First of all, David, I think that if Gore had been elected then 9/1q1 would have been just another normal day... the Bush name is not real popular in the Arab world... Might of fact, most Arabs have a deep distrust for the Bushs. The highjacking of the US governemnt by the Bush family in 2000, couple with the subseguent Middle east policy of the imposter in chief, which in essence wasn't a policy in that Bush purdy much told Sharon to whop some butt.... So the atmosphere was perfect for the bin Laden gang. Another hated Bush in the White House and disrespect for the Palestinians... Gore, though I wasn't too wild about him either (I'm Green, BTW...) wouldn't have created such an atmosphere. He would have continued tirelessly in the footsteps of Slick Willie to at least make it look like the US cared about the Palestinians....

And even if bin Laden still figgured he's hit, Gore was way too much a stickler fir detail and wouldn't have ignored the August 8th PDB...

Now as for yer other man ("not my man" either), Pappa Bush. He and son have this strange little DNA thing going in that, if you'll recall, his numbers weren't all that great either so he figgured that he would neeed him a good boogie man if he were to get re-elected so he set Saddam up to invade Kuwait... No, you won't read it like that in the right wing media. Ya' just have to connect a few dots... Like here is Rumsey-field presenting a sword to Saddam and giving him some purdy danged dangeruos weapons and intellegence and then, Saddam is a bad man! Historians will cut thru the crap and one day tell the story like it really happened. Bush gave Saddam a wink when Saddam said he was gonna "take back" Kuwait (which was once part of Ieaq...) and when Saddam made his move, Bush the Elder, looking a low poll numbers, made his.... But the revisionists have neatly rewritten all that sticky stuff to make it digestable for the masses who can't tell the name of their Congressperson but can darned well tell you who is leading the NASCAR points standings.

Fast forward and it de javu all over again.

Now lets see, what else did I get accused of? Hmmmm? Oh yeah, the New York Times. Well, maybe someone would like to enlighten me as to why the New York Times is considered to be, ahhhh, liberal? I'll pose the question again. The New York Times, as the Wsahington Post, etal, printed all that prewat propaganda on their front pages, day after day, after day... Yet, now they have become aware that they weren't actually reporting much of anything other than what was given to them by, ahhhhh, the Bush folks. Well, do they print that on page one? Heck no they don't. They either keep their mounths shut or bury the story....

Real liberal there, folks...

As fir the fascism... Hey, this ain't got nuthing to do with anything except studying who the brownshirt movement came about... If anyone things that when I use this term I am using it to be dismissive of folks opions that do no coincide with my own, they are wrong.... Facsim has a number of elements that the Bush administartion has been using to try to centralize power. Cenraliztion od power being the cornerstone of the facist movement. Superpatriotism, Demonization of those in desent, etc...

And the beat goes on...

Bobert