Guest Book

Having given the order, the president walked alone around the circle behind the White House. Months later, he told Woodward: “As I walked around the circle, I prayed that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty. Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will.<<<<<<>>"I pray that I be as good a ""messenger of his will"" as possible. And then, of course, I pray for forgiveness." Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? “I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, ‘Well, no,’ and then he got defensive about it,” says Woodward. “Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, ‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.’ And then he said, ‘There's a higher Father that I appeal to.’" Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either. ”The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation,” says Woodward. But the president did ask Rice, his national security adviser, and Karen Hughes, his political communications adviser.

'Me being about as middle of the road as one can be on all this...'knowing' what Mr. Bush brings to the table considering his job description the last 3 3/4 years....WITHOUT slamming Georgie boy...could someone (many of you hopefully) PLEASE illustrate and/or verbalize WHY you support Kerry and relate to me (and others here) what his 'plans' are and why I should vote for him??? Thank you very much. Happy Friday.

So Rick. you feel safer now that Reagan, single-handedly (Gorbechov nor anyone else had anything to do with it) brought down the Soviets. Got news for ya. You sure ain't. We may have been enemies but at least the Soviets had control of their nuclear arsenal. What has happened to that massive amount of WMDs since Mr' Reagans victory? Still feel safer? As far as our war on terrorism under Bush it is astounding. We are attacked by Al Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden. We know that these were the people responsible. What do we do? We declare the first pre-emtive war on another country in our history. I read, I believe in Richard Clarke's book (and I agree), this would have been exaclty like declaring war on Mexico after Pearl Harbor. Why can't you face it? Bush's decisions have been wrong and have had disastorous results. He will take no responsibility, admit no mistakes or do anything to change our direction. I keep hearing the question would I feel safer with Kerry or Bush as our commandeer-in-chief? First off I don't think that this is at the top of what our national debate should be right now but I would feel safer with Bozo the Clown than George W. Bush. If we are attacked by another terrorist cel who knows what country is going to pay the price. He fianlly said recently that he has realized that terrorism is a tactic not a strategy. this war, if it is to achieve any results, must be fought by an internationally cooperative group of nations that will train and put people in the fields infiltrating the cells and finding out what is really going on. This is not a war that can be won (in fact Iraq is proving that just the opposite is true, these terrorist groups are recruiting much more easily now that we have invaded an Arab nation) by invading countries. Check his resume. Why does anyone feel that this misguided fool could protect us from the Bowery Boys much less the spreading threat of terrorism? He himself has told many of his advisors (many have left or been asked to leave) "Don't tell me what reality is. We are the empire and we make our own reality. You will be studying my reality in the future." Really scary stuff. And Rick, after a long debate with you on several subjects, I have to say that, although I appreciate the fact that you enjoy the music we play (we'll get back to that subject in less than two weeks, this one is so important I believe that it must dominate the American conversation until it is settled) I have come to the conclusion that we are intellectually incompatible. I will call you no names, but I do not like a single position that you have taken on any of our subjects and the tactics you used on one of them far exceeded the boundaries of civility without the benefit of empical knowledge. Write all you want. This IS my last response.

Very important role? Yes. Single handedly? Nah. The criticism Bush receives for talking about his faith actually motivates people of faith to support him. He never said 2% of the things about faith and religion that people claim he did (or in the context for which it is brought up). Those worried about the constitution should read the Libertarian party platform. Good stuff. The thought of a Gregg & Friends Winter tour sounds real good. Jack P with some of the Muscle Shoals cats would be tastey.

hey gang good morning:cool: Political Sin is all around, and our learders are some of the biggest sinners of the world...... how dare Bush say he is Gods messenger, how about a plastic Jesus shoved up bush's a$$ followed with the Illinois enema bandit

Butch, have you ever considered running for office? I'm serious. You're intelligent, you're well-known, well-spoken, and well-informed. You've had a stellar career, one that went past your expectations, I'm sure, both in longevity and in terms of success. You're absolutely correct in your assertion that it is a sad state of affairs when our only viable choices are George Bush or John Kerry. It is amazing. Hey, what the hell---you obviously wouldn't be the first entertainer in politics. If the guy from "The Love Boat" can make it to the U.S. Senate.... Horace EAPFP

What I am saying is that the Supreme court under Earl Warren took an activist role in fighting the injustice of racism. While I am against any branch of the government going beyond the boundaries established by the constitution (I feel that what the Warren Court did was unconstitutional, I said that) the reasons for their activism and the end results was that they helped speed up the process of removing the curse of segregation with their activism. What I am saying is that I think the Warren Court was constitutionally wrong but it helped achieved much needed change and reform in the fight to end the blatant racism of the time. Let me sum it up as simply as possible. Although I think that no Supreme Court should take an activist role in making policy (their role is simply to decide whether or not the law of the land is constitutional or not) I can agree with the ends that the Warren Court achieved. Their activism was used to extend the rights of the people and to grant equal rights to everyone that is promised in the Constitution. There is no doubt that a Supreme Court that included Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas along with three appointees from George W Bush has shown that it would be an activist court with an opposite agedna. i.e. taking away the rights of the people. The Warren Court has come and gone. Whether I agree with it's activism is a moot point. I do agree with it's results. The activism of a Court full of Bush appointees would , as I have said many times before, in my opinion, mark the end of America as a Constitutional Democracy. The best we could end up with would be oligarchy. The worst, well let me say that if this horror comes to pass I'm gonna be looking for a cave in the mountains of Tibet. I would porbably be arrested for writing what I have written here.

SmilinJack: IS that the quote you used as you were watching the Twin Towers pancake down to ground zero? Oh, I get it. You think the problem went away because those bad, misdirected guys on the plane died along with everyone else. And I suppose you are still pissed Regan bankrupted the Soviet Union to win the Cold War? I want to assure you while a good move at the time, it will not work this time. I dont fear....it's time to understand it is eat or be eaten, and for some, that concept does not follow an elitist attitude. I find it amazing that I do not hear what the attacks of 9/11 equated to in terms of loss to the US and World economy. At one time, I recall there was some estimate given. I only point it out because that loss I believe as compared to the cost to the war on terror is much higher. And I might point out the immediate financial impact of 9/11 was far more reaching into the daily lives of individuals as what the government is spending now on the war. And I might also point out while you now spend another (on average) 300 bucks or so a year on gasoline, if you refinanced your home chances are you saved far more than 300 bucks a year from reduced interest rates. So, no reds under the bed. But there is a reality to deal with, and I want it dealt with rater than choosing to cover my eyes and repeat na nany boo boo until the boogie man goes away. Rick Tomlinson

Butch, Thanks for opening yourself to the incivility that some have shown to you. These types of discussions seem to generate more heat than light (which is true of all points on the political spectrum) and that’s unfortunate. Thanks also for clarifying your earlier statements about judicial activism. I’m a little confused, though. At the end of your first post, you said you want “justices that will make decisions based on what the constitution says not what their personal agenda says.” In your more recent post, you said that although the Warren Court acted unconstitutionally, it acted ethically, and you seem to endorse that action. Isn’t “acting ethically” simply another way of saying “following your personal agenda?” Doesn't that view also mean that judges should be making ethical decisions, rather than judicial decisions? If I’m reading your posts correctly, what you’re saying is that you’ll tolerate an activist court as long as you like its decisions. You object only when you don’t like the decisions of an activist court. You can’t have it both ways. Many critics of the Warren and Burger courts at the time made this point: if you’re prepared to allow an activist court to read things into the Constitution because you like the results, what will happen when the justices on the court change and what will restrain these justices from reaching decisions you don’t like? When it comes to court decisions, how the court reaches a decision is as important as the decision itself. In Mr. Cohen’s article that you quote, the examples he gives of the Scalia/Thomas decisions focus only on the outcome of the decisions and not on the reasoning behind those decisions. For example, there are many legal scholars who personally support a woman’s ability to have an abortion, but who oppose Roe v. Wade because a right to an abortion is not in the Constitution. These scholars think that this issue is one that should be debated and decided by the state legislatures. If you allow a court to read things into the Constitution, it can read anything into the Constitution, and therefore it becomes a second legislative arm of the government, and that’s what has happened over the last 50 years. The Supreme Court is now a quasi judicial/legislative branch of the government except justices don’t have the same accountability as do legislators. Warren and Brennan were equally as unaccountable as are Scalia and Thomas. And Butch, that seems to be the bottom line – you like Warren and Brennan but you don’t like Scalia and Thomas.

Is this 2 years in a row of no Gregg & Friends tour? On the ride into work, I was listening to a tape that Patrick Crenshaw made for me of Kirk West on the Dunhams on Z93 (RIP) back in January. Kirk is a great interview and tells the story of becoming one of the tour managers for the band. I didn't know exactly how that came about (basically, as a colllector and professional photographer who had shot the Bros in the late 70s, he helped Polygram on the Dreams box set, then went on the road with the ABB in 1989 as a photographer, and three weeks into the tour became asst Tour Mgr). He moved into the Big House in 1993, which is place I thoroughly enjoyed visiting. I'll be listening to the rest on the ride home...... Tim L.