I am not from California. Would that be a bad thing? I guess I don't really know very much about Cali, having never been there. My wife has a cousin that lives out near SF and she and her family seem pretty decent. Not political but very solid. He is a project manager for a large construction outfit and she is a sales rep.

We went on vacation with them once in the San Juan islands in Washington state. It was beautiful. We went whale watching on a little boat that crashed and rolled its way through heavy waves so we were soaked by the time we got out to sea. But it was a good time and it is a spiritual experience to go out on a little dinky fishing boat (like from a kids story, it was wooden with a high prow and a boxy cabin in the middle) into high seas (Ok, maybe 6 foot waves with 8 foot swells). Even with other people around, you feel alone, vulnerable yet powerful. It is sublime.

WOW, you are a sicko.

Are you from Calif?

anti American rehtoric

Um. What exactly is anti-american?

has offered one shread of evidense to support that Bush lied

Cheney: "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."

Cheney: "[Iraq is] the geographical base of the terrorists who had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

left leaning liberal media source whose only purpose is to “Bring our country down” so they can once again gain power and continue their path of total destruction to the American way of life. They want a government that will be in full control of everything you do or say as a free citizen and control every fascet of your life.

I am tempted to put a long list of links that would really highlight the unenlightened state of this statement but that would make the inevitable response that much less funny.

Ken: It’s called VOTING, have you ever heard if it??

Probably has, Herb.

keeping the murderous, radical, extremist muslim element out of America.

And keeping the murderous, radical, extremist christian element inside America.

they want get away from those that would not provide tham with the freedom that we in the US offer them

Also our bombs. They also want to avoid the bombs.

Dems will continue to spin their “Lies” until they regain power and control every part of our lives.

Now, I am not a Democrat, but does this strike anyone as just the least bit, er, ...insane?

unproven lies put out by the democrats

Now now. There's plenty of proven lies. why go for the unproven ones?

lies hurt our troops and our country

True, but isn't that our mission here to figure out what is fact and what is fiction?

you, myself or any true American

jus sanguis and jus soli. google them along with "American Citizenship"

"have ever given thought that their words are Treasonous"

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."-Constitution

This is perhaps grounds for a discussion of how it relates to:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -Declaration of Independence

our troops who are putting their lives on the line to protect their lefty liberal asses

So?

I am very positive dude, The GOP got its ass kicked in the election, and Bush's ratings are at historic lows. There are a few rays of sunshine thru the clouds.

You are right on target with your comment. I think that President Bush put it on target also when he stated that the such charges and the people saying them are "Irresponsible".

But, let me say that no matter how you, myself or any true American puts it, the Dems will continue to spin their "Lies" until they regain power and control every part of our lives.

It's beyond me just how some people who are and should have some sense, common or otherwise, can subscribe to the unproven lies put out by the democrats and realize how much these lies hurt our troops and our country. Sad, sad, indeed.

I am still waiting for the definitive proof behind the accusations. Some one show me where the President deliberately and knowingly "lied". It is a shameless liberal fantasy. These Democrats tarnish our country much more deeply than this President ever could with his policy.

You big rummy, you and the people do have the right and the people did express their wishes about the war and to make their own history.

Ken: It's called VOTING, have you ever heard if it??

Anjin San:

Does it supprise you that Americans also want to keep "outside influance" from this country, like keeping the murderous, radical, extremist muslim element out of America.

Why the hell do you think the muslims want, and come to the US, It's because they want get away from those that would not provide tham with the freedom that we in the US offer them. Anjin, try, just try to say something positive for a change.

No-fly zones: The legal position (19 Feb 2001)

The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north. The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.
However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says the Western powers - led by President George Bush senior - argued that their action was consistent with Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991. The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north. The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says the Western powers - led by President George Bush senior - argued that their action was consistent with Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991. The resolution condemned the repression of the Iraqi civilian population and demanded that Iraq end it immediately.

It said the repression amounted to a threat to international peace and security - a phrase our correspondent says is often used to justify intervention. But critics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action. Nor did it say that all necessary means could be used.

Critics add that whatever was justified in 1991 is not necessarily justified more than 10 years later, when the reasons for continuing the air patrols may have changed.

I would argue that the no fly zones were a reasonable imposition by victorious powers as a condition of maintaining a cease-fire in a war that the other side started. Because it was en vogue at the time, though, the victors insisted on acting under the cover of UN resolutions. Under international law, Saddam had the right to fly planes over his own population and, arguably, act as he wished internally as a sovereign power.

The pilots were on legal missions as Iraq had pieces of its airspace taken away from it. While flying on US-supported missions, the pilots could have expected a law-abiding country to not shoot at them.

That airspace was 'taken away' unilaterally by the US and BG without any legal pretense. Every flight of US and British warplanes over the skies of Iraq were acts of war. Iraq had the legal right but not the military might to defend its skies.

These extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East,...

And what exactly is wrong with that goal? Before Bush defends his policy he must explain why he thinks he has a right to determine the future of the middle east. As Americans we believe it is up people to make their own history, to determine their own future.

In reading this speach it reminds me of Hitlers image of the thousand year Riech when explaining to the Germans why it was necessary for them to support his war effort. But Hitler found out, too late for Germany, that people in other countries do not like to be dominated by foreigners.

Bush chose the wrong side of history on this one. I hope America can survive his mistake. We need to figure out how to minimize the damage he has done, not expand it.

Of course, that's not quite how things worked out...

The important thing about their anti American rehtoric is that not a single one of that has offered one shread of evidense to support that Bush lied. The only refereaces they provide come from left leaning liberal media source whose only purpose is to "Bring our country down" so they can once again gain power and continue their path of total destruction to the American way of life. They want a government that will be in full control of everything you do or say as a free citizen and control every fascet of your life.