NEWS: CBS to Air Another 60 Minutes Special on Bush. Telling All.

Originally posted by RANT
I don't see how you and Seth are so convinced this woman is a liar. I mean it's fine if you don't like what's she's saying, or you question it. But you know she's lying? And what's that "the truth can't be denied" mean Seth?

Um.. When I said:

C'mon.. First you have a false document. Then someone suddenly comes out of the woodwork and says it's all true. "I was there and i saw.." This is purley partisan and you know it. The truth cannot be dienied.

I was refering to the so called "Swift Boat Vets" and their (ahem) non-fiction (ahem) book. But, maybe you do have a point...

I mean it's fine if you don't like what's she's saying, or you question it. But you know she's lying?

Could they be telling the truth?

Nah... it is a purely partisan play on their part. And so is Mr. Rather and his grandmotherly secretary.

Rant, as the Governator said "Where there is smoke there is fire". Why are poeple so eager to accept her as being truthfull? Oh man the silver haired old lady would not lie!

I am baffeled by peoples willingness to accept this case on clearly false documents faxed from a Kinkos (I know thats not confirmed yet) and an old lady who, I swear did not sound the least senile,, but did act as though she had been coached and reading from a script. I am no expert, but one unfortunate aspect of my transport job is picking up abused kids. You can always tell when the parents have coached each other as to what to say when questions are asked. Thats how she looked.

I also ask is this the best that they could do to try to distract from thier failure to at least check the documents before they went on air with them? I know we on the right complain endlessly about liberal bias, but Rather is a liberal reporter and He does have a very personal ax to grind with the Bush family. Instead of comming on the air and saying look we made a mistake, he has made the issue muddier and not to the benifit of Kerry.

You and I and others on ATS will not be swayed from our positions by this or just about any other aspect for the rest of the campaign, but the effect on the undecideds may now swing in the favor of Bush. Whoever tried to orcestrate this failed and may have soiled the rep of a major news service in the process.

Originally posted by friday2112
I think anything that can really show what type of a evil rotten coward he really is would be the greatest thing that could happen right now. The last thing we need is four more years of GW Bush. IMO

Oh I see, so its alright that the documents are fake...so, as a democrat, or liberal, you don't care wether it is a lie, you just want to use it anyways huh?

Humm, so what are Kerry's plans for the US? Let's see, he wants to "fight a more sensible war on terror"....sure, let's talk about feelings with terrorists.

What else, humm... Oh that's right, Kerry voted in favor for the war in Iraq yet he voted against sending more funds to keep our troops armored and with much needed ammunition... among other things...

humm, yep i will vote for Bush again.

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson

Just as amazing as going before the UN and the American people with falsified information on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then they try to justify that by adding 'new' links between Iraq and Al-Queda and tell us there is a 'bigger threat'. That was a very sad day for the United States Government.

There go the Dems and liberals, with their made up stories and lies, no wonder you people like Moore so much.

I guess you don't know that most of the information used came from...the 1999 UNSCOM report.

My other guess is also you haven't read the Butler report, nor the May 28th UNMOVIC report, nor what Russia said about Saddam, probably to wash their hands from any links to him. According to Russia, Saddam's regime was planning terror attacks on the US...

Oh no wait...all of it is just lies, Bush was behind everything, it was him also the one who made all those democrats, including Clinton and Kerry, say something must be done with Saddam, even if it means by force.....it doesn't matter if they said this along with most democrats when Clinton was in office.

The really sad thing is that the president of this country spends about $100 million on TV-ads trying to put words into his opponents mouth, trying to scare the population of this great country to vote for him with his ridiculous propanganda, instead of actually letting us know what he's going to do with the humongous deficit he's created. He could also be so kind and tell us what country is next on his list Or he could tell us how many more countries around the world he's planning on pissing off if he gets 4 more years. Or maybe tell us how many protected areas he's planning on letting the oil industry drill in. Or even better, how much worse he's planning on letting the health care system her get.

[edit on 16/9/2004 by Norwegian]

Originally posted by RANT
It was started at BlogsForBush, legwork by AM radio and now the Freepers are debating the merits of which one to convince Drudge to run with accusing. I KID YOU NOT.

So while we're discussing how bad CBS is...the rest of the Internet is writing the lead for Fox and CNN in the morning. :shk:

Am I the only one that sees how wrong this is? And by "this" I mean EVERYTHING.

This is where your "NEWS" comes from people. Washington Post Today.

CBS Guard Documents Traced to Texas Kinkos

And it looks like the Post went with BURKETT!!!

There is only one Kinko's in Abilene, and it is 21 miles from the Baird, Tex., home of retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents.

I love knowing what that line means now.

"who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents"

News outlets like BlogsforBush, talk show host Kevin McCullough, FreeRepublic and DRUDGE!

See the chain? I'm not defending CBS for goofing on their source at all...I'm just showing you where ALL sources come from. Internet crap, or in this case BlogsforBush! Now it's "non partisan news" fed by Bushbloggers scolding "partisan CBS" ...and look at how they sink CBS with a whispered link to Burkett, then launch into an attack of Burkett's credibility right off.

Asked what role Burkett may have played in CBS's reporting, Heyward said: "I'm not going to get into any discussion of who the sources are."

Burkett, who has accused Bush aides of ordering the destruction of some portions of the president's National Guard record because they might have been politically embarrassing, did not return telephone calls to his home. His lawyer, David Van Os, issued a statement on Burkett's behalf saying he "no longer trusts any possible outcome of speaking to the press on any issue regarding George W. Bush and does not choose to dignify recent spurious attacks upon his character with any comment."

In news interviews earlier this year, Burkett said he overheard a telephone conversation in the spring of 1997 in which top Bush aides asked the head of the Texas National Guard to sanitize Bush's files as he was running for a second term as governor of Texas. Several days later, he said, he saw dozens of pages from Bush's military file dumped in a trash can at Camp Mabry, the Guard's headquarters.

The Bush aides Burkett named as participants in the telephone conversation were Chief of Staff Joe M. Allbaugh and spokespeople Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett. All three Bush aides and former Texas National Guard Maj. Gen. Daniel James have strongly denied the allegations.

Suspicions that Burkett could have been a source for the CBS documents first surfaced earlier this week when Newsweek magazine reported that Mapes flew to Texas to interview him over the summer. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a CBS staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that Burkett was a source for the "60 Minutes" report but "did not know the exact role he played."

Yesterday, reporters from several news organizations were camped near Baird, Tex., outside Burkett's home, which is on a working ranch, with a gate barring access to a one-story farmhouse and a pickup truck outside. At 6 p.m. Central Time, Burkett walked to the gate on his cane with a black dog by his side to collect his mail. He refused to answer questions about whether he provided the documents to CBS.

"Get out of my way," he told the reporters. "You need to go home."

Earlier this year, Burkett gave interviews to numerous news outlets, including The Washington Post, alleging corruption and malfeasance at the top of the Texas National Guard, much of which have never been substantiated. He has also been a named source for several reports by USA Today, which reported Monday that it had independently obtained copies of the disputed memos soon after the broadcast.

Actually they intermix Burkett's previous charges against Bush in with examples of him acting "crazy" like some of the best propaganda I've seen.

We really are doomed. I may not be explaining this very well as it's late, but long story short: News is dead. It's ALL made up. Or at least highly orchestrated and far from being a "free press."

Rather Concedes Papers are suspect AFTER Interview

Washington Post this morning.

They're all in on it. Ratings. Circulation. Money.

Fall guy created and executed. Everybody comes off clean. And a week has gone by with nothing actually happening.

Scratch that. Plenty happened. Nothing got covered.

I don't think I need any papers about National Guard Service to know that a guy who can't take press conferences with pre-screened questions being asked, 3 times a year, is fit to be the most important politician in the United States.

Honestly, does anyone? Do you think this man is fit to be President, or does he fulfill and affirm certain aspects of your own political views and character, so he's the best alternative?

I don't like Bush or Kerry, and sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, but it's obvious that Bush is not up to par. We couldn't do much worse off if he was replaced by Kermit the Frog.

Originally posted by Norwegian
The really sad thing is that the president of this country spends about $100 million on TV-ads trying to put words into his opponents mouth, trying to scare the population of this great country to vote for him with his ridiculous propanganda, instead of actually letting us know what he's going to do with the humongous deficit he's created. He could also be so kind and tell us what country is next on his list

humm, really? that i can remember Bush has said that he admires(or something like it) that Kerry served this country, and he said we should all be proud that he did (i think that's what he said, its too late to remember right now. It is Kerry who keeps lying about what he did in Vietnam, among other things, and tries to use anything against Bush, even if its a lie.

If you call "Bush is puting words in kerry's mouth" when Bush says Kerry flip-flops too much, and not being decisive in almost any matter....Bush is not lying or puting words in anyone's mouth.... Kerry does flip-flop his way around, in most issues.

Also, f you call warning the public as "scare tactics", i guess you haven't heard about the 9/11 controversy, when the government decided that most probably Bin Laden was just bluffing....but when 9/11 happened, almost half the country was bashing the administration for keeping the information from them, now that they are giving more information you want to bash the administration some more?

BTW do you really think Kerry is going to stand up for the common man (as democrats are supposed to do) instead of supporting the, at least, 200 "business leaders" (read billionares and multi-millionares) who are endorsing him for presidency?

About your concern of deficit.... first off, deficit does not happen overnight. It takes years to build up, several administrations, and it depends heavily on the public's actions, not just the government. Consumers and business owners drive the economy, and their confidence on our economy can worsen or make better the deficit. One way to help the deficit is also to cut taxes and create incentives so that business owners and consumers spend more money.

The same can be said about the economy, which is actually recovering, but takes time. After 9/11 I would say the administration, and the American people did good to get back on our feet again, even thou we are still struggling.


[edit on 16-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
humm, really? that i can remember Bush has said that he admires(or something like it) that Kerry served this country, and he said we should all be proud that he did (i think that's what he said, its too late to remember right now. It is Kerry who keeps lying about what he did in Vietnam, among other things, and tries to use anything against Bush, even if its a lie.

If you call "Bush is puting words in kerry's mouth" when Bush says Kerry flip-flops too much, and not being decisive in almost any matter....Bush is not lying or puting words in anyone's mouth.... Kerry does flip-flop his way around, in most issues.

Also, f you call warning the public as "scare tactics", i guess you haven't heard about the 9/11 controversy, when the government decided that most probably Bin Laden was just bluffing....but when 9/11 happened, almost half the country was bashing the administration for keeping the information from them, now that they are giving more information you want to bash the administration some more?

BTW do you really think Kerry is going to stand up for the common man (as democrats are supposed to do) instead of supporting the, at least, 200 "business leaders" (read billionares and multi-millionares) who are endorsing him for presidency?

About your concern of deficit.... first off, deficit does not happen overnight. It takes years to build up, several administrations, and it depends heavily on the public's actions, not just the government. Consumers and business owners drive the economy, and their confidence on our economy can worsen or make better the deficit. One way to help the deficit is also to cut taxes and create incentives so that business owners and consumers spend more money.

The same can be said about the economy, which is actually recovering, but takes time. After 9/11 I would say the administration, and the American people did good to get back on our feet again, even thou we are still struggling.

First of all, as a European living in the US, I find it interesting that any one would show up to vote, since both candidates spend most their time bashing each other. I guess that's the reason why the US has the lowest procentage of people voting in the western world. And from what I've seen on TV, Bush is by far the worst one in doing so.

Really now, Kerry lies about what happend in Vietnam? Well if you listen to propanganda, then I guess you're right. Anyways, why can't the cadidates talk about what concerns them, talk about their plans, instead of bashing each other? It's quite childish if you ask me, and it just makes themselves look bad. How is it possible that they can get away with that? Amazing.

About Kerry flip-floping, most of it is over exadurated, like everything else that comes from Bush. I would have preferred a different candidate myself, but I must say, any one can do better than George "my way or the highway" Bush.

I'm not going to say too much about 9/11, but of course I've heard about the controversy. I'm not bashing them for giving out too much info, where did you get that from? They are NOT giving out enough info, they haven't explained i.e. why the second plane exploded before it hit the building and so on. And I think it's a disgrace that Bush uses 9/11 in his ads. But of course, anything goes, at least that's what his opinion seems like.

I think Kerry will do a much better job when it comes to education, health care and crating jobs, absolutely. Of course, you won't see much change right away, but over a periode of four years you'd see a big difference. And mentioning the billionaires supporting Bush is like throwing rocks in your own glass house. Most republicans are well educated, well off people. And who supports the Bush campaign? How about pharmaceutical companies and oil companies. They don't have any money? Yeah ok, they are the ones, especially the pharmaceutical companies, who really messes up things with charging basically anything they want for their products. And then they complain about cheaper drugs in Canada and Europe, and say European companies are piggy backing them. Interesting, since Bayer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the US, is a GERMAN company. Oh yeah, and Bush comes from a really poor family as well.

You're right about one thing; deficit does not happen overnight. I'm totally aware that the after math of 9/11 have to take a lot of the blame for that, and for the loss of jobs. However, Bush could have done a much better job on this part.

The major mistake Bush did however, was to go to war alone. He already had a huge deficit, and then he decided on spending billions on a war in Iraq. I can understand why that pisses a lof of people off. Instead of taking care of problems at home, he spends all that money on a country most people here don't know much about. How do you think the 40 million poor people in this country feels then? Not only that, by not cooperating with his allies and UN right away, he lost a lot of respect around the world. The US has ALWAYS had a lot of respect in the western world, but Bush managed to basically rip that apart. Just think about this scenario; he should have waited a few more months with the attack on Iraq, the UN would have finished one last weapon inspection as they wanted, he would have had NATO behind him together with the approval from the UN, and all the expences/casualties from the war would have been shared between the NATO-countries. Saddam would still have been captured, the people would still have been free today. Had Bush done all this, he would have already won the election.

A president who misses out in important moments like that shouldn't be president. That's where he went totally wrong, not listening to his allies, and wasting all the money he should have used at home.

By the way, I hope your home state manages to count the votes properly this time I've heard you have some new ballots down there which are just as confusing as last time....amazing in a democracy

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Norwegian


humm, really? that i can remember Bush has said that he admires(or something like it) that Kerry served this country, and he said we should all be proud that he did (i think that's what he said, its too late to remember right now. It is Kerry who keeps lying about what he did in Vietnam,


[edit on 16-9-2004 by Muaddib]

While Bush was a dear to say something so lovely of Kerry, at the same time, the same week the story came out that vet got something like 50$million from Bush for a business. Of course, that got swept under the rug a day later. We debated this story right here.

Washington Post on-line editor, James Taranto was just on Bill O'Reilly to discuss the how they took down CBS on the documents and credited bloggers with the entire debunking. Citing even last night's story being countered within minutes and feeding up into national news.

They're admitting what I've been saying here.

He said no longer are the days of the NY Times running elite pieces to be picked up down the chain and run, it's all reversed blog, foot soldier driven with as much disinformation as accurate information but "it all works out."

O'Reilly couldn't agree more.

When I get the transcript I'll start a post with the CBS - BlogsforBush to Washington post example and Taranto's admission of what news has become... and how "the people" have marginalized "elite media" if not altogether killed it.

This is seriously a fundamental shift in society I don't think people are quite grasping yet.

Originally posted by Norwegian

About Kerry flip-floping, most of it is over exadurated, like everything else that comes from Bush.

They are NOT giving out enough info, they haven't explained i.e. why the second plane exploded before it hit the building and so on. And I think it's a disgrace that Bush uses 9/11 in his ads.

And mentioning the billionaires supporting Bush is like throwing rocks in your own glass house.

You're right about one thing; deficit does not happen overnight. I'm totally aware that the after math of 9/11 have to take a lot of the blame for that, and for the loss of jobs. However, Bush could have done a much better job on this part.

The major mistake Bush did however, was to go to war alone. Not only that, by not cooperating with his allies and UN right away, he lost a lot of respect around the world. The US has ALWAYS had a lot of respect in the western world, but Bush managed to basically rip that apart. Just think about this scenario;

You don't even want to go to Kerry's flip-flops, if i mentioned all of them that's pretty much what this subject would turn to, and they are not exagerated. That first.

Second...I don't know what you are talking about any plane exploding before it hit the building, but we have already covered this in other forums, just do a search.

Third....did I say the 200 millionares/billionares were supporting Bush? read again my post, those are supporting Kerry, which is my point as many people think that Kerry will have the best interest for the poor people in the country... and yes i am aware that Bush also has millionare/billionare supporters.

Fourth, if you think you can make a better job perhaps you should be a candidate for president.

Fifth...if you call 45 countries forming a coalition with the US for going to war in Afghanistan and right now 33 countries which are part of a coalition with the US (unless it has changed again, been procupied with other matters down here lately in Florida) as being alone.....

Europe respects the US?...or respected?.....
I was raised in Europe, and back from 79-89 the US was hated by most Europeans, so please do not try to sell me that because that is propaganda...trying to say that most of Europe had love for the US before this....*shakes head*

Most Europeans, I am not saying all but most, have never really liked the US for whatever reason.

I remember in Spain people bashed the US back in those days but they still wore jeans from the US, listened to music from the US, etc, etc.

And last but not least, your scenario of what Bush should have done, is just wish-thinking and trying to give the blame on one person, and if it is the US much better....

The whole world had waited since after the First Gulf War on Saddam disarmament, if over 10 years is not enough waiting for you, perhaps we should have waited 100 years?

Saddam was not allowing the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to go to some of the factories that were under monitoring, and in the others he would only allow the weapons inspectors after a week or more of notice... The one that was not cooperating with the Us or the UN was Saddam....not the other way around.

What could have happened if we didn't go to war with Iraq is that, Saddam would have still played hide and seek with the weapon inspectors, the UN would have made another sanction against Iraq in which probably another 500,000 children under the age of 5 in Iraq would have died. Just like what happened after the UN sanctions in which Clinton agreed with before the war.

Saddam would have acquired uranium from Africa, he would have probably made or helped with terror attacks in the US like Russian authorities told the US, he would be trying to get more weapons and probably would have attacked another country like Kuwait meanwhile the US was preocupied with the terror attacks in our soil...

Saddam showed that he would attack any country before, and his actions in acquiring weapons which were banned by the UN tells me that he was building up his armaments again for another little war of his.

If we had not gone to war with Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, his forces would have more armament and the war would have come to the US.

I don't even know how you came up with your scenario. BTW, do read the Butler report, the 1999 UNSCOM report and the May 28th UNMOVIC report and perhaps you will see that you are wrong in your assertions.





[edit on 16-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

You don't even want to go to Kerry's flip-flops, if i mentioned all of them that's pretty much what this subject would turn to, and they are not exagerated. That first.

Second...I don't know what you are talking about any plane exploding before it hit the building, but we have already covered this in other forums, just do a search.

Third....did I say the 200 millionares/billionares were supporting Bush? read again my post, those are supporting Kerry, which is my point as many people think that Kerry will have the best interest for the poor people in the country... and yes i am aware that Bush also has millionare/billionare supporters.

Fourth, if you think you can make a better job perhaps you should be a candidate for president.

Fifth...if you call 45 countries forming a coalition with the US for going to war in Afghanistan and right now 33 countries which are part of a coalition with the US (unless it has changed again, been procupied with other matters down here lately in Florida) as being alone.....

Europe respects the US?...or respected?.....
I was raised in Europe, and back from 79-89 the US was hated by most Europeans, so please do not try to sell me that because that is propaganda...trying to say that most of Europe had love for the US before this....*shakes head*

Most Europeans, I am not saying all but most, have never really liked the US for whatever reason.

I remember in Spain people bashed the US back in those days but they still wore jeans from the US, listened to music from the US, etc, etc.

And last but not least, your scenario of what Bush should have done, is just wish-thinking and trying to give the blame on one person, and if it is the US much better....

The whole world had waited since after the First Gulf War on Saddam disarmament, if over 10 years is not enough waiting for you, perhaps we should have waited 100 years?

Saddam was not allowing the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to go to some of the factories that were under monitoring, and in the others he would only allow the weapons inspectors after a week or more of notice... The one that was not cooperating with the Us or the UN was Saddam....not the other way around.

What could have happened if we didn't go to war with Iraq is that, Saddam would have still played hide and seek with the weapon inspectors, the UN would have made another sanction against Iraq in which probably another 500,000 children under the age of 5 in Iraq would have died. Just like what happened after the UN sanctions in which Clinton agreed with before the war.

Saddam would have acquired uranium from Africa, he would have probably made or helped with terror attacks in the US like Russian authorities told the US, he would be trying to get more weapons and probably would have attacked another country like Kuwait meanwhile the US was preocupied with the terror attacks in our soil...

Saddam showed that he would attack any country before, and his actions in acquiring weapons which were banned by the UN tells me that he was building up his armaments again for another little war of his.

If we had not gone to war with Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, his forces would have more armament and the war would have come to the US.

I don't even know how you came up with your scenario. BTW, do read the Butler report, the 1999 UNSCOM report and the May 28th UNMOVIC report and perhaps you will see that you are wrong in your assertions.

First of all, it was a typo from my side, I was of course supposed to write Kerry, and not Bush, in that sentence about the millionairs.

Plane exploding was something I read about at www.fourwinds10.com...
Just found it interesting that's all, didn't say it was my view.

About Kerry's flip-flops....I'd rather have a president who actually admits that he's capable of changing his opinion once in a while, than having a president who bought his way out of military service, with the help from his dad. Wonderful to have a cheat as a president isn't it? Oh let's add liar too, but I'll get back to that fact.

It's sad to see that another person have been sucked up by the monster republican propaganda machine. What you are saying is just what every other republican are saying, and basically that is that the US can do what ever they want, when ever they want. And oh the US is so hated in Europe, those ungrateful Europeans. Sorry, but most of it is a bunch of bs. It's time for not only you, but for most republicans, to wake up to reality.

Most likely you didn't know about the scenario that I mentioned because you've been listening to Bush too much. It's really hillarious to hear his stories about how Russia, Germany and France did business with Iraq, and therefore didn't want to get rid of Saddam, while dear old innocent Bush wanted to get rid of him. Beause Bush had such great intentions right? He went in because he wanted to save all the children? Yeah right. If Iraq didn't have oil, Bush would have been sitting on his butt right this moment, with out ever having given Iraq a thought. If he really wanted to save the children and the people, why haven't he done anything in Iran? In Myanmar? In North Korea? Want me to keep on going? Well I know why, it's because they don't have oil, and therefor an invasion won't be affordable in the long run. Talking about flip-flops, lets just stop talking about that, because the biggest flip-flop of them all is Bush. First, he went to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Then it was because of something else, and bla bla bla....flip flops anyone? Yepp, Bush....and a liar too then actually.

And by the way, what gives the US the right to have weapons of mass destruction? Who gave the US the right to be world police? Is Bush planning on taking on all countries with weapons of mass destruction? Wow, then South Africa, Israel and a whole bunch of other allies better what out, because here comes big brother. Does that mean that China can come and bomb the US because they feel the US is capable of using its weapons?

I don't where you're getting the idea that I defend Saddam from, I think you need to read that part again and see what I really mean. What I was saying was that 3 months wouldn't have mattered, when the world had been waiting 10 years for something to happen. I've read the resolutions you've mentioned before, and I still remember Mr. Hans Blix comments when the Iraq- war started, where he was amazed that Bush wouldn't let UNMOVIC get another chance to inspect, and amazed that Bush was so eager to go to war. Maybe the republicans didn't allow that interview to be broadcasted over here? I know they love to control everything else that's happening over here.

I'm not a billionaire, yet, so I can't try to become a president. Some laws have to be changed as well before I can try, but thanks for asking

That coalision you're mentioning.....hehe.....that's another one of Bush's jokes. Why don't you please give me that list of wonderful, free countries that supported the US when the Iraq-war first started? I still remember how Bush even threatened Norway, because we didn't want to join the coalition. Still he managed to mention Norway as part of the coalition, because Norway had doctors in Bagdad, helping the Iraqi people during the bombings. Most of the countries, except for Spain and Italy, were underdeveloped countries, countries who feared that their aid would be withdrawn if they didn't support the US. But I guess that didn't make it to the media here either. So that coalition is basically worthless.

Back to the rubbish about Europe not liking the US. I'm born and raised in Norway, the richest country in the world. I just had to add that last part The US has always been respected in Norway, up till Bush came around with his idea that he can control the world by himself. And you know, even if people bash the US government, it doesn't mean that they hate Americans. There's a big difference there. That's something most Americans misunderstand. Especially republicans. I still hear that bs stuff about how ungrateful Europe is, since the US rebuild Europe after WW2, and that Europe never would have done the same for US and bla bla....what a bunch of crap. We all know that the US will not survive without Europe, and vice versa.

And it's pretty sad to see you mention things like "they were bashing the US but still wearing jeans from the US". Comments like that aren't very intelligent my friend. Thankfully, the US government isn't responsible for all the wonderful products that everyone in the world likes and uses. It's really sad to see that Americans believe that Europeans, and a lot of other nationalities, hates the US, but they totally forget that if we really hated the US, then why are we using American products every day? So much bitterness, so much ignorance, it's really scary. And the most ignorant one of them all is the president, even scarier. Like he's showing Europe so much respect by the way.

I'll tell you a little about respect. Clinton was president during the Kosovo-war. Do you remember how the allied worked together then? Like it's supposed to be, cooperation. Clinton, and the US, got a lot of praise for what happened back then. I remember Clinton visiting Oslo. The streets were full of people cheering for him. He is in fact still immensly popular in Norway. Why? Because he knew how to deal with Europe and the US, he knew where USA's place in this world is. And that is not as a lone general like Bush belives, but as one of several general around a table who makes decisions with his collegues.

The latest polls in Europe shows that about 60% wants Kerry to win. Why do you think that is? In Norway the numbers were 90%. NEVER has an American president been this unpopular in Europe. That should worry republicans. And please don't come with the old story about the evil French.

A couple of other things. Do you know why muslims dislike the US? Look up what the US did in Iran during the Shah. That and the fact that the US basically built up Iraq's weapon arsenal, the fact that the CIA trained bin Laden, and the fact that the US blindly supports Israel and you have a nice list of reasons.

Don't get me wrong though, the US has done a lot of great things, but I think its time to really think about what you want to do. For instance, why help a country if they are going to be ungrateful. Why perform something that's just going to create more hate.

I think it's about time all the bitterness between Americans and Europeans is laid to rest. Most of it is based on misunderstandings anyways.

But I should end this, it's getting late. It's always interesting to discuss things like this, especially with people who are ungrateful about Europe discovering this great continent for you. (joke) Have to get up early tomorrow and watch my friends from back home try to kick some American butt in the Ryder Cup. Have a wonderful night