Vociferously means "loudly."  Not "violently," "horrifically," or anything else.  As far as Bush is concerned, the only war in the world is a war of words.  He doesn't understand the situation of a young person in the blood and bullets of war.  He's out of touch, and dangerous.

Read the article, and it becomes clear:  most of Bush's errors were lies, where most of Kerry's errors were misstatements.  That's my reading of the article, not Factcheck.org's, which is nonpartisan.

Examples:  Bush:  "we're spending the reconstruction money" and "100,000 Iraqis troops trained."  Actually, only 6% of the reconstruction money has been spent (because of all the violence, as I've written here before); and only 5,000 Iraqi troops have been fully trained.  The other 95,000 "trained" troops have only had a three-week crash course.

Bush also lied about Kerry's position on how fast we might get troops out of Iraq.

Bush also lied about having 75% of al-Qaeda in jail.  The figure only refers to those running al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11--he fails to take into consideration the facts that 1) they've all been replaced, and 2) his military failures by splitting his forces into the second, useless Iraqi war means al-Qaeda has actually gotten stronger.

Bush lied about the 10 million Iraqis being registered to vote.  No one knows the number, though there are a lot--but frankly, what does it matter how many have been registered?  They "voted" in one-man elections for Saddam, too--the registration didn't matter then, either.

Bush lied, saying he increased money on curbing nuclear proliferation by about 35 percent.  This is a lie, not a mere exaggeration--the money was cut by 13 percent, not raised, and that it WAS cut was Kerry's point.  Bush simply tried to lie his way out.

Kerry:

"Exaggerated" the way Bush lost Osama bin Laden.  Oh, Bush didn't catch Osama, and he let the Afghani warlords handle a lot of it.  But factcheck.org says that we don't know for sure if Osama was capturable at that time, and he wasn't really "surrounded" at any time.  Either way, we know Bush dropped the ball, and he did it because he was already moving forces over to Iraq even as he was supposedly going after Osama "dead or alive."

"Exaggerated" about the cost of the Iraqi war.  SO FAR, it's cost $120 billion.  Kerry said it cost $200 billion.  The only difference comes from the money set up to be spent starting today, October 1st.  In other words, it has cost us $200 billion--because that money is already set up to be sucked out of our federal spending this year.  But only $120 billion has technically been "spent."

Kerry said that hundreds of millions were spent by Bush to create bunker-busting nuclear weapons.  The figure is $35 million.  But if you watched the debate, Kerry's point was that Bush was testing a new form of nuclear weapon AT ALL right now, not really how much was being spent on it.  He was concerned that we are trying to stop other countries from having nuclear weapons while researching a new kind of nuke--one which, by all appearances, we would be all-too-eager to actually use.

The other two Kerry factual problems were slips of the tongue, and hardly worth mentioning.

Anyway, check it out.  Am I exaggerating?  Or was Bush actually lying to us baldly, where Kerry, when he was incorrect at all, was much more in the category of exaggeration?

If it makes another successful flight within two weeks, it will win the X prize of $10 million.

Another instance of bold, rational minds doing what was once unthinkable.

As of this writing, this is a developing story; all it really says now is that the carrier jet has taken off, and in a few minutes SpaceShipOne will fire its jets and try to punch out of the atmosphere.

Here's hoping!

They're also less likely to spew hatred for their fellow man.  That's not according to Nielsen Media Research, that's just based on the observation that 1) "The Daily Show" is funny, and 2) "The O'Reilly Factor" features a host who screams down anyone who appears on his show and doesn't spout the GOP party line.

This certainly avoids the bruhaha that occurred when Johnny Carson retired, pitting Letterman against Leno.

O'Brien has a strange act--I wonder if he'll alter it much, either between now and 2009 or once he takes over.

(Disclosure:  I have a long position in oil producer/refiner/retailer ExxonMobil.)

Seems like the markets are now willing to believe that the current supply and demand situation is what it is and isn't likely to allow declining oil prices soon.

Yet he says it's premature to assume elections cannot be held in January.

All righty.