[Blackmane]

I will admit that that article makes a very valid point in saying that if Bush loses, it will probably bring a revolution in the Republican party.

Too bad it had so many fallacies and exagerations.

The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S.

Iraq was a threat, and Bush said it was from the very beginning, along with Iran and North Korea. If anyone actually reads the 9/11 report instead of just listening to the one line played on evening news channels, they would know that Saddam had direct ties with Al Quada, gave money to these organizations, and housed them.

Also, on weapons of mass destruction. Anyone who believes that Saddam really didn't want to get weapons is not thinking clearly. Sarin gas missles have been found buried in Iraq by coalition forces. Spy sattelite pictures confirm a large number of trucks moving from Iraq to Syria in the time before war broke out. But I suppose because inspectors, who were being told were to look by Saddam's officials, didn't find anything, that nothing was there.

the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations

Refering to Halliburton, no doubt. The article doesn't mention that Halliburton was the only qualified company that applied to take on some of the rebuilding effort in Iraq because it was the only company capable of doing some of the jobs nessesary. But, no, since Cheney was ONCE head of the company, it must be a handout by the administration.

the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children

This article suggests that the entire deficit is a result of the war. That is a ridiculous statement, seeing as the majority of the budgit deficit is a result of the recent resession that actually began at the end of the Clinton administration.

Huh? What? It couldn't have anything to do with Clinton!?!

the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor

According to studies, the top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of federal taxes. But, somehow, people still think that Bush only gives tax cutes to the rich.

Lets look at it in a hypothetical sense. Say you have your joe schmo earning $30,000 a year and you have your wealthier guy earning $300,000 a year. Joe schmo gets a tax cut that equals, say, $1,000 and your wealthier guy gets back $2,500. Now, people who don't know better look at that and say, "Hey, why does the wealthy guy get back more?" when in reality, he is paying a much higher amount of money back to the government in the first place. His percentage back compared to how much he pays in is smaller than joe schmo's percentage, but it is just a bigger number because he pays more in the first place.

Now obviously these aren't real numbers, but I hope that makes a point.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

First off, we didn't just invade Iraq because it was preceived as a threat. We haven't invaded North Korea or Iran because it was perceived a threat. No, we went into Iraq because the administration feared that sanctions by the UN weren't working, and in the aftermath of 9/11, feared the dangers of another attack that might be preventable with pre-emption.

Anyways, I hope I have made my point that this article has a few issues, but once again, it makes some good points. I fear, however, that it doesn't take into account how much damage can happen if Kerry gets elected.

I believe that Bush has a better plan at keeping us safe and I think his economic plan is starting to take hold get us back out of resession, so that is why I am voting for him.