<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:blogger='http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180</id><updated>2024-01-31T04:13:29.531-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Winning Argument</title><subtitle type='html'>You know you&#39;re right - now prove it</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default?alt=atom'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><link rel='next' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default?alt=atom&amp;start-index=26&amp;max-results=25'/><author><name>Judd</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>110</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110765831584968389</id><published>2005-02-05T21:50:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-05T21:51:55.850-05:00</updated><title type='text'>A Winner: ThinkProgress.org</title><summary type="text">The new site has launched! ThinkProgress.orgCheck it out.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110765831584968389'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110765831584968389'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2005/02/winner-thinkprogressorg.html' title='A Winner: ThinkProgress.org'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110195330350839084</id><published>2004-12-01T20:57:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-01T21:08:23.510-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Closing Argument</title><summary type="text">Why I’m shutting down this blog:I am in the process of developing a new blog for the Center for American Progress and have a responsibility to devote my full efforts to that project. I plan to apply some of the concepts I’ve developed here to the CAP blog. My sincere thanks to everyone who took the time to read and comment on this blog.I’ll post the URL to the new blog in this space early </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110195330350839084'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110195330350839084'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/12/closing-argument.html' title='Closing Argument'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110124111739689867</id><published>2004-11-23T15:17:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-23T15:18:37.396-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration’s restrictive student visa policy is misguided.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. Since 9/11, foreign student visas to the United States are at record lows.  2003-2004 international student enrollments at U.S. colleges and universities fell for the first time in more than three decades, driven by increasingly intrusive and cumbersome application procedures. Graduate applications from China dropped 45% and from India, 28%. As of 2003, applicants must now </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110124111739689867'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110124111739689867'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-administrations-restrictive.html' title='The Bush Administration’s restrictive student visa policy is misguided.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110108859000596310</id><published>2004-11-21T20:43:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-21T21:09:19.946-05:00</updated><title type='text'>House Republicans are taking partisanship to absurd new lows.</title><summary type="text">Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert wouldn&#39;t allow a vote on an intelligence reform bill he (and President Bush) supported, even though it would have easily passed. Hastert simply couldn&#39;t stomach the idea of Democrats and Republicans collaborating to pass a bill. From today&#39;s Washington Post:&quot;In a Capitol basement room, Hastert tried in vain to find enough votes to pass the bill without </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110108859000596310'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110108859000596310'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/house-republicans-are-taking.html' title='House Republicans are taking partisanship to absurd new lows.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110071722331187967</id><published>2004-11-17T13:46:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-17T13:48:51.136-05:00</updated><title type='text'>In his second term, Bush does not plan on tolerating dissent.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. Dissenting views will not be heard now that Colin Powell is gone. Talk about Rice’s appointment as Secretary of State has not been about her diplomatic abilities, but about her closeness to the President. His policies are her policies, and her appointment confirms that President Bush is intent on stifling dissent (even when the dissent turns out to be correct). Rice and Bush </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110071722331187967'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110071722331187967'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/in-his-second-term-bush-does-not-plan.html' title='In his second term, Bush does not plan on tolerating dissent.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110053478251242331</id><published>2004-11-15T11:04:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-15T11:35:27.953-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Porter Goss is making a bad situation worse at the CIA.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. Goss is dividing, not uniting, the CIA staff. Bush has continually promised to unite the nation, but his August appointment of Goss to the top spot at the CIA has divided the CIA. Goss put three of his Republican staffers to top CIA positions. These men are viewed as inexperienced and contemptuous of the career employees in the CIA, causing intra-agency turmoil and </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110053478251242331'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110053478251242331'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/porter-goss-is-making-bad-situation.html' title='Porter Goss is making a bad situation worse at the CIA.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110020558262317716</id><published>2004-11-11T15:38:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-12T11:22:49.443-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Alberto Gonzales is a horrendous choice for Attorney General.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. Gonzales believes the President can ignore laws prohibiting torture. Gonzales approved a memo, delivered to President Bush in August 2002, which concluded laws prohibiting torture do &quot;not apply to the President&#39;s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.&quot; Further, the memo said that an interrogation tactic only constituted torture if it resulted in injury &quot;such as </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110020558262317716'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110020558262317716'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/alberto-gonzales-is-horrendous-choice.html' title='Alberto Gonzales is a horrendous choice for Attorney General.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-110002528594499179</id><published>2004-11-09T13:33:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-09T13:34:45.943-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Elections are not the final step in democracy. </title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. Post-election Afghanistan still has a long way to go. Bush declared, &quot;Freedom is beautiful&quot; regarding the elections in Afghanistan, before even waiting to see whether or not the transition of power would be peaceful. While the Administration sees the elections as an end in themselves, Afghanistan still has many other obstacles to overcome in order to be a full democracy. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110002528594499179'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/110002528594499179'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/elections-are-not-final-step-in.html' title='Elections are not the final step in democracy. '/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109994428466697901</id><published>2004-11-08T15:02:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-08T15:04:44.666-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Most Americans support rights for gay couples.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:     1. 60 percent of Americans support either civil unions or legal marriage for gay couples. 35 percent support civil unions and 25 percent support legal marriage. (Human Rights Campaign)     2. A clear majority of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. 58 percent of Americans believe it is an issue left up to the states. (ABC News)         Why </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109994428466697901'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109994428466697901'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/most-americans-support-rights-for-gay.html' title='Most Americans support rights for gay couples.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109958915296832880</id><published>2004-11-04T13:24:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-04T12:25:52.970-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush still does not have a broad mandate for change. </title><summary type="text"> Why you&#39;re right:1. 51% of the vote is not a broad mandate. While the margin of “victory” was greater in this election than in 2000, 51% is still not a large majority of the country and was the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. The states Bush captured in this election were really not very different from what he captured in 2000, showing that he has not </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109958915296832880'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109958915296832880'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-still-does-not-have-broad-mandate.html' title='Bush still does not have a broad mandate for change. '/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109950185156519207</id><published>2004-11-03T13:07:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-03T12:19:04.396-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Remember 1964.</title><summary type="text">In 1964, the Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater by 23 points. Goldwater managed to carry just 6 states and Johnson won the electoral college 486-52. But the conservatives didn&#39;t give up. They didn&#39;t spend a lot of time wringing their hands. They regrouped and fought back. By 1968, Nixon crushed Humphrey in the electoral college 301-191 and won the popular vote by a million votes. If you oppose </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109950185156519207'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109950185156519207'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/remember-1964.html' title='Remember 1964.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109934910621181157</id><published>2004-11-01T17:41:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-11-01T17:45:06.210-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration is endangering, not supporting, our troops. </title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right: 1. The Bush Administration sent our troops into battle without the proper protection. The Pentagon and the administration did not anticipate a long war in Iraq, therefore they did not properly equip the soldiers. Today, only one-fifth of the Humvees in Iraq have adequate armor protection and the military is facing a shortage of 1.5 billion rounds of small-caliber bullets. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109934910621181157'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109934910621181157'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-administration-is-endangering-not.html' title='The Bush Administration is endangering, not supporting, our troops. '/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109926535417480759</id><published>2004-10-31T18:26:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-10-31T18:29:14.176-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Rudy Giuliani is giving hypocrisy a bad name.</title><summary type="text">Today on Meet the Press:    Giuliani: “I think Americans have to unite and this [the Bin Laden tape] should not be a partisan political issue.  I think President Bush reacted to it exactly the right way… then John Kerry turned right around and tried to politicize it.”     Giuliani’s next sentence: “[Osama Bin Laden] certainly wants George Bush out of the White House.”     (Meet The Press, 10/31/</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109926535417480759'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109926535417480759'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/rudy-giuliani-is-giving-hypocrisy-bad.html' title='Rudy Giuliani is giving hypocrisy a bad name.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109900717205402109</id><published>2004-10-28T19:45:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-28T19:46:12.053-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The explosives at al-Qaqaa were not moved before the invasion.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. A Minnesota news crew has photographs of the al-Qaqaa explosives 9 days after Saddam’s fall. Embedded members of the KSTP news team traveled with the 101st Airborne to the area of al-Qaqaa 9 days after the invasion and took pictures of boxes labeled “explosives” and “al-Qaqaa.” The news crew reports that once they opened the doors to the bunker, they were never secured. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109900717205402109'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109900717205402109'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/explosives-at-al-qaqaa-were-not-moved.html' title='The explosives at al-Qaqaa were not moved before the invasion.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109888848137535493</id><published>2004-10-27T10:43:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-27T10:48:01.376-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Rumsfeld is not taking the 380 tons of missing explosives seriously. </title><summary type="text">In an interview on an Ohio radio station, he compared the looting of powerful explosives to what he believes were exaggerated reports about the looting of the Iraqi national museum. From today&#39;s Australian:US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested the controversy over missing Iraqi explosives will probably amount to no more than a tempest in a teapot and compared it to other oversold </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109888848137535493'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109888848137535493'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/rumsfeld-is-not-taking-380-tons-of.html' title='Rumsfeld is not taking the 380 tons of missing explosives seriously. '/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109880308055942147</id><published>2004-10-26T11:00:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-26T12:09:52.786-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is irresponsible.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1.Undersecretary of State John Bolton sees little difference between 2 and 7 nuclear weapons. During the Bush Administration’s total focus on Iraq, North Korea was able to restart work on plutonium and went from 2 to 7 plutonium-based nuclear weapons. Bolton replied, “This is quibbling, to say they had two plutonium-based nuclear weapons and now they have seven. The uranium </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109880308055942147'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109880308055942147'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administrations-nuclear.html' title='The Bush Administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is irresponsible.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109873619926557990</id><published>2004-10-25T16:23:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-25T16:29:59.266-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The White House line on the missing explosives is misleading.</title><summary type="text">There are 380 tons of explosives missing in Iraq – enough to blow up 380,000 aircraft. White House press secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly tried to minimize the importance of the missing explosives saying, &quot;more than 243,000 tons of munitions have been destroyed since Operation Iraqi Freedom...That puts this all -- that puts this all in context.&quot; McClellan is mixing apples and oranges. He is </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109873619926557990'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109873619926557990'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/white-house-line-on-missing-explosives.html' title='The White House line on the missing explosives is misleading.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109873100498443559</id><published>2004-10-25T14:58:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-25T15:13:53.536-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush administration didn&#39;t secure 350 tons of explosives because it was a higher priority to secure oil fields. </title><summary type="text">Today&#39;s White House press gaggle:Q But after Iraqi Freedom, there were those caches all around, wasn&#39;t the multinational force -- who was responsible for keeping track --MR. McCLELLAN: At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn&#39;t massive destruction of the oil fields, which we </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109873100498443559'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109873100498443559'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administration-didnt-secure-350.html' title='The Bush administration didn&#39;t secure 350 tons of explosives because it was a higher priority to secure oil fields. '/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109854661924276074</id><published>2004-10-23T11:48:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-23T11:50:19.243-04:00</updated><title type='text'>On October 18, President Bush irresponsibly cut funding for first responders.</title><summary type="text">      Why you’re right:      - The 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, signed by the President on October 18, cut overall funding for first responders by $500 million. (International Association of Fire Fighters)     - A major program providing assistance to firefighters (the FIRE Act) was cut by $100 million. (International Association of Fire Fighters)     - Homeland security block </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109854661924276074'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109854661924276074'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/on-october-18-president-bush.html' title='On October 18, President Bush irresponsibly cut funding for first responders.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109847327767342529</id><published>2004-10-22T15:27:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-22T15:28:40.113-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Condoleezza Rice should not be touring swing states. </title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. Rice is misusing taxpayer money. With less than two weeks before the election, Rice is using government money to go around the country and speak on national security. She claims that she isn’t campaigning, but she has given nine speeches in the last two months, all in swing states. In her term as National Security Adviser, Rice has given 68 speeches – mostly in Washington, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109847327767342529'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109847327767342529'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/condoleezza-rice-should-not-be-touring.html' title='Condoleezza Rice should not be touring swing states. '/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109846503773866592</id><published>2004-10-22T13:07:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-22T13:11:47.440-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush supporters are wildly misinformed.</title><summary type="text">  –  75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.   –  74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.   –  72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.   –  72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.   –  69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.   –  61% believe if Bush knew there were no </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109846503773866592'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109846503773866592'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-supporters-are-wildly-misinformed.html' title='Bush supporters are wildly misinformed.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109837913070309095</id><published>2004-10-21T13:17:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-21T13:21:05.700-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration’s intelligence strategy is deeply flawed.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. The Bush Administration lacks long-term vision. The Bush Administration is focused on how to prevent/respond to another 9/11, but is not giving enough attention to the possibility that the attack might be different from 9/11. By ignoring actors who may become terrorists, the Bush Administration is not doing all it can to protect the country. &quot;The current focus on terrorism </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109837913070309095'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109837913070309095'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administrations-intelligence.html' title='The Bush Administration’s intelligence strategy is deeply flawed.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109829164707374485</id><published>2004-10-20T13:59:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-20T13:01:31.943-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Losing Argument: The government is doing everything it can to protect our country</title><summary type="text">      Losing Argument:         &quot;Our government is doing everything we can to stop another attack…We’re doing everything we can to protect our country.” – President Bush, 1/29/02     Why it&#39;s a loser:     Here is one reason: &quot;The homeland security agency tasked with hunting down terrorists inside U.S. borders and shutting down human smuggling and nacro-trafficking is so strapped for cash that it’s</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109829164707374485'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109829164707374485'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/losing-argument-government-is-doing.html' title='Losing Argument: The government is doing everything it can to protect our country'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12920953827766641061</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109785856054392456</id><published>2004-10-15T13:41:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-15T13:34:05.450-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush Administration is partly responsible for the flu vaccine shortage.</title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. The Bush administration knew about the shortage and didn&#39;t do anything about it. The administration found out about the shortage – caused by contamination at a factory owned by Chiron in northwest England – in mid-September. Britain found out at the same time and responded to the warning by quickly securing alternative supplies. (Washington Post)2. The Bush administration </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109785856054392456'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109785856054392456'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-administration-is-partly.html' title='The Bush Administration is partly responsible for the flu vaccine shortage.'/><author><name>Anonymous</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7191180.post-109768479489018347</id><published>2004-10-13T13:25:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2004-10-13T12:26:34.890-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The international coalition in Iraq is not strong. </title><summary type="text">Why you&#39;re right:1. 7 countries have withdrawn from the coalition. Nicaragua (February 2004); Spain (late April 2004); Dominican Republic (early May 2004); Honduras (late May 2004); Philippines (July 16, 2004); Thailand (late August 2004); and New Zealand (late September 2004). Poland plans to withdraw its troops from Iraq by late 2005. (Global Security, CBC News, Associated Press)2. 4 </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109768479489018347'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7191180/posts/default/109768479489018347'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://winningargument.blogspot.com/2004/10/international-coalition-in_109768479489018347.html' title='The international coalition in Iraq is not strong. '/><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/04682507548453463404</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry></feed>