It seems like the Democrat has stolen a page from the Republican play-book. It's about time they wised up.

So exactly how is it that diverting 200 billion in resources toward Iraq, while alienating our allies, projects operational knowledge of foreign policy?

Edwards should have stuck with a few main points like this until he got answers, instead he flew all over the place leveling all the charges as fast as possible without actually staying long enough to force real answers or obvious stalling to any of them. I would definitely have liked to hear in-depth explanations on stuff like this, but Edwards didn't play the game that way.

Cheney's projections of knowledge came across in the few explanations he did give, and I expect that he could give many more real answers about touchy topics if he weren't also concerned with the 'spin' issue and keeping up with Edwards' whirwind tour of topics

I'm not satisfied with only the claim of toughness. I hope you're right, though.

as for Afghanistan, are you saying that Bush intentionally undermined our capacity to capture Osama?

In chess, do you march every pawn directly at the king? I can assure you that Bush intends to beat these people, not to let them off the hook.

I guarantee that Dr. Phil's audience is overwhelmingly democrat. I doubt that he is going to change the vote significantly.

Yes, it was intentional, but probably unwittingly. He underestimated the difficulty of rooting him out, so he "oursourced" the job to Afghanistan warlords that had earlier fought against us, while diverting the American troops to the buildup for the invasion of Iraq. While Bush took his eye off the ball, Bin Laden slipped away. Nobody has any idea where he is right now, although administration officials say he is "probably" in Pakistan, and Pakistan isn't letting American troops go there. The Republican administration dropped the ball because they were so hot to get Saddam Hussein, who 1) had no weapons of mass destruction, and 2) had no ties to Al Qaeda. Stubbornness does not overcome incompetence. Kerry will get the job done.

How are you able to make any assurance to me about what Bush intends? With more killed in August than in July and more killed in September than in August, I don't think many claims about the situation can be credibly made.

Maybe majority Democrat. Certainly people who are interested in solving family problems will tend to be Democrats because Republicans seem more concerned about making money and war. But I don't think overwhelmingly Democrat. I don't have any statistics to counter your claim, but from walking precincts here and in Nevada and talking to people of all parties at their homes, I think Dr. Phil may be convincing a significant number of undecideds.

'intentional' means that Bush was intending the result of not capturing Osama. What you are describing is a mistake, not intentionality. I certainly do not deny that Kerry could do a better job (I am not yet convinced, though), I am simply pointing out that the claims of Bush's intent to fail is a mischaracterization.

Rick, I never took you as one to get lost in the world of spin like this. I expect it from the t.v. pundits as they are trying to sway ignorant voters, but I had the high hope that you would be able to discuss this perhaps a little more 'dispassionately' with me instead of patronizing me. I think that it is absurd to say that Bush intends failure and death of Americans. It is much more reasonable to say that he is simply mistaken. To imply Bush as intending failure for America is nothing but spin, and I don't appreciate having spin in our conversation

(p.s. I added a 'spin zone' if you are interested in that game)

The issue of how one makes decisions is certainly relevant. I understand tha Bush 'takes orders from God' which implies a lack of critical thought, but I don't think he is really trying to usher in the 'end days' either consciously or subconsciously.

I did enjoy it. I saw much 'propaganda' in it, but it also made me feel that swaying sensation which I would like to believe is a consequence of truth. I recorded it onto VHS (I'm sure Moore would not prosecute) and plan on watching it again to get a clear grasp of the actual arguments and evidence presented instead of relying on the overall vague anti-Bush feeling for which it was created to induce.

where can I find these films?

I understand your emotions are strong about this stuff, and as such it makes sense that you would get caught up in the spin of it all. I'm just saying that I am capable of comprehending reasonable arguments, and I would like to avoid devolution into the logical fallacies that characterize propaganda and spin and the associated lack of honest communication.

Unconstitutional--The war on our civil liberties.

Uncovered--The whole truth about the Iraq war.

Going Upriver--The long war of John Kerry.