DOJ, what did you think of the article?

I did not read any new information from the article. Just another politician whinning about things. We need someone more aggressive that can go on the offensive. Not a problem counter.

I think that the article discusses a fundamental truth in the manipulation of public opinion by the media. Over twenty years ago I read a book by Neil Postman titled "Amusing Ourselves to Death, Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business", which touches on many of these same concepts. We live in a very Orwellian age where the public can be easily distracted and controlled through the mass media. This is shown by the public obsession with Paris Hilton in traffic court while, at the same time, a critical LAUSD school board election results in a turnout of just 6% of registered voters.

However the article by Gore fails in showing that this manipulation is occurring in all directions. He cites examples, such as the war on terror or the attempted Superbowl ad by moveon.org, that makes it appear that this manipulation comes primarily from the right. Yet he also freely admits that he has used sophisticated polling techniques and targeted advertising in his own political campaigns in order to deliberately alter public perception on political issues. He decries the very system that he has used himself to gain power and influence. He also leaves out other examples that work the other way, such as the recent prosecution of three innocent white Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of raping a black stripper. Or the $100 million media smear campaign against Governor Arnold that caused his public approval rating to plummet. Or Arnold's subsequent deal with democrats in his re-election campaign that restored his popularity and torpedoed the Angelides campaign. Or attempts by democrats to regulate radio by imposing equal time rules that would essentially kill off conservative talk radio.

I agree that the public is being manipulated and controlled, but I believe that that type of power is being exercised equally by both liberal and conservative groups. Al Gore could have been more honest by giving examples on both sides instead of leaving a false impression on readers that it is primarily conservatives who use this type of power. Those who are in power use the media to stay in power, and that applies to both Republicans and Democrats, including Al Gore.

He does correctly cite the Internet as being a new, powerful form of media that is decentralized with low barriers to entry. But he makes a dangerous statement that "the Internet must be developed and protected". Gore tries to make the argument that having a small group of companies that control the Internet leads to a danger of these organizations controlling the content. However that statement doesn't hold against the facts. The Internet is the wild west of media where even groups like Al Qaeda have been able to successfully get out their message. Large media conglomerates do not control Internet content and the Internet certainly has no need for protection and regulation from Al Gore.

On a side note, I would not vote to kick anybody off this blog. That runs counter to the concept of allowing a free flow of ideas and is dangerous to any democracy. Otherwise the discussions on this blog would be nothing more than a one-sided propaganda session, no different than what Al Gore warns about. Unfortunately there are those around here who don't have well-informed, defensible positions on issues who, unfortunately, feel the need to attack and shout down anyone they disagee with. But those who rely on these types of strategies ultimately marginalize themselves.

Bubba Kidd,
Everybody has a story to tell. The internet and the media are not at fault for anything. The internet is a tool. You can find good and bad. The t.v. and radio and this paper are tools. You can watch Fox news covering Cindy Sheehan or you can watch CNN covering Iraq and the girl that was raped, her family killed in front of her, then set on fire.
The choice is yours.
Where I, and maybe some others; have a problem is you want to ignore the stories you don't like. As if they didn't happen or Clinton did something worse. The flag covered coffins are more hedious than what the Republicans do in the name of "National Security". The use of terror level threats as a political tool. That's where you might lose some of us.

I don't see a call for regulation from the article. I do see Al Gore crying foul over cases that warp our sense of proportion at all other events in the world.

I also don't see him blaming the media as much as you do. He seems to be saying it is Americans more interested in entertainment than serious debate.

What did you think of the stat about the high percentage of people that think it was Iraq/Saddam that attacked us? Who is to blame for that one?

If as you say 6% of people vote in LAUSD elections what is the point of even holding them anymore? What forces are in our control that has allowed so many people to abdicate their duty in a democracy?

I see your examples of recent cases you see as liberal vs. conservative but most media sensation cases do not require intense media and public attention for the right course of action to happen.

But imagine the debate about if we should pull out of Iraq between someone that thinks we are there because of their attack on us on 9/11 and someone that hasn't heard the arguments about what will happen if we did leave to the region. The discussion would be at the very least pointless and the worst dangerous when these people vote.

The media only puts out what the dogs are eating. Blaming the media is pointless.

Then who or what is to blame for the problems set forth in the article?

That is why I can't run for anything I called the voters dogs. I hate when I do that.

I think it's your fault...

If it wasn't for you we wouldn't know better.

Where you thinking "Al Gore gave us the internet he could take it away"? Fear not. It would only make it stronger and more radical.

Right now I could be thinking of Paris Hilton and not have this....
Existential breakdown....

Orwell was afraid of a 1984 world where the government would control information and books would be banned. But strangely that is not what is happening here. We live in a society that has the liberties to engage in a free flow of information if it wants, yet a public that, for the most part, has no desire for that information. Instead they seem distracted by things that are irrelevant to their own personal lives. It's kind of like a magician who fools his audience by focusing their attention on his right hand while the real trick is being performed by his left hand.

Actually I think that Huxley's Brave New World is a better metaphor for what is happening in our media driven society. In Huxley's world there was no need to ban books because nobody was interested in reading them. In his world the government created a society that was given just enough to be satisfied into personal passivity and self-gratification. Society was instead be focused on trivial matters related to their own personal needs. I believe it is Huxley's world in which we live.

The reason why the public thinks that Iraq was involved in 9/11 is because they are fundamentally uninformed and have little or no interest in getting the relevant information. It is no different than watching Jay Leno doing his regular skit where he asks people on the street simple questions so we can all laugh at the fact that they can't find France on a map or can't name the three branches of American government. I remember some years back watching David Letterman do a skit where he held up pictures of all the participants in the OJ Simpson trial. Almost everyone could identify OJ, Kato, Christopher Darden, Marsha Clark, and Lance Ito. Then he would show pictures of Al Gore or New Gingrich and people had no idea who they were. Pretty sad indeed.

Every election after I cast my ballot I discuss with various people I know about how they voted and why. For those that actually bother to vote I find that it is common for them to vote for or against propositions without having taken the time to actually read the language of the proposed law. Often their opinions on these issues are based on hearsay or on the various advertising campaigns that persuaded them to vote one way or another. Sometimes they vote a certain way because their union told them how to vote, or because that is how their spouse voted, or because of party loyalty. Very rarely do I find individuals who really know much about the actual candidates or propositions.

The funny thing is that the way we run political campaigns is no different than the strategy employed by beer companies to convince you to switch to their product. It seems silly that people would actually consume Brand X of beer just because he is endorsed by a fictional dog named Spuds McKenzie. But it works. It also works in politics.

When I see polls saying we should go or stay in Iraq it makes me wonder what percentage of the people asked know the most basic information required to hold a valid opinion.

That is what is so laughable about polls. When the majority of Americans cannot find Iraq on a map why would we expect them to have an informed opinion on foreign policy? Both parties simply conduct polls to determine how to manipulate public opinion to support their position, regardless of the facts. Republicans have learned that the public is willing to support the war as long as a connection is made to the 9-11 attacks and the war on terror. Democratic field polls have found that the public is simultaneously concerned about casualties and wants a timeline for withdrawl. The problem is that these opinions aren't necessarily informed, sometimes contradictory, and often short-sighted. It is no different from polls that show the public in support of expensive social programs yet opposed the higher taxes needed to pay for them. A public that wants to drive large SUVs and wants cheap gas but is simultaneously opposed to offshore oil drilling, opposed to building new refineries, and opposed to using the military to secure oil supply from the middle east. None of it makes sense, but in politics it doesn't have to.

Have you ever been polled Bubba?

Bubba, I don't know if I have every agreed with you more than in that paragraph.

We know the symptoms but what is the disease? What has caused the disconnect between citizen and government?

I would bet at a local level that there is no competition for many seats not because the average voter is happy with the job the council/park board/etc do but instead don't have any idea what they do or they don't believe that government officials believe in any core values that could effect our lives.

My main problem with Gore's article is that it posits some magical happy time when the populace was fully informed and engaged in political debate. When, exactly, was this? During the founding, when newspapers were nothing more than innuendo and libel? In the 1800s, when there was still massive illiteracy? In the last century, when people voted for Kennedy because he and his wife were young and good-looking? The public has always been complacent, willing to go with the flow as long as provided "bread and circuses."

He virtually ignores the fact that even if his argument is true, it's being unraveled as we speak. The whole time I was reading the article I kept screaming to myself, "The Internet you bloody fool!!!" Finally at the end he mentions it as a possible saviour. I would contend that society is already more well informed and has better access to information than at any time in history. Gore somehow says with a straight face:

"In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The 'well-informed citizenry' is in danger of becoming the 'well-amused audience.'"

Apparently his kids don't use Live journal. The scale of people voicing and reading opinions is astounding. If anything, the media has to be more fair nowadays, because any factual inaccuracies are immediately made well-known. If a story gets big enough, the networks can't ignore it. Both Fox and CNN ran stories on Iraq, the soldiers' trials, and Sheehan. Global warming skeptics, experts in their fields, are regularly marginalized and demonized in the mainstream press. Even with that bias, however, anyone interested can read about it from numerous other sources. We can't force people to be informed, but the opportunity is greater now than ever.

There are lots of people who aren't fully informed. Some heard only part of the story and think Saddam was connected to 9-11. Others, likewise, think that only American intelligence pointed to weapons of mass destruction. How many people in 1941, for example, thought that we declared war on Hitler because of the attack on Pearl Harbor? How many people today think that the Civil War was fought over slavery? If people aren't informed, it's their own fault. Moreover, there was considerable debate over this war. Perhaps more than over any other in history. I was violently attacked by a peace protester, so I certainly remember the debate, even if others pretend that it didn't happen.

We who comment on this site are by definition more active than the average person. That doesn't, however, mean that they're stupid, but rather some combination of ignorant and apathetic. These conversations always feel like a bunch elites congratulating each other on how intelligent, insightful, informed, etc. they are, and why are the unwashed masses so dumb? I have found that most people, however, are open to reasoned discussions. Moreover, isn't is strange that the most "reasonable" people are always those that agree with us? This is nothing more than Gore exaggerating and hyping another non-existent problem.

I remember seeing a Doonesbury cartoon in the run-up to the Iraq war, which had an Iraqi scientist and a weapons inspector. I'm not sure of the exact number, but the scientist asks, "Is it true that only 20% of Americans can find Iraq on a map." "Yes," replies the inspector, "but they're all Marines."

Owen and Bubba Kid,
Is it because of JFK's civil rights beliefs that was the deciding factor in your opinion of him? Would you ever vote for a Jew or a African American for President?

DOJ once again perpetuates the stereotype that those who are conservative must therefore be bigots. Why else would he ask the whether Owen or myself would have a problem voting for a Jew or an African American? Neither one of us has ever said anything that would indicate that ethnic or religious background was a deciding factor in our opinions of others.

Given that my father was a Jew and that I have many Jewish relatives I would consider myself not only to be unbiased toward Jews but actually quite fond of them. And although I have no African American heritage I don't feel that I have any particular bias toward or against African Americans either.

Far left liberals need to realize that they do not have a monopoly on charity or compassion, and they are not alone in wanting equality for everyone in our society. We may disagree as to how that should happen, but that does not mean that anyone who doesn't support programs like affirmative action or quotas are therefore racists. I also find it puzzling how some liberals on this blog have gotten a free pass by their peers after making blatantly sexist or homophobic comments. Yet conservatives on this blog and conservative public officials are routinely accused of being prejudiced against women, gays and minorities without a shred of supporting evidence.

Owen or Bubba Kid,
Have you noticed one of the two political parties complaining about the media more than the other? Which one do you think the media has been the most unfair to and why?

Bubba,
Maybe the people that were polled couldn't find Iraq on a map but their Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Wife, Husband, Son, Daughter, Uncle, Cousin, friend, or just the guy down the street got killed in the Iraq war. Ever think of that??????????????????

My Father fought in World War 2. Remember that war we won?

Owen or Bubba Kid you qualify for equal opportunity. Your Father was a vetren of a foriegn war. Your Jewish your a minority. You obviously need help. Why are you against it?

I believe as an American that there are outstanding young people working very hard in less than desirable living conditions. I believe they should be utilized to make a better America.
It is my opinion we lost many of them due to slavery and our treatment of indigenous people especially from Mexico.
I believe poor areas are a resource that is not being utilized equal opportunity is one way of addressing that issue.

Give me something harder to defend Owen or Bubba Kid.

Why don't you support America?
We do you provide comfort to China?

@ DOJ stay on topic.

Owen, I heard that less than 2% of the voting population uses the internet as their primary source of information. Of course the internet can be a tool for a well informed and active citizenry but that doesn't make it so yet.

I get your argument that previous generations weren't always informed. My problem is at a time when we have so much opportunity is is being squandered.

How is it with all of the information you mentioned that people still think Iraq attacked us on 9/11? I don't have any hard stats in front of me but I am pretty sure the greatest generation wasn't confused on who attacked Pearl Harbor.

I don't even bother watching the news anymore that often as it is so celebrity scandal tainted.

And when I do I can't believe the amount of slanted news there is on stations like Fox News. I watched an entire segment on the debate between Michael Moore and Fred Thomson on Bill O'Reilly's show and not once did they quote Moore's strongest charge that Thompson bought many cigars from Cuba in direct violation of the sanctions.

To me it seems the average person either doesn't get a chance or doesn't care to see reasoned debates. Politicians aren't rewarded for making good, logical debates but instead they get awarded for sound bites.

George W. Bush ran as a candidate AGAINST nation building, now he is for it. Yet somehow it is John Kerry that is the flip flopper mostly because he put the flip flop into a short sentence ( I was for it before I was against it).

I am impressed with Bubba Kidd for looking past the author of the article into the substance. Owen, what is the most important point that you agree with Gore on?

I was on topic. I was giving an example of a opinion that nobody else agrees with yet it is the correct answer.

If you get all your news from Brian Dennert Blog you wouldn't have this problem... Brian...

I am sorry. Your right. I thought I was watching Oprah. I will stay on topic now.

Stop watching Fox news use your powers for good not evil.

No Owen I am saying Conservatives are either bigots or Jack Abramoff types. Please quote me accurately. I don't want any trouble.

I just don't think the opportunity is being squandered. I have never met anyone who thinks that Iraq was behind 9-11, but they have probably not read a newspaper article for a long time. What about the people who think the US and Israeli govs were behind it. I have met those people, and they tend to be educated and well-read. Now that is unreasonable.

Why did we go to war against Germany, since he had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, and there was a huge anti-war movement? How did he pose an imminent danger to our national interests?

Most people just don't care to see reasoned debates. At the same time, our leaders don't care to participate in them. I can't stand watching presidential debates, they tend to talk past each other. I'm still waiting for Thompson's explanation, but I think he's just going to ignore it. Though there are ways to get around the embargo. I have a friend who was serving in the Middle East, and he bought some there and brought them back.

Though again, for some perspective, it's not like the colonials were busy gossiping about the debates at the Constitutional Convention. And today, when we quote the Founding Fathers, is it anything more than an 18th-century soundbite?

The substance of the article is that the author is making outrageous claims about "the survival of our Republic," when I don't see how the situation today is any worse than before. If anything, it's better. Television reaches more people than newspapers ever did, and in both mediums people "receive, but they cannot send." The web has already created more feedback and interaction than at any point in history.

This man sees catastrophe everywhere, from natural climate variation to digital democracy representing less dialog than eras past. I fully agree with the question he poses, "Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?"

Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way around.

I am sure if this article was written by Mittens Romney you would have a sharply different opinion. You are so partisan against him it doesn't shock you that half the nation is far off in their logic of why we are at war.

Now for a check of the headlines:
According to a front page story in The Star today, only 25% of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction, an all time low number and they found it across all groups. The three main reasons for the malaise according to those asked was, George Bush's failed presidency, the war in Iraq and high gasoline prices that benefit Bush's buddies.

The problem isn't so much President Bush is incompetent. What makes him so destructive is the Republicans won't acknowledge his failures. Instead they encourage him to take things on way beyond his intelligence. The Republicans felt there were sharper "unelectable" people in the background that could help him. Obviously that's not the case.
Now it's our job as Americans to tell them they are all full of it.

I was watching a show on 9/11 last night. After watching what Bin Laden did to us it made me sick to think how Bush mis-used it. Instead of going after Bin Laden he allowed the entire Bin Laded family to fly out of the U.S. without the FBI getting to question them. Then he let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora and instead attacked Iraq. Then he ordered the CIA to suspend looking for Bin Laden. Then Bush signs the so-called Patriot Act designed to take away the rights guaranteed us under the Bill of Rights. Meanwhile we get ripped off at the pump so the oil companies can fund the RNC. If you want a change vote democrat or go independent in 08!

So we have to go to war against anyone who declares war on us? Bin Laden did in the 90's, but we didn't do a thing. Saddam said some pretty nasty things, does that count? The article is based on wildly faulty assumptions. You have no idea who I'm supporting. Like others on here, you're projecting. Not all people support ideas based on who is promoting them. Though that is an inherent part of the Left's "Multiculturalist" framework, so I'm not surprised that you subscribe to it. Of course, I'm sorry, the half of the country that agrees with you is obviously correct. The other half are just completely illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. Are they stupid, or just ignorant?

Congress' approval is lower than the President's. Looking at how the Dems are acting even worse than the Repubs did, it's no surprise. Altering rules to shut down minority amendments. Senior members threating Republicans that they won't get earmarks unless they do it Murtha's way.

Owen says:

Not all people support ideas based on who is promoting them. Though that is an inherent part of the Left's "Multiculturalist" framework, so I'm not surprised that you subscribe to it.
(those damn multiculturalists are the problem now)

I'm sorry, the half of the country that agrees with you is obviously correct. The other half are just completely illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. Are they stupid, or just ignorant?
(I think they bounce between the two)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my personal opinion that Owen is not informed on the issues.
In 1994 Clinton shot nearly 100 toe missles at Bin Laden for the USS Cole incident.
Owen's arguments are completely moronic. Sorry Owen that's how I feel. I am open to listening to what you have to say, but so far that sums it up.
What didn't happen was Condi didn't do anything about a certain agents warning about a pending attack. Then the bonehead lying head of the C.I.A. did notthing with the actually names of the terrorists in his file for some reason. That's how 9/11 happend.

owen, some things are based off of opinions like should we continue the mission in Iraq or pull the troops out.

But you said:
"Of course, I'm sorry, the half of the country that agrees with you is obviously correct. The other half are just completely illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. Are they stupid, or just ignorant?"

On an issue like continuing the war in Iraq both sides could have valid opinions with good underlying facts. But you can's say "I think Iraq attacked us on 9/11" and be entitled to that opinion. If someone believes that I don't need to describe them beyond just saying they are wrong.

The major problem I see as laid out by Al Gore is that in an era when we should have an unrivaled basis of knowledge because of their information revolution more and more people don't even know who or what we are at war with or who attacked us. Part of every war is idealogical resolve. We can't have that resolve when half the population is missing the basic facts.

For democracy to work we need an informed electorate and buy in from the masses. At a time when it should be getting better there are troubling signs of regressive trends.

Lastly, are you saying we didn't have to declare war on Hitler AFTER he declared war on us?

"It is my personal opinion that Owen is not informed on the issues.
In 1994 Clinton shot nearly 100 toe missles at Bin Laden for the USS Cole incident.

The USS Cole bombing occurred in on Oct. 12, 2000. Are you referring to the August 1998 bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan, which just by coincidence took place the day after president Clinton admitted to having an "improper physical relationship" with Monica Lewinsky?

I was just testing you Jimmy. Congradulations you passed with flying colors.

JimmyM, what did you think of the article?

The Multiculturalists have always been a part of the problem, they've just fallen off the front page in recent years :)

The Cole was bombed in 2000. Missiles were launched in retaliation for the embassy bombings in '98. It achieved nothing except the destruction of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory - because they need to suffer even more - and it diverted attention from the Lewinsky affair. Perhaps you remember that "Wag the Dog" came out around that time. We launched Tomahawks from ships, which are cruise missiles. There is no such thing as a Toe missile. There is, however, a TOW, which is a short range surface-to-surface anti-tank missile (sometimes mounted on helicopters). Dude, just Google before you post facts, since you two have such a rocky relationship. "Toe missiles in retaliation for the Cole bombing in '94." That's three for three. No wonder you don't post under your real name. And I'm the one who's not informed?

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." - Mark Twain. You intimately understand the second part of that admonition, spend some time on the first.

Brian, I may just be starting to agree with you. A regular poster on this board, who should know better, is absurdly misinformed about some basic facts and doesn't even take the 2 seconds to verify.

Of course we don't have to declare war on someone just because they declared war on us, which is what the poster implied. That alone is an awful justification for a war. Are you saying that it's ok to declare war on someone who hasn't attacked us and posed no "imminent threat?" Sounds familiar . . .

An army without leaders is like a foot without a big toe. And Brian isn't always gonna be here to be that big toe for us. I think that we owe a big round of applause to our bestest buddy, and big toe... Brian!!!

Owen Says:
Missiles were launched in retaliation for the embassy bombings in '98. It achieved nothing except the destruction of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory - because they need to suffer even more - and it diverted attention from the Lewinsky affair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
He just shot down his Clinton did nothing argument Brian I ask Owen be censored and all charges be dropped...

Getting back on track...

Owen makes a valid point when he states that the public has never been fully informed. In a perfect democracy that would be the case, but we, unfortunately, live in the real world.

But I would argue that the evolution in the way the public receives information has been detrimental toward having an informed public. Consider this: In the first of the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates Douglas spoke for an hour; Lincoln had 1-1/2 hours to reply; Douglas a half our to rebut Lincolns reply. And this was considered to be a very short debate from what was customary at the time. At an earlier debate between the two in 1854, Douglas gave a three-hour speech. When it was time for Lincoln to talk he suggested that the audience go home and have dinner before they resumed the debate for his four-hour reply.

Today it is impossible to imagine an audience sitting down listening to a seven-hour debate between two politicians. Granted, people at that time didn’t have television, the Internet, mp3 players, or Sony Playstation 3 to distract them from the drudgery of everyday life. And maybe that is the point. People today just don’t have the attention span to discuss things at length because they have so many alternate forms of entertainment. Back in the day of Lincoln and Douglas having two politicans arrive for a debate was quite an event.

Consider also that when we read the written word we have the opportunity to process and question the information, and examine the logic used by the writer. Reading appeals to a higher form of reasoning in the human mind. When you move down the chain into oratory the audience can be persuaded by things other than content. Our other senses now come into play and we examine things such as the appearance of the speaker and their speaking style and mannerisms. Which is why it is not surprising that a majority of those polled that listened to the famous 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate on the radio believed that Nixon had won the debate, while a majority who watch the debate on television believed that Kennedy had won the debate.

That is why it is unlikely that we will ever again have a fat, bald, or fundamentally unattractive president. Just like with a magician, we are fooled by our own eyes. It is no different than how a pretty girl who enters a room gets more attention. But studies have also shown that people with physical beauty are also more likely to get better paying jobs or even better grades from their teachers. In our media-driven society we are focused on the visual instead of the content.

Just try and read the transcripts from any current presidential debate. What you’ll find it that it is nothing like Lincoln-Douglas. It is incoherrent at best. People will be polled and favor one candidate over another, but in the end nothing of substance will be said by anyone during the course of a debate. The majority of the public won’t even bother to tune into a two-hour debate between ten candidates, each looking to get off the cleverest quip so that they can get a 5-second soundbyte on the evening news. Then the professional talking heads and spin masters will come out and debate the debate while trying to manipulate public opinion into believing something different than what they just saw with their own eyes.

Just look around this blog. How many people here engage in any serious discussion of the issues versus those that rely on the tried-and-true quips and talking points? I would argue that the age of reason came and went and we now live in an age of instant gratification. Things like voting and researching the issues are just too hard and take too much time for most people to bother with. That is why we have millions of educated people who believe in tales like the moon hoax conspiracy. These are not illiterate people, rather it often includes people who are college educated. We all know that it is easy to google up the facts and find irrefutable evidence that debunk the moon hoax myth and prove that we landed on the moon. But people are too busy to bother themselves with researching the issues and simply choose to believe what they are being fed. So there you have it.

Wow. I never thought of that. Your right. One more thing though...
It's hard to tune into a two hour debate when your Congressman is a coward and won't show up.
So now I think about it your still full of it.

“I was just testing you Jimmy. Congradulations you passed with flying colors."------------------------------

Typical liberal response, in other words, I didn’t make a mistake, I was just (insert excuse here).

Now that you impeached yourself... Are you going to stop saying 9/11 is Clinton's fault? Republicans made the C.I.A. work on other things other than the glaring evidence right in front of their F'n face. Then the Republicans flew the witnesses out of the Country. Then the Republicans let Ben Ladon go. Then the Republicans directed the war away from the enemy to get us stuck in the mud.

What are you a U.S. Attorney or something??

Apparently Fox News is more concerned with Anna Nicole Smith then with the war In Iraq.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014337.php

Hey Brian or whoever the blog lifeguard is:
May I post this video so the American people can see what the Republicans are doing to the planets children... Stop deleting my stuff!! Getting sick of that!! The son of a World War 2 veteran should be allowed to do stuff like this in America on Memorial Day!
hiccup

DOJ: You've proved beyond any doubt that you are utterly confused on the issue of Islamic terrorism, it's history, and American responses. If you don't even know the basic time line of the 90s, how do you consider yourself qualified to discuss the issue? Amazing that it happened so topically, one line after you talk about how "uninformed" people are.

The Clinton administration had several chances to buy, capture, or kill Bin Laden, but they didn't. The strongest response was bombing a medicine factory with no relation to UBL. That over the course of 8 years, yet you fault Bush for 8 months.

"In 1994 Clinton shot nearly 100 toe missles at Bin Laden for the USS Cole incident." - DOJ

Owen,
Your confused about Christian terrorism. Your so confused about Timothy McVeih and the Falwell funeral nut case you won't even bring it up.
We would be so much further ahead in regards to terrorism if Clinton was our leader. You ignore Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam as he gave him the weapons used to kill our soldiers.
Owen you can choose something to believe that gives you temporary comfort if you want. There are many Americans however that look beyond themselves and fight for Americas future for the long run.

Owen,
Here is Madeleine Albright whose opinion I hold to a higher degree than yours. Grease up your ears with the video link and maybe you can get your head out.