Based on this review, I would be very curious to hear what you thought of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Thats what I like about Flavia. Sometimes she's sweet as molasses and sometimes she just goes after it. Either way, she's always Flavia. Right on girl!

Did the dems even see an advance showing? I though both administrations came off looking bad.

Yes, there were significantly more Clinton era mistakes - but obviously he was in office longer than Bush (8 yrs to 8 mos.) - and had more chances to take out Bin Laden.

But the movie certaintly pointed out that the Bush team was making the same mistakes as the Clinton admin.

Plus - you gotta love the hypocrisy of the left. They certaintly kept their collective mouths shut during Rathergate, The Reagans and Fahrenlies 9-11 didn't they.

“The Path to 9/11” was an abomination of filmmaking and another reason a basic skills test must be given to anyone before purchasing a video camera. This presentation was brought to you by the same folks who give us “Desperate Housewives” and “Bambi.” Certainly not a stranger to fantasy, but a strict disciplinarian when it comes to details and production values, this presentation is off the mark for Disney’s usual fare. Could it be that this is the only way for ABC to send a message to its audience on the heels of the most important election in a decade? Is it one corporation’s attempt to raise the federal fear factor?

There is a huge population in the United States that believes the “Desperate Housewives” are really desperate. There is even a part of our population who believe that the anthropomorphic representation of animals is the way of the wilderness. We have all been conditioned to believe that documentary films are representations of reality. Documentaries give us a “fly on the wall” view of what truly happens. “The Path to 9/11” is nothing but propaganda to misrepresent the facts of one of the greatest tragedies of our time. Robert Iger and The Walt Disney Company must be held responsible by viewers like us. It is we who must hold this company’s feet to the fire until it broadly apologizes for televising this drivel. Disney - ABC must also explain who paid for this production to be made and who paid for the primetime air time for it to be shown commercial free to a national audience on network television. Until then, Channel 7 will be the unABC.

Flavia nails it again.

I would enthusiastically support legislation that regulates the content of nationally televised productions 90 days prior to an election. From The Reagan's to Fahrenheit 9/11, to the one mentioned by Flavia. We deserve more from the public airwaves.
Lies, distortions, and mischaracterizations from any source leveled at any target, left or right, demeans the level of debate and weakens the credibility of the broadcaster.

Actions speak louder than meetings. Clinton had daily briefings and meetings three times a week, but said no to the Sudan when they offered Bin Laden. Bush sent Bin Laden running, and if we haven't caught or killed him, he's certainly not 'in charge' any more. Clinton called Saddam a threat and demanded regime change in 1998 (using the same evidence Bush did in 2002), but let the Oil for Food fraud continue. Bush completed the actions the Clinton taked about.

When it comes to leadership, I'll take the doer over the talker any day. After all, don't we want people to 'walk the talk'?

And Joe, ever hear of the First Amendment? Just what we need, the Feds telling us what we can see on tv. But next, based on his other posts, I'll bet Joe will be the one complaining about free speech and censorship, blaming it on Bush and the Patriot Act. McCain-Feingold is enough of an abomination in terms of limits political speech, but no, we need even more 'oversight'.

Great quote from Spectator.org:

"The point is not that Clinton completely ignored the threat of terrorism. More accurately, Clinton confronted it in much the same manner that today's liberals urge Bush to approach it. The Clinton administration didn't overreact. It made sure Americans were not too fearful of terrorism. It was conscious of international law. It limited itself to low-scale military operations and was also actively involved in mediating a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians,"

Marc, first of all I'm glad you've read my other comments. I definitely try to read everyones thoughts and weigh them. My momma used to tell me that you can't please everyone, but to try to do the right thing whenever you can. The right thing is for people to tell the truth. Obviously we can't legislate that, and if we could demand this 100% of the time what a different world we would live in.

But to have shows like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Paths to 9/11 played on the airwaves before an election is not fair play nor is it the right thing to do.

We fought hard for our freedoms, free speech and the right to bear arms etc, and I would never want to stifle fair and honest debate. But to broadcast slander and lies is not the American way. It will not always be a right wing hatchet job. One day it will be a piece aimed at the other side. It would still be wrong.

Now, if saying no to lies, distortions, slander, and libel inhibits our freedom of speech and cannot pass judicial muster, than by all means we should find another way to improve the level of discourse. That is just one man's idea on what to do about the fingerpointing and name-calling we're seeing everyday. It may not be a perfect solution, but it would be a start of a sober and even-handed discussion.

Now for my part, I will research McCain-Feingold and get back with you. Thanks for pointing me in that direction and adding to the discussion. I did like this part:

When it comes to leadership, I'll take the doer over the talker any day. After all, don't we want people to 'walk the talk'?

You better believe it. Pop taught me that one.

The only thing that can be said about a TV movie, is that its a movie. Why let facts stand in the way of a good story. To paraphase Tina Turner, "What's truth got to do with it, with it."

I watched it as the final horror-filled dessert to a banquet of depressing and sad week-end documentaries, docu-dramas, re-hashed news footage and a rented dvd titled "United 93."

I won't be doing that again for a while.

After hearing only of Clinton's objections about this fictional work and the predictable and tired response to Clinton from such notable scholars of world history like Rush Limbaugh, I thought both administrations were pretty much tarred and feathered.

In fact, I was quite surprised how weak, shallow and purely arrogant Bush's adminstration was portrayed. They were shown to be so anxious to distance themselves from Clinton's administration that they forgot the boiling pot on the stove.

And, wonder of wonders, Richard Clark came out smelling like roses. A little over the top from the actor (please...the wild-eyed, crazy guy thing was silly).

The Bushies were made to look incompetent with the intelligence and data they inherited and Clinton's administration looked to be so politically hog-tied with correctness, world opinion concerns and career bureaucrats vying for power that we apparently got what we pretty much deserved from both administrations when it came to preventing a nose bleed, let alone a major terrorist attack on our soil.

If I were Condoleeza Rice, I'd be much more unhappy about this piece of crap than Bill Clinton or Madeleine Albright.

In fact, and we all know it, George Bush couldn't carry Bill Clinton's cape. And I, for one, believe Bill Clinton squandered a presidential opportunity of a lifetime unto history by following his "little captain" into battle. He may have taken his eye off the ball, but at least he knew how to hit it and which ballpark he was in at all times.

The point, 5 years later, is this: Let's assume for a nano-second that Bill Clinton personally triggered a series a failed intelligence and military options that caused or allowed the terror attack of September 11th.

What in the Hell has George Bush and his cabal of corporate-trained nincompoops done since then? The Republicans have literally controlled the country since 9/11 and what have they accomplished different from what they believe Bill Clinton did or didn't do about terrorism?

We're in more danger, as Americans, than ever before; more countries hate us as an evil force than ever before; we're fighting an idiotic, horribly expensive war in a country slipping into civil war with our soldiers as the hapless traffic cops and Osama Bin Laden is sitting on a rug somehwere near or in Pakistan and Afghanistan praying, meditating, eating olives and lamb and planning the next attack.

Oh, yeah, the Taliban is back in force, Repubs. You can't list that on your Mission Accomplished Honor Roll any more. And Afghanistan is currently cranking out more opium/heroin into the world's veins than ever before in its history. Glad to help out!

And weren't the Republicans ready to eat their children over the Reagan movie with Mr. Streisand portraying the Gipper?

My, how time and hypocrisy can age a fine wine into vinegar.

I honestly don't understand what the uproar is about. Yes, they condensed a whole bunch of operations on Bin Laden into one fictionalized version. OK, is anyone going to really take the position that Clinton was not distracted with the Lewinsky proceedings? I'll even throw you a bone and suggest that a vindinctive and unreasonable legislative branch is eaually at fault for making it so. But it certainly seems to be beyond reasonable argument that it was the case. I think the simple truth that no one was paying enough attention to these madmen came through in the show. Anyone going to contest this?

Would Clinton himself argue otherwise?

I sure as hell wasn't paying appropriate attention. Were you?

Why should we get all worked up about what seems to be obvious truth?

See, this is the type of thing that causes me to lose faith.

This whole thing is about blaming one party or another.

The bottom line is this:

Good Americans in both parties made rather HUMAN mistakes based on the best information they could come up with.

BAD people flew airplanes full of Americans into American buildings and American territory.

Good Americans died.

Good Americans in leadership positions did their best. Maybe it wasn't good enough.

Here we are, today, what can we do to make the best happen?

Argue about who's fault it was?

Sad.

I think we are more capable than that and I think that we could put the energy wasted on blaming each other into fixing some of the real issues we face as a nation.

Excellent post evolo. I can always count on you to distill things down to the essence. And sometimes it ain't pretty.

To the others, a hatchet job from either party leveled against either party steeped in lies, mischaracterizations, and slander, sold as true to the American public, commercial free, during an election, needs to be dealt with. Fairly and equitably. I recall that during the Reagans saga, folks were trying to get that pulled. If it was sold as a movie, then air it. If it is sold as the truth, then it better be true. The airwaves are steeped in muck as it is, but we shouldn't look the other way and give up trying to clean it up.

Grimmy is one of my favorites. Nice addition to the site.

Correction to "Rhino-itall", it was NOT the Clinton administration that warned the enemy about an impending strike against Bin-Laden. A high-ranking Pentagon staffer informed the Pakistanis (not the enemy, our supposed allies). It was not the Secretary of Defense, who is a part of an adminstration.Who would have thought we couldn't trust an ally in an effort to kill a known terrorist?

read your article in regards to the ABC 9/11 show, and to be honest with you, I did not even watch it. I kind of felt it would be somehow the same old rhetoric as always, and from what I have read from your article, I was right.

I would like to ask for your assistance in finding out though, if a story is true. I have had numerous discussions with family, co-workers, friends in regards to politics, Bush, our government and it's policies and how I am told the "media is very liberal in it's reporting". Now I would prefer to read true stories in the newspaper, TV, wherever and like leave the manipulated stories (towards the right or the left) for the comic section, but I at least mike to know the truth.

Anyway, during my discussions, my conservative friends have bought up stories about the "tons" of yellow cake uranium that the US found in Iraq but is never been reported in the news media. I know the story of Saddam trying to buy uranium from Nigeria which Bush used to justify for the war in Iraq turned out to be false. I did a search through Altavista and found a story on the USAToday web site from 7/7/2004 stating that " According to the letter, the United States informed the IAEA on June 30 that approximately 1.8 tons of uranium, enriched to a level of 2.6%, another 6.6 pounds of low-enriched uranium, and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive sources had been transferred on June 23" to the US.

Can you first tell me if this story is true? And how did the uranium get there in the first place? And why is this not reported by the Bush administration or an issue throughout news organizations when discussing the reasons for the war in Iraq?

Thank you.

Freedom of speech as long as you guys are the ones doing the speaking, huh?
Hollywood has been distorting conservatives for as long as they've been making movies, I can't remember your outrage though.

Anyway, it's funny to see you guys recite all the ways Clinton fought the terrorists.
If he was so obsessed with al Qaeda and bin laden, how come the final Clinton admin. intel report to Congress (some 1200 pages) barely mentions bin Laden?
If his admin. were so keen on nabbing terrorists, how come Al Gore didn't make fighting terrorists a part of his platform in 2000?
Why did Clinton not visit the site of the first WTC bombing in '93?

As for anything Richard Clarke has to say, give me a break, he's a proven partisan hack liar with an axe to grind against this administration.

By the way, Oh MY God!, the writer is a--gasp--"conservative". Take him out and shoot him. How dare he not be a liberal?

Regards,
Brian Lockrey

P.S. the new owners of the Daily news are trying so hard not be labeled "conservative", they're allowing the paper to become more neo-com, if that was even possible.

Regarding warning the Pakistanis about the impending strike on Bin Laden, it only makes sense to do so. If the Paks mistook the strike as c-o-m-i-n-g from India, literally all hell could have broken loose. (A point, by the way, the "fictionalized" Clinton administration characters make in the horribly slanted "dramatization".)

Sure, in retrospect, it would have been nice to get Bin Laden, but the risk was enormous. I wouldn't call that one a mistake or wrong judgement.

(again with the "c-o-m-i-n-g" as "questionable content". was this a bible-thumping right winger blog and i missed it?)

I read your piece in yesterday's Daily Snooze and came away with a BIG CHUCKLE!! You called the "Path To 9/11" an "unfair slam" to Bill Clinton. I didn't see it as such. I was waiting for someone locally to get on Bill's bandwagon that supported his contentions that ABC pull the plug on it's release to the public the events that led to terrorists destruction of life and property on that dreadful day.

What Clinton proposed and what he did are like night and day. It's amazing how you liberals all want to gang up on this current president and administration to lay the blame for 9/11 at his feet when it was your icon who is wholly the blame. Let's take a closer look:

Do you remember the first attack on the WTC in 1993?? As I remember it, Mr.Clinton never set foot in NYC after that attack. He talked a lot of "smack" in the aftermath, but essentially the terrorists still had free reign. He punked us out in Mogadishu during the Blackhawk Down incident. Osama bin Laden really got full of himself after that one. Didn't he also blow up two of our embassies in Africa killing American people in the process?? And let's not forget the USS Cole bombing as well as the Khobar Towers. Those came along on Bill's watch as well. The facts as I know them to be are that all of the incidents occured during Clinton's watch. He was to busy trying to hide gays in the military, tell us that oral sex "isn't" sex, hide his hands from Whitewater, Filegate, perpetrate the biggest government takeover of the economy with HillaryCare, the Paula Jones affair, need I go on. Damn!! I guess he wouldn't have had the time to focus on national security and US interests abroad.

All you liberals in the drive-by-media(I love that monicker by the way)along with the Democrat party do nothing but moan and groan while this current president is doing something the last one never had a clue of doing; being a LEADER!! Polls, polls, and more polls seem to be what was running the country when Bill Clinton was "president". He couldn't move "left" without them. The movie, docudrama, mini-series, or whatever you want to call it, laid bare the ineptness and clear void of LEADERSHIP in Bill Clinton. I believe with everything in me that Bill Clinton did not come to the White House to lead, but he came to PARTY!! It was his chance to be in the limelight, to hob nob with the stars and the Washington elite.

If you're interested in the truth, you ought to read the piece written by Byron York, "The Facts About Clinton And Terrorism" in National Review Online. It's thourough as anything I've read. If you have trouble getting it, let me know and I'll be more than glad to forward it to you for your reading pleasure. You were really upset by that program. To bad, but the other side of the story had to come out. By the way, were you this upset when "Farenhiet 911" was released?? Don't remember seeing any columns written by you damning it. I bet you got a front center row seat for that and got the dvd as soon as it was realeased, didn't you?? Didn't you?? .....

Preventing New Physical Threats

"Al Gore and the Democratic Party recognize the possibility of change in Iran, but we remain focused on the realities. Even as elements in Iran press for reform, the country still supports international terrorism, strives to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and represses its citizens, as evidenced by the immoral trial of 13 Jews in Shiraz. Ultimately, we must judge Iran by its actions. Al Gore will make an all-out effort to halt Iran's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.

In Iraq, we are committed to working with our international partners to keep Saddam Hussein boxed in, and we will work to see him out of power. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have stood up to Saddam Hussein time and time again. As President, Al Gore will not hesitate to use America's military might against Iraq when and where it is necessary. "

source: http://www.aipac.org/

"I didn't see the movie, i was watching football but does it really matter?"

"Also i heard the movie made other accusations..."

------------------

Typical Republican...throwing around their opinions without actually watching (or reading) that which is being argued about.

------------------

"Finally, when clinton finally decided to send cruise missiles in retaliation for the cole bombing his administration WARNED THE ENEMY FIRST!

These are all FACTS, and if you say they're not you're either misinformed, or you're lying."

------------------

Hey Rhino...define 'FACTS'. Are 'FACTS' bits of information that are TRUE, or are 'FACTS' statements, ideas and concepts as you wish them to be portrayed so that you can go on believing all of the lies that you seem oh so willing to digest and adopt as your own train of thought?

Utterly nauseating.

Tell me this, genius, what did Bush do before invading Iraq? Was it just me, or did he give them an actual deadline before invading? Wouldn't this be a 'warning' as you are so quick to point out and criticize Clinton for? Did we forget about this already? Of course you did...another typical characteristic of the modern Republican...THE CONVENIENT MEMORY.

I can't wait for the day when we all collectively move on from 9-11 and stop arguing about this nonsense. Maybe we should look at our foreign policy and realize that it is our previous actions which dictate how other countries perceive the U.S. and why they want to perform acts of terror on usin the first place.

Maybe we should also try to understand what they are all about so that we can avoid such issues in the future.

Maybe I am naive and just don't realize how much money is at stake when carrying out falsified wars which generate huge government contracts. I'd rather these scoundrels just take the money directly out of my pocket...then maybe I wouldn't have to worry about any of the several family members and friends I have over in IRaq getting killed for nothing.

...and I like the fact that the admin touts their little tax cuts.

...I like the fact that my 350 dollars in "rebate" goes directly to the oil companies - his friends and contributors.

...that's just cute. Real cute.

And I love the top secret energy meetings dick had.

Lets fill in the blanks. They probably said that war is good for business. They probably talked about what to expect in the next few years. They probably conspired to screw the American people. And you know what - we'll never know, but that is whats happening. Your party has screwed the ship of state.

Hey Brian,

From W, O'Reilly, Snow, and Coulter on down to the koolaid drinkers, why let the truth get in the way of a good rant - right?

you said:

"If his admin. were so keen on nabbing terrorists, how come Al Gore didn't make fighting terrorists a part of his platform in 2000?"

You just lost all credibility.

From the Democratic Platform 2000

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/dem-platform4.html

_____________________________________________

Battling Terrorism.

Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack. We must improve coordination internationally and domestically to share intelligence and develop operational plans. We must continue the comprehensive approach that has resulted in the development of a national counter-terrorism strategy involving all arms and levels of our government. We must continue to target terrorist finances, break up support cells, and disrupt training. And we must close avenues of cyber-attack by improving the security of the Internet and the computers upon which our digital economy exists.

As President, Al Gore will tolerate no attack against American interests at home or abroad: terrorists must know that if they attack America, we will never forget. We will scour the world to hunt them down and bring them to justice.

While fighting terrorism, we will protect the civil liberties of all Americans. Our justice system must guarantee fairness with procedures that protect the rights of the accused, even under the unusual circumstances of the investigation of threats to our national security. We must avoid stereotyping, for it defeats the highest purposes of our country if citizens feel automatically suspect by virtue of their ethnic origin. The purpose of terrorism is not only to intimidate, but also to divide and fracture, and we cannot permit that to happen.

He is looking good for '08. He is entitled to an "I told you so" and you right-wingers just hate it so much that you have to lie.

*Sigh* The usual partisan dreck from Ms. Monteiro Colgan, and the usual reponses from 'our team' and the 'other team'. You look like you're in your early 30s from the press photos. Time to quit running for president of the Young Democrats and do something besides excrete the party line every few days. Otherwise you may end up as the next Will Bunch..

LOL - what a thoughtful, hard-hitting critique, Joe C. Good to see the depth of your ideas.

What a disgusting little group of righties there in PA. I would be PO'd too, getting my butt kicked every election, and for the ones "my team" did win, have them do piss poor in their jobs.

"They're in a bad mood on the right..."

I came away with the same thoughts I already had, regarding liberals.

I have read a few books on our teflon former President and I have a hard time understanding how he is able to walk around like he never did anything wrong. The book "Dereliction of Duty," explains, how, on 3 different occasions Clinton was told that he could have gotten UBL, but at the last moment changed his mind. when he got caught with his pants down, for a change, he ordered Tomahawk rockets to destroy a munitions plant only to find out it was an aspirin factory. He had no idea what to do, so therefore he basically did nothing, while our country was attacked over and over.

In your article, you say; Clinton had daily briefings and held meetings 3 times per week. Isn't that what liberals do? With everything around them falling apart, let's have meetings. It's your turn for the pizza. With all the rhetoric coming out of Iran, the D's say, "let's sit down with the devil and resolve our difference's." Isn't that what Chamberlain did with Hitler, and look what his country got in return.

Clinton lied about smoking, lied about Lewinsky, and lied about going after terrorists wherever they may be. Instead of using military, he said let's send the FBI over there and we can arrest them. Wow, what great leadership.

I am a 67 year old man, who volunteered for the draft when I was 18. I served my country with much pride, as an MP, and I also had a top secret clearance. Fortunately I served during peace time. I would not have liked serving under a man like Bill Clinton."

When Michael Moore made his movie, you heard nothing from Bush or the R's, but when the movie about Kerry came out regarding the swift boat saga's, the D's screamed bloody murder. A new movie is just coming out showing Bush being assassinated, but you hear nothing from the White House. Now the ABC movie comes out and the D's are, once again screaming and hollering. You can't have everything your way.

I believe the Liberal D's care more about their party then they do their country, that is why they wouldn't support Joe Lieberman, when he said "My country before my party."

Oh my god a republican conservative wrote a tv scripe what were they thinking?Everyone knows only a dead headed liberal from hollywood can write.Get a life little girl.

Ed-
...and I don't like serving under W. He lies too much. I mean we literally are rolling our eyes when we hear his speeches. W and his folks are say one thing and do another. I will certainly not be raising my kids to be like that. Meetings are a fact fo life. W has meetings all the time, probably more so than any other president in history. But his problem is not all the meetings... the lack of a coherent plan when he finishes them. And they don't back up his rhetoric.

As far as movies and such. I never scream bloody murder. Nor do I know any servicemembers who do that who think W is a weak CIC. So I have no idea what you are talking about. So enjoy your 100% increase in copays, 6 month to a year wait to see a VA doctor, and everything else your dear Republican Congress has helped you with.

I believe the Liberal D's care more about their party then they do their country

I'm with you one one thing - I think the R's put politics before security. Why did you think we pulled back from Fallujah when we did? Republican suits had yet another meeting, wieghed the political consequences, and kept us from holding what we fought for. Now that's the real disgrace. And probably not one peep from you. Have a good day Sir.

the independent film channel had something tonight by 11 directors, short films that were tied together by 9/11...

whether you agreed or disagreed with each point that particular director made, the point of the entire piece was, that there are different perspectives worldwide and in the U.S....

from the boys in Africa hunting Bin Laden to get money for their friend's sick mom, to the man who was in the shadow of the Twin Towers, and whose only perspective was his dead wife and how the towers did not let the flowers grow,b/c it blocked the light... and when they fell, the
flowers grew and he realized his wife was gone... there

was another one about the ex-patriot from Chile who also had a 9/11 moment, in 1973...

though I know you and I and others have more of a
worldwide view of things... sometimes you get, that tunnel vision... which kind of illustrates citizen hunter in away, getting out of your world and seeing things with a large brush stroke...

Nail,
That sounds very interesting, those different views of what is happening. Widening our perspective is always a good thing.

The Right calling the Left "hypocritical" is like a 'crackho' denouncing a promiscous single Mom!

This admin. has slept at the switch on 9/11, Katrina, Abu Ghraib, health care, education, "no child left behind", Iraq intelligence, managing Korea/Iran, handling middle east politics, to just name a few!

Then some right wing nuts go and blame it all on Clinton?!? I have always maintained that the Right just had a low collective IQ, now it's obvious that they are plain evil!

Hey Ed, assuming you are correct, Clinton may have not gotten Osama before 9/11 but Bush has not got Osama 5 years AFTER 9/11! Pakistan, under a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP, just signed off on a local treaty which gives Osama safe haven in the bordering mountains of Pakistan-Afghanistan and it remains Bush's "closest ally " on the "fight on terror". Halleluiah!

One question to all the right wing nuts: between chubby cheeks Rove, National guard George, 5 deferments Cheney and draft dodger Rumsfeld, how many Purple Hearts did they win?! :-))
Now the same question on Kerry? ;-))

Rhino, Mel's point is that the people who clamor for war by and large are not warriors. That is hypocritical to me.

I have voted for the best military and defense candidate every election, and they just happen to be dems. I'm military and I vote. I wouldn't have done that had they not proven to be good to the military. The dems in Congress are proving that now, desperately trying to get us our gear, initiating a bill that had a higher pay raise for us that the WH opposed, and trying to get answers about the no-bid contracts - just to name a few issues.

They have been fighting for us for a long time. In fact, I thought they did such a good job, I volunteered to serve myself during Clinton's term.

Since the R's have been in power, the services have performed well, they perform well no matter what -
- "We go to war with the Defense Secretary we have" to transform a quote.

Anyway the force that Clinton and Bush Sr. and Reagan built smashed Iraq in just days. But since then, the WR's (W Republicans - vastly different from my dad's Republican Party) planning and military budget cuts, no bid contracts for sub-standard services, and a hostile republican VA delegation chaired by Rep. Buyer has proven to me which group has a better track record - the dems and the pre-W repubs. I should know, I have served through both.

What I do like about the R's is that they do put on a good show. But eventually the parades end and all your left with is inadequate policy and unfocused political leadership. Clinton may have taken his eye off the ball with OBL, but at least he was in the right ball field, where Geroge Senior and Reagan were not, and he did pass on the knowledge to W, and the brief "Osama Bin Laden Determined To Strike In the U.S." was ignored.

Then 9/11 came and the leadership lost their minds. It's the terrorist stupid. Thats all I have to say. Oh yeah, and GOOOOO Philly's!(jk)