicans will try to sink Ken Salazar by tagging him a lawyer, a career politician and the man who could hand control of the U.S. Senate to Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

Democrats will try to paint Pete Coors as an empty suit - a bumbling neophyte who can't handle complex issues or name the prime minister of Canada.

National politics could be the wild card. Many analysts continue to see the presidential race shaping up as a tight one in Colorado, which likely means Coors joining President Bush onstage and Salazar stumping with John Kerry.

In a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats, control of the Senate could become an issue, too.

Coors has already said on the campaign trail that Salazar would help a Kerry administration agenda pass the Senate. Salazar has long promised not to rubber-stamp any president's proposals.

And so it begins.

Red and I go way back. He was at the March 20 rally, where he spoke as a representative of an anti-military group called SNAFU. As one of the local leaders of ANSWER, he helped to organize the April 3 march on the 32nd Street Naval Station, during which he openly declared his dream of a communist revolution in America (and ran straight to the cops when he realized his rally had been infiltrated by Protest Warriors). At the June 5 ANSWER rally in Los Angeles, he called us “f---ing fascists,” and threatened to “kick (our) a***s.” Red’s a real charmer.

...“You should know,” Red tells me, “That if you guys come to another ANSWER rally, we won’t be quite so tolerant as this group.” All of his comrades nod in agreement.

“Is that a warning?”

“Yeah – that’s a flat-out warning.” He’s basically threatening me at this point.

“You want to repeat that ‘warning’ into my microphone?” I ask, showing him my digital recorder.

“No.”

“Some peace group you guys are.” I chuckle.

“Oh, we’re not a peace group, we’re just anti-war.” Red replies.

Amazon.com, in response to an inquiry from The National Debate, is removing a faux Editorial Review of an anti-Kerry book, Unfit for Command, posted on the Amazon.com web site. The review, attributed to Senator John McCain, reads:

Editorial Review

"Dishonest and dishonorable... none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded."

..."Someone used the publishers submission form," Smith said, "a 'bad actor', who used the system in a way that they should not have." Smith stressed that the form was reviewed but not reviewed properly.

But memos and e-mails between federal prosecutors, obtained by The Associated Press, say Las Vegas authorities were alerted to some of the footage by Aug. 30, 2002. Later, numerous local law enforcement officials were invited by a senior FBI agent to view the footage, but most spurned the invitation, the memos say.

One document quotes a federal prosecutor in Las Vegas as saying the mayor was concerned about the "deleterious effect on the Las Vegas tourism industry" if the Detroit evidence became public. Another memo states the casinos didn't want to see the footage for fear it would make them more likely to be held liable in civil court if an attack occurred.

"The information, unfortunately, was not taken as seriously as we believed it to have been," Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino told AP in an interview, recounting how only two local police officers took up the FBI agent's offer to see the tape.

"The reason that he (the FBI agent) was given for the low turnout was because of liability. That if they heard this information they would have to act on it. It was extraordinarily unacceptable and absolutely outrageous," Convertino said.

The prosecutor said he later asked a Las Vegas police officer, who had seen the tape and flown to Detroit to help, why more wasn't done. "This officer told me that the amount of money that travels through Las Vegas on a daily, weekly and monthly basis — if something doesn't go boom, nothing is going to be done," he said.

What should have been exclusively about electability has turned into a mean contest filled with personal assaults.

How did they get to this point?

On a national level, Democrats have effectively funneled millions to independent 527 groups throughout the year, saving candidates the trouble of launching their own negative ads.

In Colorado, Republicans seem to be confused, employing 527s in a counterproductive way.

One of the 527 groups that has sprung up is called Colorado Conservative Voters. And they are breaking Ronald Reagan's oft-cited Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize fellow Republicans.

Their 30-second spot, most of you have probably already heard, goes on to tell us that "Beer executive Pete Coors says we should lower the drinking age so teenagers can drink. ... Makes you wonder what else we should know about Pete Coors. Oh, Pete!"

Do they really believe Pete Coors supports a "radical homosexual agenda"?...Do they believe that Coors wants to encourage teenagers to drink?...Do they believe he's pro-abortion?

If they answer yes to those questions, then Schaffer is the man.

But what there is no question about is Democrat Ken Salazar's position. He advocates abortion rights. If elected, Salazar will certainly help Democrats vote to roll back tax cuts and will likely vote for an estate tax, a marriage tax, dividend tax and about every other tax you can think of. Salazar will join the Democrats in obstructing the vote on judges that share their moral outlook.

"I worry because the personal nature of this attack stuff on Coors won't make it easy for the all the Republicans to get together," Kline says. "If I am right, it will be an unfortunate turn of events."

Schaffer's campaign manager, Pat Fiske, doesn't believe it will be a problem: "I know Bob will step forward and do the things that need to be done in the event he loses. He'll do the things he needs to do to unite the party."

And Salazar will run away with this race if Republicans can't get over the petty viciousness, nomadic alliances and unite to face the challenge of one of the most pivotal Senate races in the country.

In fact, for Republicans, it couldn't be simpler. A majority in the Senate is everything. Coors or Schaffer? That's a bit more complicated.

Whenever I talk to potential jurors before trial, I am amazed at the number of them who have been victims of crime. There are even more who have had a family member or close friend who has been victimized in some way. Criminals have more rights than victims and are often represented by some of the best attorneys money can buy. The people of this community need a District Attorney who will represent their interests above all others, ensure that every case is prosecuted with excellence and professionalism, and who will provide leadership and accountability to the law enforcement community.

...It is not enough that we keep doing things as we have always done them. Criminals do not. We must be vigilant in looking for ways that we can better serve the public, decrease crime, and remove people from the community who choose to disregard our laws and prey upon our citizens.

...But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book...

...Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

The President should call a press conference, with Senator McCain at his side, and disassociate his campaign from the current commercials and related hype associated with Swift Boats. He should remind the public that both he and Kerry were honorably discharged. He should express empathy for Senator Kerry, given that he has repeatedly been accused of being AWOL by the Chairman of the DNC. He should then conclude by stating that he is willing to be judged by his record as a public official and President, just as he is sure that Kerry is willing to be judged by his actions as a public official and Senator.

In short, the President should offer a gracious, conciliatory gesture--something that seems to come natural to him--and offer Kerry the chance to do the same. I have no idea whether this would be politically astute, but it would seem to be the right thing to do, and it would emphasize that he, at least, is connected to the current reality.

Revisiting Vietnam in 2004 seems about as useful as debating the Phillippines war while the troop ships are sending Doughboys to the trenches in France. We have more pressing issues, I think. The news today noted that the men arrested at the Albany mosque were fingered by some documents found at Al-Ansar sites in Iraq, of all places. Iraq! Imagine that. I would sleep better if I could snort sure, it’s a plant and tell myself that it’s all made up, it’s all a joke, a phony show designed to make us look the other way while a cackling cabal of Masons and Zionists figure out how much arsenic they can put in the water next year. (Arsenic: the fluoride of the left.) But no. I am one of those sad little pinheads who think it’s really one war, one foe, with a thousand fronts. And I want us to win.

ANTI-KERRY VETS HANG TOUGH
Fri Aug 06 2004 13:37:12 ET

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow.

"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam."

END

Gandalf finds a place in British history

A sizeable slice of younger Britons think Gandalf, Horatio Hornblower or Christopher Columbus was the hero of the English fleet's defeat of the Spanish Armada, a survey showed today.

Less than half identified Sir Francis Drake as a key figure in one of the most famous sea battles in British history, the poll for the BBC showed.

A third of 16 to 34-year-olds did not know that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings, while more than a fifth of 16 to 24-year-olds thought Britain had been conquered by the Germans, the Americans or the Spanish.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) Federal agents and city police conducted an overnight raid on a mosque, with armed officers sealing off a block in downtown for several hours.

Mosque members said the imam, Yassim Aref, was arrested at his home early this morning. Another mosque leader, Mohammed Mosharref Hoosain, an owner of a downtown pizzeria, also was arrested at his home, according to mosque members.

CBS News, citing unidentified law enforcement officials, reported Thursday that the two were caught in a sting operation and tried to buy shoulder-fired missiles from an undercover agent. They were arrested after one of them recently bought a plane ticket, CBS said.

We divided the list of calls up country by country. Then, we engaged a number of Arabic speakers and started making cold calls. Every night at midnight — when the tolls were low and it was daylight on the other side of the world — we would begin dialing numbers in the Middle East. When someone picked up we would engage him in random, nondescript conversation. “How are you? How are things going? I’m calling from the U.S. Do you want to know what’s happening here?” One way or another we tried to get them to talk to us.


More than 49 out of 50 calls would be a dead end. The person answering would hang up or wouldn’t have any idea of what we were talking about. But that one in fifty proved to be a treasure trove of information. At one point we ended up talking to the son of blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the infamous Jersey City imam who plotted a day of terror for Manhattan. Another time we reached the spiritual leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Little by little it became obvious that all these groups were coordinating their effort in a worldwide network.


Then one day the phone rang, and we hit an absolute gold mine. The caller was a brave Sudanese who was a member of the Republican Brotherhood, a group opposed to Dr. Hassan al-Turabi’s fundamentalist regime in Sudan. He was now working as a plumber in Brooklyn. He was in the basement of a building and had just come across scores of boxes of old records that appeared to be the property of Alkhifa Refugee Center, also known as the Office of Services for the Mujahideen, the predecessor to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda international network. The records had apparently been moved there after the World Trade Center bombing from Alkhifa headquarters at the Al-Farooq Mosque on Atlantic Avenue. He wondered if we would be interested.

This time, the theme has to do with the bogeyman, that thing under the bed, the closet monster, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, WMD and the other things that are created to pump fear into the minds of those needing fear.

...The film is entirely relevant given the society of fear we live in and is being proliferated at every corner of our world. The constant alerts, the unseen, ever-present enemy. There are people absolutely phobic about not only the terrorist threat just down the street, but to an even higher degree? the fear of crime and incident. A belief that something will get them, because the news reports on murders, accidents, threats and travesty. Human suffering and wallowing in it only breeds an ever-evolving bitter and resentful class that will eventually walk outside and notice that the sky is indeed not falling. That there is no team of horses pulling the sun across the sky, and that? well SOYLENT GREEN is made out of people!

So how does FAHRENHEIT 9/11 stack up to Capra?s great work of Propaganda? Well, pretty damn good actually. In some ways, I feel the title of the movie should be: WHY WE VOTE, because honestly? that?s what this film is about and for. Like Capra, Michael is looking to erase any sense of propriety from this administration. Michael Moore shows the viewer how this isn?t just one Bush, but all the Bushes that we need to burn.

...At every point in this film, it is about defaming and ridiculing Bush? showing him to be an insincere ignorant desperate servant of the powers that be. That he is not a President, but a man that doesn?t care about America, Americans, Soldiers, The Homeland, Justice or the Truth.

When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters' fears of terrorism. It's not rational, but it's psychologically plausible--blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over.
I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)."

That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better.

No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush.

"I've been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush," he said. "I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."

Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: "I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power." (emphasis mine)

But Faust, a political newcomer, said Musgrave has taken a party of compromise under former President Ronald Reagan and helped turn it into one harboring extremists.

"The majority of the Republican leadership today is right-winged and not open- minded to the views of the majority of Americans," Faust said.

Faust, a proponent of a national health care system and opponent of a gay-marriage ban, said he decided to run against Musgrave to give moderates in the party an alternative.

"People kept telling me that I shouldn't run because Marilyn is who the powers-that-be in the party want in Washington," Faust said. "To me that's just sad."

If elected, Faust would push for a restructuring of payroll taxes to fund basic medical, dental and vision coverage for all Americans. Also, veterans would be allowed to use local hospitals and clinics rather than be required to use Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.

Faust also favors creating a system of national colleges and universities and eliminating "in-state" and "out-of-state" tuition. (emphasis mine)

Fort Morgan - Her opponents say Marilyn Musgrave is too far right to represent Colorado well in Congress. (who, specifically? Does the fact that a candidate's political opponents make such a "shocking" declaration somehow give it creedence enough to merit such a mention?)

But some of those she represents in her home 4th District say they like where she has planted herself on the political spectrum. ("Some", like the majority of voters in her district, or "some", as-in a few nutjobs who, to The Post are obviously out of their minds, and worthy only of dismissal?)

But some of those she represents in her home 4th District say they like where she has planted herself on the political spectrum.

"I like her for a number of reasons, but more than anything, she stays close to the community," said Greg Klenda, a trucker and Fort Morgan resident.

Klenda, wearing a cowboy hat and cowboy boots, stood along a Fort Morgan street on a recent Saturday morning taking photos of a parade celebrating the town's Festival in the Park.

...Nah," said the rail-thin Klenda, "Matsunaka is way too liberal for me. I like Musgrave; she's more conservative."

Meanwhile, some experts are calling for a national review of the security surrounding explosives.

They say law enforcement has almost no standards for storing powerful explosives.

Federal and local agencies do not have to keep records or have permits -- unlike private companies.

And experts say the bay area theft shows the need for new rules.

"If the standards were followed and these perpetrators were able to overcome the standards, then it might suggest the standards be reviewed," said Francis Edwards, a terrorism expert.