Hello folks! I just got back from debating the UW college republicans a little while ago and I put the video of my closing remarks on youtube so you all could have a look! We were debating Preemptive war but me and my debate partner tried to show how republicans take the definition of imminent threat, exaggerate it, and what we end up with is actually preventative war, which is something completely different. At the beginning that got cut off I said "When a man is holding a gun to your head, what do you do?

I was a Republican, but I'm voting straight Democrat. That doesn't mean I will ALWAYS be a Democrat. It only means I reserve the right to exercise my choice and vote from time to time for the person or party I think best suited for the job of managing my country. After all, I AM AN AMERICAN first and foremost and certainly above any affiliation to a single political party. I may vote Repubican again one day, but not until they Clean up the party!

Bush lied about WMD. They purposely confused the difference between the War on Terror and a war with Iraq. Those are two different issues.

The debate about the NSA wire tapping or detainee abuse or military tribunals is always framed as a choice between our safety and our civil liberties. The question is always, 'Should we give up our civil liberties for our security?' This is a false question. In fact, I would argue that giving up our civil liberties makes us less safe.

The problem before 9/11 was not that our intelligence agencies did not have enough raw data to prevent the attacks. The problem was that they did not have the resources (or the will, but that's a whole other entry) to analyze it, to sift through the mountain of raw data that they had to find the useful bits and put them together (dots and all that). When you broaden your intelligence gathering, you do so to diminishing returns. You get a lot more data, but less of it is useful. This makes the analysis problem worse. It increases the size of that mountain of data exponentially, while only increasing the number of useful bits by very little. This makes us less safe.

My letter::

Dear C-Span,

General Wesley Clark will be speaking at Bethany College, WV on 9/11 tomorrow night ::

Wes Clark has been the most credible authority on national security and foreign policy issues, particularly on the "war of terror" for the Democratic Party.  As our nation deals with the global security crisis that are a direct result of the policy failures of the Bush Administration, I believe that C-Span must cover this important speech to provide fair and accurate perspective towards the serious issues that our country faces on a whole, today.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/26/231639/599  GOP Big Lie For 2006 Elections: "We're Tough on Terror" by Mr Populist Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 08:16:39 PM PDT

I hate to be the one to rain on the Republican's parade, but the tough talk of the GOP on terrorism is bogus. The Republicans have done more to further the cause of international terrorism than any other group in the past 25 years, al Qaeda included.

We're in serious trouble under the current policies from the Bush Administration. Ok, no surprise. Over 84% of our nations top  foreign policy experts overwhelming agree that the US under the Bush administration is loosing the war on terrorism. Tragically, the Bush adminstration remains stubborn with its dangerous, "stay the course" policy.

Results are based on a nonscientific survey conducted by Foreign Policy magazine and Center for American Progress among a bipartisan group of our top FP experts who identified themselves as idealogically: very conservative, conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, liberal, and very liberal: