News-Record.com

Ron, It is unfortunate and sad too many people agree with Moore's point of view. With these people there is no middle of the road or compromise. You are either with them, which makes you right, patriotic and American, or you're aganist them, which makes you wrong, unpatriotic and anti-American.

I read it in this forum every day. For some there is no tolerence for differences of belief or opinion. The attitude of "I don't care what anyone else thinks or how they feel" is far too common lately.

I cannot remember our nation being so divided before, not even during the Vietnam war era. I can't remember a time when people were so blatently disrespectful and mean-spirited towards one another.

There are several people here who have asked for civil discourse and discussions. Personally I think this is a reasonable request. It is within our power to be part of the problem or part of the solution. So what's it going to be folks?

I wanted to say this before the conservatives show up.

"Roosevelt was a limp-wristed bleeding-heart liberal democrat!"

Now that should be settled. ;)

Thank you Mr. Russo for reminding us that it is patriotic to question our leaders and our government. I just can't figure out why so many in this administration don't want that to happen.

"You're either for us or you're for the terrorists."

Why do we have to be for the terrorists if we question our president? Can't we disagree with him and be against the terrrorists? If no one is allowed to question our leaders, then aren't we descending into facism? (These are rhetorical questions.)

There is a vast difference between calling the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, AKA President of the United States, a coward, a liar, misleading the world, killing women and children for the sake of big oil, and disagreeing with his policy's.

The statement about with us or with the terrorists was addressed to the other nation states of the world, not to individuals who disagree with the way things are being managed.

A person not liking our troops being blown up by fanatic Muslim Ragheads is way different than Iran providing weapons, safe haven, food and support to blow them up. If you can't see the difference then your liberal views has blinded you.

Dissent is a good thing. But for a US senator to stand on the floor of the senate,with the world watching,and compare our troops in Cuba to Stalin and Pol Pot is not dissent. It is encouraging the enemy to carry on the attacks against americans everywhere. And that is legal,but in my book, immoral.

"There is a vast difference between calling the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, AKA President of the United States, a coward, a liar, misleading the world, killing women and children for the sake of big oil, and disagreeing with his policy's."

So I guess that this means you disagree with all those nasty people who used similar names when they were agitating against Clinton? Or are we looking at a double standard here? Just wondering...

Mac,
Your use of the term "raghead" only shows how ignorant you really are.

Oh if only his statement were used for foreign nations. Unfortunately, it has been used against this country's citizens. That can be identified in these posts and previous posts. How many people have been labeled as supporters of terrorists because they speak against what is happening. For example, "encouraging the enemy," or "that is legal, but...immoral."

So we are allowed to question each other's morality, but not the morality of the president. It seems this is a one-way street for most people of one party. They may question Clinton's morality, call him a coward, a liar, and say he misled the world, but others may not do so to Bush. That is the view that has blinded so many.

If I think that Bush is a coward because he joined the Air National Guard and I enlisted, I may do so. It may be my opinion of him and I may as a citizen and veteran verbalize that opinion. If I think Bush is a liar I may say so. I'm willing to bet you can catch any politician in a lie very easily. If I think he misled the world in declaring that WMDs that could harm our nation existed in Iraq and none were found, then I can say he did mislead the world. It is a two-way street.

Once I say these things the conclusion becomes that I am a liberal blinded by to the "truth." I receive the label of "dissident" or "traitor." What a shame. For I am not liberal. I have said before that my voter's card does not have democrat printed on it.

This shows the typical personal attack that occurs when someone questions today's administration and fortifies my contention that Bush's comment has been used against the American public.

Traitors. Hang them all. :)

I wanted to say this before the conservatives show up.

"Roosevelt was a limp-wristed bleeding-heart liberal democrat!"

Hope this was tougue in cheek Joe, otherwise you need to brush up on history. Roosevelt in this 1918 quote was Teddy, not FDR and Teddy was by no means a Democrat. He was a Republican, then a Progressive(party) and then ran on the Bull Moose Party.

Now you know the rest of the story.

Mac, sometimes the truth can be very uncomfortable. I know a lot of you neo-cons know full well dubya is all those things you alluded to, you voted for for him and now you are ashamed that he fooled you so badly. Don't feel so bad Carl Rove pulled the wool over your eyes - that's what the GOP pays him for.

I don't like Muslims or anyone else blowing up our soldoers; but, the answer is to pack them up and bring them home. Dubya has enough blood on his hands to satisfy his need for revenge. If you can't see that your neo-con views have apparently blinded you.

"There is a vast difference between calling the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, AKA President of the United States, a coward, a liar, misleading the world, killing women and children for the sake of big oil, and disagreeing with his policy's."

Okay, let's take this one item at a time. George W. Bush is:

1. "a coward,"
Don't know, but certainly his administration is full of "chickenhawks."
2. "a liar,"
This is documented fact, no need for discussion.
3. "misleading the world,"
Again, this is documented fact, same as 2. above.
4. "killing women and children for the sake of big oil,"
Only partly accurate; he hasn't (isn't) killing them personally, but certainly has been largely responsible for creating the conditions causing the deaths of women and children, and whether or not it is for the "sake of big oil" or not, I certainly don't know, and am not sure any of us will ever know. I'm not even sure *Bush* knows *all* of the reasons.

Mac, you are amongst the politically correct here. You can't call a terrorist a "raghead". But it is ok if you want to call a conserative a murderer, liar, baby killer,illiterate redneck,and anything else that feeds their hatred for Bush. They are incapable of handling the fact that Bush is actually ACTING against terrorism insted of sitting around talking about what we will do the NEXT time we are attacked. The terrorists never banked on the fact that "W" would respond to their attack on the world trade center. They thought they were still dealing with the impotent Clinton. They thought wrong.

Yard dog, I beg to differ. Bin Laden was counting on Bush to do exactly what he did, in my opinion. BL and al quada have gained recruits and resolve as a result of the US attacking Iraq. How else would you explain how the most powerful nation in the world has been unable to nail the man and unable to squash the relatively small terrorist army?

In my research to find out why it was taking so long to train the Iraqi troops, when their training is abbreviated in comparison to US training (and US training lasts 3months-1yr), I found a multitude of problems with the Iraqi's attitude toward Americanization of their country. Many refuse to fight the "American way", feel they are insulted by the American trainers and just plain desert to join the opposition, taking their weapons with them.

I read this week in the N&R an AP article about America's continuing military presence in Iraq causing a division of the Iraqi people.

This does not sound like a greatful nation to me. It sounds more like "Come fight for us, give us your money and expertise but don't tell us how to run our country"

Yep, BL is the one greatful to GWB for declaring war on Iraq, imo. Played him like a fine tuned fiddle.

In Sun Tzu's book "The Art of War", Tzu says in order to defeat your enemy you have to know your enemy, be able to think like your enemy, be prepared to act like your enemy. Osama knew this; GWB didn't have a clue.

Yvonne,

You've got it exactly right. GWB and OBL were meant for each other. Each energizes the others base of power. While GWB is thrashing wildly in Iraq al quaeda is flourishing. While we may be having trouble getting recruits for our army he doesn't seem to be having problems with his.

To speak to the original letter, dissent during a war is the price that you have to pay for being a democracy and it is a good thing. It is an impediment from getting into unwise wars.

Has anyone noticed any serious opposition to the Afghan war? No, because it was a place that we needed to intrude into. Iraq on the other hand was arguably stupid and many people are making their opinion known on this matter and that is a good thing.

At some point in time we are going to have to get out of Iraq under less than perfect circumstances. The American people are the ones paying the price for our being there and they must have a say on what goes on there.

Yvonne & Marshall, "Bin Laden was counting on Bush to do exactly what he did"? So, you think OBL was hoping for all those terrorist training camps in Afganistsn and Iraq to be dismantled,right? UBL wanted the Iraqis to have free elections,right? UBL wanted Sadam toppled and Syria to withdraw their troops from Lebanon where they were training terrorisrs, right? UBL wanted to forced to go into hiding and live like a cave man,right?
You libs are really grasping straws here. I mean you are bordering on kookism. As far as not finding him yet, who cares. Even if we did find him,the fanatics would just start worshiping some other murdering scumbag of a terrorist who had enough money to bankroll a few more homocide bombers. (most likley children of poor sheep herders)

Thanks for a mini history lesson there Mr. Produce (that wasn't tongue-in-cheek).

Yes, my comment was meant to be funny. I might have missed the mark there. It's something I heard someone say during a discussion of that quote.

Got to run. Squirrels are in the tomato plants!!!

Yard Dog:

Actually, yes: I quite sure OBL wanted Sadam toppled and Syria to withdraw their troops from Lebanon. In his opinion (stated many times), Iraq and Syria are "sham" Muslim countries (in name only, more about power than Allah), as are Saudi Arabia and most of the other middle east governments.