For Bush to say no to "get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically", shows just how much faith he has in his own statements.

On an off side not, don't vote for the popular candidate, come election time, vote for the candidate that will make the biggest difference, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.

Gee, Whaddya know, I went back to the Hillary Factor story, and my post is back?

Gotta love it!

If it was never removed but there is an update problem on my side, my apologies for a false accusation.

Have a good day,

I'm not too sure about the "paranoid CNN is going to delete my post 'losers.'" It seems that oftentimes when I have made posts answering challenges that HillPraisers bring, the post shows for a while, then I come back and it isn't there anymore.

On one of these tickers, (Sept. 25th Hillary Factor) I responded to your request for the 'sheep' that don't like Hillary to say why.

I outlined, what I thought were, substantive reasons and offered to provide more but was tired of typing (8 is enough to start with)
but alas, the post is gone. I stayed away from 'spewing venom' and don't think I crossed the CNN line for content. (Especially compared to many of the posts we see that are all negative all the time simply calling names).

My grammar, spelling and punctuation were way above the usual quality on this blog, yet the comment no longer exists.

I did have a comment on another blog in answer to a HillPraiser that was posted when I submitted it. It disappeared, and then Voila!, it reappeared after I had posted another comment that had basically the same content. A refresh problem perhaps? Maybe something with the way things get updated on the server side? It's possible, but if it were a browser refresh problem, wouldn't the post appear on one of my other four computers when I go to the page and load it for the first time?

I am surprised to see the posts here by Ignatius J. Reilly still on the ticker. My experience has been that many posts that appear here and have well documented cross-references, but care ritical of Senator Clinton, often go away after awhile. (Maybe when the blogger comes back from lunch or a coffee/bathroom break). I haven't had enough posts removed to see a pattern in the CNN writer/editor that posts the initial story/subject and frankly don't have the time to track that. But, if it looks like you have a post that could perhaps make a blindly devoted HillPraiser do some thinking and possibly reassess, it has a chance of going away.

Happy Wednesday,

I've never posted on these boards, just read them for the pure joy and amusement of the content.

But you wrote something tonight that compelled me like nothing ever before, PLEASE tell me something good that Bush has done? And I will apologize in advance if I missed some small insignificant thing because to me, the needless deaths of thousands of US soldiers outweighs any good he could've done.

That article should be a political and leadership lesson to the people but not something to go bananas over.

Many comments sound like it is a Bush, Hillary, Obama or other candidates' thing. Well, simply ask Kerry or Al Gore why they failed and why they are not willing to give it another try. My friends U.S. was never and will never be for the people and by the people. It that ever happen the U.S. will become a simple third world country.

Here is one interesting point: When confronted the media and opponents of the Irak war over his vote, Senator Hillary Clinton simply gets away with: "If I knew then what I know now... I would vote against the invasion..." And most of the people just buy it.

What sense does that make? Well, to me it does not make any sense at all. It is just a weak but priceless excuse. Why do I say that? Hillary has been in politics for so many years. On top of all that she was the first lady for 8 years, and America has at war with Irak all through the two presidential terms of her husband-Bill Clinton-, then she got elected to the senate. Now if she claims that she did not know the truth about Irak, who does?

What has she been doing in the White House? Did she ever talk or listen to her husband talking about Irak? I think she should have entered the senate as a well-informed, prepared, and credible mentor the rest of the members. Because not one, not one could have had access to any better information than her. Not even the president could have formed a better decision on Irak.

This not a personal attack of any sort against the senator. I think she is a great person and fine politician. I just want to show how important it is for us "The People" to stop letting our political ignorance, passion, and chauvinism cast the ballot and learn to make a difference between between POLITICAL SPEECH and POLITICAL AGENDA.

God bless America

I can't wait for these come up in a public debate. But

God help us, we're doomed unless we take this government down, by force of arms, and start over.

What we have failed to understand in this great nation is that whatever US motives for being in Iraq – it is in this country's best interests and world we are protecting. We are not the bad guys.

God Bless America and all the rights and freedoms we enjoy and often take for granted!

What we have failed to understand in this great nation is that whatever US motives for being in Iraq – it is in our best interests and world that we are protecting. We are not the bad guys. I believe it would be better to have the worst Democrat or Republican President in our history than having a "President" like Iraq did with Sadam or the current "President" in Iran.

God Bless America and all the rights and freedoms we enjoy and often take for granted!

She made a point that she does not know what state Iraq will be in when she will take over if elected. Well Senator Clinton, Leaders are better than average citizen because they can predict outcomes fairly well using their knowledge, wisdom, vision, imagination and GUTs. Making a call after all is said and done is no leadership. Anyone can do that.

Senator Obama would see Iraq of today in 2002, 5 years ago. Other 23 democratic Senator understood the situation and opposed the war. You supported even without reading 900 pages of National Intelligence Estimate were available. Leadership is serious thing because a wrong call can make a nation suffer for years to come. Judgement, vision, imagination and critical thinking are critical components of leadership because leaders often have to make decisions with incomplete information. History suggest, you failed to make good call even with tons of information. Hillary Clinton legacy is a chronic history of wrongs judgement on Iraq or healthcare.
I will stay away from you Senator Clinton. 30 million people deserve better than you.

"SIC 'EM"

Well as they say, we learn something new every day!

I never knew Roosevelt or Truman carried out a Gung HO attack on a Nation that wasn't an enemy! I wish my Father a Seargeant in WWII on the front lines over seas and his three brothers were still living. I know they'd all be shocked to hear this news! Then again maybe they are hearing it. As Poppies Blow In Flanders Field.

And take all your people with you.

I see a lot of knuckleheads on both sides who stubbornly refuse to think beyond the partisan rhetoric of their own party. C'mon, people. Did you ever think issues are a bit more complex than the simplistic back and forth that we see here everyday?

Democrats who can't acknowledge any good Bush has done at all, and Republicans who think all Dems are America-hate "librils".

I can't stand any of you–especially the paranoid "CNN is going to delete my post" losers.

I want to say a big THANK YOU to the minority of posters here (left, right, or better...in between somewhere) who actually discuss the issue at hand without the nonsense. Don't get me wrong though, I do enjoy a good dose of sarcasm and attitude, just make it relevant to the topic being posted!

Mr. Trump'ss advice to President George Bush is another example of political expediency.

I am sure Mr. Trump's does understand that US is still under continued threat from terrorism from abroad and within.

People in peace and relative comfort tend to underestimate the threats posed by sections of world population who are driven by extreme ideology.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

Clinton apologists manual, page 66, paragraph 3, section 1:

"This President misled me, and thus in compliance with the vast right-wing conspiracy, forced me to say those words". Sound about right.

I prefer this quote as it speaks volumes on the subject, but please Bush haters, don't read, keep your head in the sand:

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Note the date he said it, 2003.

Everyone believed it, long before Bush came along.

116,400 American troops currently in Europe/75,000 in Germany

37,500 currently in S. Korea

47,000 currently in Japan

Were people blogging about finishing in Europe, Korea and Japan 50,60,70 years ago? Bin Laden is jumping from cave to cave. If we do get him it will be before the election.

I think Hillary can decide for herself.

As far as Clinton taking his advice goes, this is a great thing an effective leader must listen to varying viewpoints. From the comments I see here, it's a good exercise for everyone to try.

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations - they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."