first of all, the votes in the election were counted frequently by multiple parties after the fact and during the fact, including private ones and including USA Today, an arguably liberal newspaper. (even after the supreme court ruled that the laws stand and shouldn't be changed)
Second, a tax cut doesn't give money away. It gives money back that was already yours to begin with. Any idea that the rich just get free money is grossly uneducated. This tax cut that immediately credits those with kids is giving the parent back the money they've already paid to the US government.
Third, interest rates are still going down, despite tax cuts.
Fourth, the war on Iraq cost less than 1% of the total yearly value of the US economy. The government isnt hurting to pay off this war and those who fought it.
five, the point of Iraq was to get the regime out of power, not to kill Saddam. If we wanted saddam as our primary target, rather than liberating the country and finding weapons, don't you think some highly trained army team or marine team operating stealthy would have had much more sucess in finding and killing/capturing one man? Besides, Saddam wasn't the only figurehead in the regim of the Baath socialist party, despite the fact his is the only name that CNN and MSNBC ran on the news every day. there were 12 key figures we were looking to 'get' first, and then that expanded to the deck of cards the troops got.
six, to anyone whos says it was about oil, they are partly right. However oil is on the -world- market. And to say that america went in to get big rich american corporate oil companies more oil is stupid. Oil reserves have to be protected for the world market, and the iraqi regime was too closely tied to it to be trusted.
After all, if the oil from iraq dissappears that not only america, but french, germany, russia, and a dozen other euro countries bought from, where are they going to get the oil they need? The answer is "Anywhere they possibly can at any price." That is what is truly frightening about the worlds dependancy on fossil fuel.
Now, who would you want in charge of that natural resource, an extremist millitant minority faction with a dictator leadership who would use that resource as a politcal, social, and economic lever, even at the detriment of his own country's populace, or to buy illegal weapons?
lastly, we already found biological weapons he said he didn't have. We found a mobile weapons lab that couldn't be anything other than a station to develop, carry and deliver biological weapons. We didn't go into Iraq because we counldn't find anything, we went into iraq because the regime didn't come forward with the fact that they had them and prove to us that they destroyed them, which was the original UN terms 10 years agoe in rez 687 and 678.
North Korea won't launch any nukes at us unless we push them to do it
Damn straight. They're smart enough to sell the nukes on the black market to terrorists, who would launch the weapons from within the borders of some peaceful, unassuming country and all hell would break loose.
This is an important possibility to consider, because terrorist extremists aren't the same as dictators. Dictators know they must hang on to power so they probably wouldn't use it, but extremist terrorist have nothing to hold on to, so they have nothing to loose by unleashing the nastiest weapon they can on as many people they see (suicide bombing.)
The russian government has begun selling tourist flights to the stratosphere in Airbats to make money.
North Korea is hurting for money even more than the russian government. If they have any potential to make enough money to hold onto power, they will use it.
As an unemployed person i am living proof of what she is talking bout.
I'm unemployed too. But I don't blame Dubya for it.
I have to agree, since when is it anyones responsibility but your own to keep yourself employed?
