Thursday, May 31, 2007

Frank Gaffney's "Islam Vs. Islamists"

My friend Frank Gaffney has produced a documentary entitled "Islam Vs. Islamists," a powerful and wonderfully made piece which shows the struggle of aphandful of reasonable Moslems against the more violent and hateful Moslems around the world.

The Public Broadcasting System is now refusing to show it. (Actually, the latest is that they are "making it available" for showing, something intended to deflect the attempted censorship by the network to the individual stations.)

Why is PBS refusing to show a film that gives moderate Moslems a voice? Because by showing moderate Moslems they are forced to admit that the cause of the violent Moslems is unjust. So long as the terrorists are merely murdering Christians, Jews, Americans and Hindus the leftists can portray the Moslems as an oppressed peoples. When the truth is shown and that the Moslems are oppressing (via attempted genocide) peoples around the globe INCLUDING OTHER MOSLEMS, the left can no longer portray evil as the victim.


1 – 200 of 427   Newer›   Newest»
bob said...

Right on brother...

Anonymous said...

I control the public stations here to! Bow before me. I am the New Socialist Superman. Hillary is merely my protoge! It takes more than a village, dammit... it takes a whole pueblo!

MoleOnABull said...



Danny Glover said...

Hola Hugo,

How's the riot control going?

Anonymous said...

Hey danny,

What you doing here man? You're supposed to be making MY movie. So get back to work, chop chop!

btw- I've got a rush order in for more gas w/Fidel right now. He's FedEx'g it to me, tonite. Hopefully, the water-trucks will hold them off 'till it gets here.

Anonymous said...

I thought I was your girl, Hugo - Danny's such a buttkiss!

Sindy Sheehanibalectorwhoeatsherown

Danny Glover said...

Yeah I'm working on the movie but the Actors Union is striking and I can't motivate them to work. They say that there is not enough tofu at the snack table. Any suggetions?

BTW: Che would be proud of the way your stormtroopers handle that kick ass agua cannon on those foolish protesters!

Anonymous said...

Yes, we've got lots of Che wannabe's signed up to run the water cannon at the next demonstration. What I personally love is poppin' the students with my .45 caliber rubber bullet gun. It put's 'em down just like a regular lead round would!

And those damn capitalist pig actors! Why don't you have them donate their time like everybody in my socialist workers paradise does, and then just bank the money in an offshore account. I guess you'll just have to break down and serve them hallaca's or churasco's. Arroz con pollo? Hell, I don't know, do I look like a caterer?

btw - The new gas works great! Causes severe eye injuries if not washed out within ten minutes! Those Cubans really know their chemicals!

Anonymous said...

Hahaha...look at this...Nooner is breaking up with GW...and she wants all those WSJ BJs she gave him back. I can't wait for Sayet's pathetic rationale for this one. Have you ever noticed how programmed his "responses" and positions are...very some kind of robot/parrot...real whack job. That's all the right's got left, now. This leaves no doubt of that. Anywaze...heeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Peeeeggy!!!


Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m.

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill--one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.

They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!

If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Why is there such a problem finding people to fight this noble war on terror? Is it because conservatives/chickenhawks are all such a pack of cowards and hypocrites, or is there another reason we objective observers don't know about? Certainly Sayet has a hilarious explanation...he is a comedian, after all.

Daily Kos: The Young Chickenhawks; Republicans hate being called that word, especially since it's true. 6/6

Anonymous said...

based on the previous comment it must be opposite day.

Anonymous said...

...yes, the "objective observer" has finally arrived, anonymously of course.

*rolls eyes*

Anonymous said...

Yes anon, there is a reason.

We don't like to fight with our hands tied behind our backs and bullseyes painted on our foreheads. We'd also appreciate it if your stopped funding the enemy, and doing all his propaganda/ press work for him.

We wouldn't mind so much if you could just shut up and thank us for what we do, we just hate getting stabbed in the back by you at every turn.

Anonymous said...

haha...farmer John has finally come up with a rationale for hiding his yellow butt out on the homefront...and what a hilarious dodge it is.
GW's running the war, chickenhawk...are you saying he's an incompetent fool...agreeing with me? It's this kind of cowardice and foolish noise that's got you at 27% and sinking.You people have been exposed and REPUDIATED as utterly as any group of fanatic fools in the history of the country.

MoleOnABull said...


what have I told you about feeding the "attention-whore" trolls?

Anonymous said...

What's an attention whore, mole...somebody who calls you on your pathetic nonsense? And,why are you over here instead of over there? Don't really believe in GW's little disaster, do're just too yellow to admit it. Hey, that's a great piece that other anon posted of Noonan's...that's where all the smart wingos have gone. Nothing left on your side but the absolute dregs. Why does America hate you? that's a mystery.

Anonymous said...

Isn't this one of, I mean comedian Sayet's heroine?

Conservative Fox political analyst Tammy Bruce "I'm waiting to find the space aliens that kidnapped the president that I grew to admire after September 11 and left this tool behind. ... I'm furious." But you poor, dumb wingos don't know the difference between being conservatives and mindless Bush cultists.

Anonymous said...

Lord John Whorfin: Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy.

I refuse to fight and die for territory so that Leftist surrender monkey's can feel good about themselves by villifying me and then eventually turn it back over to terrorists worse than the ones I just expelled.

Does that sound like I'm agreeing with you monkey-boy?

John O'Connor: They're only monkey-boys. We can crush them here on earth, Lord Whorfin.

John Bigboote: It's not my goddamn planet. Understand, monkey boy?

Anonymous said...

anon...speakin' of cowards,

Orderly: Who are you today, Doc? Einstein?

Lord John Whorfin: Lord John Worfin. If there's one thing I hate, it's to be mistaken for somebody else.

Anonymous said...

You didn't expel any terrorists, chickenhawk/coward. This has been going on longer than had plenty of time to join up before it was obvious that you were going to lose. You cowards won't fight for what you believe in, and you don't have the courage to take responsibility for your disasters...that's why you're at 27% and falling. America hates you...haven't you noticed? And spare us the unintelligible drivel...or do you find that preferable to exposing yourself as a moron? Vive Chavez...he knows how to stand up to the disaster munki.

Anonymous said...

Bush-Exasperation Syndrome Spreads

Directly related to don't worry...well, you never do.

by Jaime O'Neill | Jun 8 2007

You might have missed it--a story buried in that slush pile of celebrity news, happy talk, and un-vetted press releases that now constitute so much of American journalism--but a report released by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta has recently added a new threat to the nation's growing stack of worries.

An intensive study of 1,000 randomly-selected Americans has yielded conclusive evidence of a heretofore unnoted contagion, an offshoot of Tourette's Syndrome doctors have labeled BES, or Bush Exasperation Syndrome. As first reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), symptoms of Bush Exasperation Syndrome include involuntary outbursts of projectile cursing whenever the name or image of President George W. Bush is flashed before sufferers of this malady. This catalytic image (or trigger) has produced bouts of explosive and uncontrollable profanity in well over half of those tested for the disease.

But reflexive and propulsive swearing is only the most benign symptom of BES. As the disease progresses, more advanced symptoms include the loss of a sense of humor, coupled with feelings of hopelessness and despair. And the number of traffic accidents is thought to have increased due to drivers losing control of their vehicles while suffering BES-related episodes.

Most startling and worrisome is the fact that early indications suggest that as much as 60% of the nation's population may be infected with BES, creating a degree of suffering seldom revealed by medical research. BES now qualifies as a true epidemic throughout the American population.

Preliminary studies reveal, however, that people with measurably low intelligence have an inexplicable immunity to this ailment thought to be linked to their DNA. Scientists have found an almost exact correlation between IQ and the degree of susceptibility to BES. The lower your IQ, the less likely it is that you will be infected.

Ironically, it was President Bush's own father who alerted the scientific and medical communities to this looming threat. In an interview with Larry King back in April, the elder Bush allowed as how the nation was, perhaps, suffering from "Bush fatigue." The phrase resonated with scientists at the CDC who had long suspected a correlation between a notable uptick in uncontrolled cursing virtually from the moment Bush took office, an outbreak that has skyrocketed in both severity and frequency in the last couple of years. George Herbert Walker Bush's diagnosis of Bush Fatigue was, however, imprecise and unscientific. Early studies did, in fact, disclose a condition physicians called Bush Fatigue Syndrome (BFS), but that condition is a wholly separate disorder, differing from Bush Exasperation Syndrome (BES) in etiologically distinct ways. While sufferers of Bush Fatigue Syndrome present symptoms of ennui, numbness, loss of appetite, and purposelessness, those stricken with Bush Exasperation Syndrome are more likely to be volatile, unable to control their bodily movements when seized by a fit of cursing, with arms flailing, and digits involuntarily making obscene hand gestures at television screens or other triggering stimuli.

One of the many corollary symptoms of BES is a tendency to seek comfort in food. Thus it is that we are fast becoming a diseased nation made up of legions of obese people who are thrown into paroxysms of cursing and gesticulating each time the afflicted are confronted by an image of their nation's leader. Even more insidious, words and phrases widely known to be associated with George W. Bush can increase the severity of these seizures. For instance, the phrase "the decider" has been shown to be nearly fatal to people with advanced cases of the disease, and there have been a handful of documented fatalities attributed to BES patients exposed to the phrase "Is our children learning?"

So far, the only known antidote is to sequester patients away from any possible Bush-related stimuli, a kind of quarantine that is nearly impossible to secure.

Doctors have proposed the idea that stem-cell research might yield a cure, but that research has been severely restricted by Bush policies regarding the use of stem cells, so those who suffer can only hope that relief may come when George W. Bush is no longer in office, and thus less likely to inflict suffering on those with BES.

Anonymous said...

"Bush is in Europe for the big G8
Summit ... and his approval rating
is so low, he's less popular than
that tuberculosis guy."
--David Letterman

Have you noticed?...America hates you.

Anonymous said...


Did you say something? I must have fallen asleep.


Anonymous said...

At least Bush is not as low as Ried/Polosi!

Anonymous said...

Chimp defends chimp: "At least Bush is not as low as Ried/Polosi!"

Duh, cogent argument,there, monkey. Did you mean Reid?...did you mean Pelosi? Nothing but the dregs left in GOPig land...two names, two misspelled...par for the coarse, eh? That's known as a pun, apes. Not a concept you're apt to least not without letting go of of your bananas...either the yellow one or the really, really tiny pink one.

Anonymous said...

WOW, I love how libs are so angry. Could it be that the doubt in said anon's heart is so overwhelming that they lash out calling people names. That makes me laugh.

Libs are so funny when they pretend that they are smart.

Just because you use spell check does not make you smart. It only makes you a nerd.

REgardless polosies/reads appruvull rating is abizmal. The worst since newt. I guess it takes a Rep. to reform what these wacky lib screw up.

Ferd Snow said...

MadLibs by Anon 10:53am:


Duh, YUMMY CAKE,there, MOMMA. Did you CHANGE MY SHEETS TODAY?...did you FIX MY LUNCH TOO? Nothing but the BEST FOR MY BOO BEAR...TWO JUICE BOXES, two SNACK PACKS... for the SNACK TIME, eh? That's known as "KROM LAUGHS AT YOUR FOUR WINDS," MOMMA. Not a MOVIE you're GONNA least not without letting go of of your BLANKY...either the DIRTY or the really, really SOFT ONE.

Anonymous said...

Ooooooh, now you're "angry" when you're laughing at that what they need to believe? Low ratings?...the whole GOP/Conservative (bowel) movement is in the toilet (and its leaders in prison) where it belongs. Pelosi is down because she's not a strong enough Democrat...which is he opposite of what you want to hear. It means STRONGER, more progressive Democrats on the way. Their disapproval comes from liberals and Independents who want MORE opposition to the disaster crew which has been running the government. As for the nerd compliment, I bet the other anon guy takes that as a compliment. I know I certainly would. The really stupid and ignorant people who vote GOP can't stand SMART people so they try these pathetic, little ploys to attempt to discredit anyone intelligent as a "nerd"...just another form of their puerile name calling. It's not working anymore...haven't you poor creatures noticed that?

jibber said...

I see what you mean, lamp...DENIAL all over neo-con/whacko land...they're in the biggest meltdown since Hoover, and they still think everyliddlething gone be ok in da morning...whereyagonnago when your reality sux this bad?

Anonymous said...

"Pelosi is down because she's not a strong enough Democrat...which is he opposite of what you want to hear."

I take that back. You are not a nerd. A nerd would not have made such a irresponsible gramatical error. I am assuming you meant "the" when you typed "he." What a moron!

Go back to school my little friend. You have much more to learn if ya wanna hang with the big dogs.

BTW, your whole party is weak. Name one Dem. presidential candidate who is willing to stand up (grow a set of balls) to terrorism/growing communism/baby killing/unethical treatment of women/etc...the list goes on and on. You can't because your parties candidates are only overly ambitious dorks who need to pander to their base ("friends" that they never had in high school-Kerry, H.Clinton, Edwards, Reid) so as to watch their "little pink banana" get bigger.

If you can name one then you win a years supply of tofu.

Your party is nothing but a bunch of kids who think they are smart because they got their bachelors degree from community college. When they get older and have kids of their own we will welcome them back to reality.

jibber said...

First, as a graduate -- quadruple major: English, Journalism, History and Drama -- of one of our nation's great universities, I'll correct your colorectal grammar, then I'll correct your "reasoning." Read, learn and improve yourself with my little, liberal education's what we liberals do for the unfortunate:

I take that back. You are not a nerd. A nerd would not have made such a(n) irresponsible (laughably wrong choice of words) gram(m)atical error. I am assuming you meant "the" when you typed "he." (Grasping at typos...kind of says it all for your "movement," doesn't it?) What a moron! (Naughty, naughty.)

Go back to school(,) my little friend. You have much more to learn if ya wanna hang with the big dogs. (curs?)

BTW, your whole party is weak. Name one Dem. presidential candidate who is willing to stand up (grow a set of balls) to terrorism/growing communism/baby killing/unethical treatment of women/etc...the list goes on and on. You can't because your parties(party's) candidates are only overly ambitious dorks who need to pander to their base ("friends" that they never had in high school-Kerry, H.Clinton, Edwards, Reid) so as to watch their "little pink banana" get bigger. (I guess you'd have to be this silly to still be hanging on to this garbage scow.)

If you can name one(,) then you win a years supply of tofu.(Love it.)

Your party is nothing but a bunch of kids who think they are smart because they got their bachelors degree from community college. When they get older and have kids of their own(,) we will welcome them back to reality.

Name one?...any and all of them. The country has learned that "standing up" is a totally different thing than swinging stupidly at the wrong targets and making a lot of gross, belligerent noise. The main element of strength is're not going to get that from a party which elects a world class clown like G.W. Bush. As someone said earlier, America hates you. Can't you guess why?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for proof reading my blog entry (I never said I could spell). Since you did attempt to dwarf me with your superior knowledge of english I felt compelled to point out your irresposnsible (this word pertains to your elitist attitude and how a lack of responsibility generates mistakes, i.e. "he") usage of the our language.

I can't help but pity someone who looks for fights on a blog. Your lonliness only furthers my point about libs having a lack of friends, thus lashing out.

If you are a quad major why then are you even slumming with the likes of me. I only have one degree and am working on my masters.

When you say "America hates us" you are speaking for yourself, right?

If your so intelligent why then do you back a party that continues to mollify the ignorant (your voter base) for votes?

jibber said...

Looks for fights on blogs? It's what people who are actually interested in politics opposed to what you inbred backslappers do...simply reinforce each others worst concepts rather than challenging yourself with exposure to other people's views. This country has been under the temporary spell of some of the stupidest, most corrupt and radically backward lunatics imaginable. That would be your party. It's been one endless string of disasters without the slightest success in any area...nothing like it in anybody's history. This pack will be remembered for thousands of Caligula, Nero and scum of that caliber. That there are still fools around who stay aboard is a fascinating phenomenon in human political idiocy and self destructiveness. You don't think we should be interested in that? There are more than one of us here, btw...we're a roving band of liberals who are visiting various reicho blogs to survey the phenomena of denial and delusion as your short reign has come to its predictable and bitter end. We think of you as defective aliens who've, unfortunately for us, ended up here for some reason. No, I mean America hates you...more of your denial regarding the movement away from your party and the abominable, little monkey you appalling creatures elected.

Anonymous said...

I don't even have to finish reading your hate filled dribble to know why your here. I look for debates on blogs, which is clearly something that you are not akin to. You are apparently looking for a fight when you come out with ad hominem attacks rather than substantive scrutiny of any issue. I'm done with you. You are whats wrong with the world. I did not seek you out, rather, it was the other way around.

You are a true douche-bag and I grow tired of your snipe attacks. It must be normal for you to frequent places in which you are dipised. I feel sorry for you.

jibber said...

What issue is there to discuss? You can't defend the war, Katrina, corruption...with endless GOPs going to jail, habeas corpus, torture, kidnapping, the disappeared, Attorneygate, environmental destruction...all disasters which no one could defend. Before posting, we read the earlier posts and -- check them out again for they are...all right above this one -- nothing but silly attacks and paltry attempts at sarcasm...and you want to discuss issues!!!? The only discussion here is in the postings of Conservatives like Noonan -- tearing the Bush administration a new one!! There's no response to what she says...nothing but more siliness. Pick an issue...they're all indefensible...which is why America hates you. You can't deny that this has been the most disastrous regime in our history and that conservatism has been utterly discredited.

Anonymous said...

Lets start at the top of your list.

The War in Iraq

I personally believe that Based on the Clinton administration's (
E48XHKG64)intelligence as well as the UN, NATO, Russia, Australia, the Kurds 2 cents on the issue that going to Iraq and taking out Saddam was in the worlds best interest. Not to mention that we are planting a seed of democracy in the last frontier in the civilized world.

WMD's were used on his own people so we had reason to believe that he was capable of creating much more destructive versions.

Plus, anyone with rape chambers needs to die!

That's the bottom line.

Anonymous said...

2 words: Jimmy Carter

Wow, what a genius. He offered an olive branch to the Soviets and got an iron fist in return. He also allowed the Shah of Iran (our ally since WW2) to be over thrown, thus creating the situation we are in today (911, USS Cole, '92 Twin towers, etc...).

Just remember that Bush inhereted all of these issues. 911 could have been twarted long before September.

Jimmy Carter is definitely the worst president ever.

lamp said...

Haha...nice going, we know, you don't discuss issues with these just throw stuff out there to elicit the most incredibly silly responses imaginable...the more they keep this silly lying and denial up the more the country shakes its head and rejects them...not fit to govern a lemonade stand...has a party ever blown it so bad...they're done for a generation at least...America really does hate them and it gets worse every day

Anonymous said...

how is that funny? i mean, i just stated facts to disprove jib and yet you praise him for getting me to respond. why even waste the time talking to you people if my every attempt to engage in a rational/sensable conversation is shot down with sub-par rebuttals and half truths.

maybe evan is right.

Anonymous said...

i am still waiting on your response to the Iraq war issue.

xkvsxe said...

Jibber sounds like an irrational lunatic. The idea that the President is kidnapping innocent people and torturing them sounds like the movie Hostel, rather than reality. Are you sure you did not get the two confused?

lamp said...

how is that funny? i mean, i just stated facts to disprove jib and yet you praise him for getting me to respond. why even waste the time talking to you people if my every attempt to engage in a rational/sensable conversation is shot down with sub-par rebuttals and half truths.

maybe evan is right.

He didn't state facts...he made assertions...war justified...seeds planted...the last so silly you have to laugh...5 million displaced, 650,000 killed, chaos reigns...the most radical groups vying for power...a radical muslim gov't assured ...aligned with Iran...biggest foreing policy farce in history...literally...anyone's history...monstrous joke...all the lies re WMD's revealed...and you call these facts, reason, evidence...that's why you're a joke to the country...silly, unserious wonder they call you names...what else do you do with destructive malignant morons who destroy our country and others as well. You little monsters haven't heard about the disappeared...all over the news...our monsters in Iraq doing everything Saddam did and more...oh yeah they need to be thrown out...oh that's us

squatch said...

dasrite jibber be crazy or maybe not bunch of ignowingos doan even no wuz going on under they monkey nose...BUSH RUNNING KIDNAPPING RING: 39 MORE “DISAPPEARED” FOUND
By davidswanson
Created 2007-06-07 19:15
By Sherwood Ross

Let’s face it: we’ve got a president in the White House who is running an international kidnapping ring. Six human rights groups(HRG) today (June 6) named for the first time 39 more kidnap (they call them ‘disappeared’) victims of the Bush administration. Not only have Mr. Bush’s apparatchiks dumped the terrorist suspects in secret prisons but they abducted some of their wives and children, too. The sons of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, aged seven and nine, were kidnapped and tossed into an adult detention center for months “while U.S. agents questioned the children about their father’s whereabouts,” HRG said in a news release. And when Tanzanian national Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was seized in Gujarat, Pakistan, in July, 2004, his wife was kidnapped with him. Shades of Joe Stalin, notorious for abducting Soviet defectors in their foreign sancutaries!

“The duty of governments to protect people from acts of terrorism is not in question. But seizing men, women and even children, and placing people in secret locations deprived of the most basic safeguards for any detainees most definitely is,” said Claudio Cordone, a spokesperson for Amnesty International, one of the HRG involved in today’s revelations.
Adds Meg Satterthwaite, of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at the NYU School of Law: “Since the end of Latin America’s dirty wars, the world has rejected the use of ‘disappearances’ as a fundamental violation of international law. Despite this universal condemnation, our research shows that the United States has tried to vanish both the people on this list and the rule of law… Enforced disappearances are illegal, regardless of who carries them out.”

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano dismissed the HRG report. He told Reuters the CIA acts in “strict accord with American law” and that its counter-terror initiatives are “subject to careful review and oversight.”

Operating secret prisons turns the kidnapped victims into ghost prisoners kept “off the books.” It prevents scrutiny by the public and the courts, “and leaves detainees vulnerable to abuses that include torture and other ill-treatment,” the HRG said. It also blocks the Red Cross from exercising its right of visitation. In the past, the CIA has denied the International Red Cross visitation to its prison in Kabul, Afghanistan. That’s hardly in accord with American law, as international treaties the U.S. has signed obligate Red Cross visits to prisoners. And, of course, none of the 39 disappeared have been brought to public trial, still a right under U.S. law.

The organizations bringing the charges against the Bush administration are Amnesty International, Cageprisoners, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law(CHRGJ), Human Rights Watch, and Reprieve.

Last September, President Bush conceded his administration held prisoners in secret. It is unlikely he compared this practice to the foreign kidnappings that characterized Stalin’s Soviet regime, just as he undoubtedly failed to see the self-satire of his speech the other day calling upon Russia to act more like a democracy. But Vincent Warren, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, has a broader vision: “Our client Majid Khan was subjected to torture and abuse while in secret CIA detention for three years. His family didn’t know if he was alive, let alone where he was. ‘Ghost’ detention is incompatible with basic respect for human rights and the rule of law.”

If you think it’s ugly stuff for the White House to jail children, keep in mind the U.S. detains 800 Pakistani boys between 13 and 15, some of whom the Red Cross charges have been tortured. By the estimate of Human Rights First(HRF), as of April, 2005, at least 108 innocent (well, they were never tried, were they?) foreign detainees “perished” in U.S. custody.
Kidnapping by the CIA, which the Bush-Cheney regime is converting into a Soviet-style KGB, got its start under President Bill Clinton, who signed off on the first “extraordinary rendition” in 1996. The invasion of the body snatchers, though, made the jump into light speed under Mr. Bush. Right now, Italy has warrants out for the arrest of 22 CIA agents who four years ago abducted Milan resident cleric Hassan Osama Nasr, and flew him to Egypt to be tortured. HRG says the disappeared victims it identified were snatched in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan.

Although Mr. Bush fibs “we don’t torture,” there have been verified reports to the contrary, particularly relating to the kidnap victims. Title 18 of the U.S. Code makes it a crime for an American to commit torture outside the U.S. The offense is punishable by fines and prison terms of up to 20 years, and if deaths result, the killers may be jailed for life or executed.

At least 20 high Bush administration officials authorized, and hundreds of U.S. military or other government employees participated in, crimes of torture against prisoners taken in the Middle East or scooped off the streets of Europe. This list begins with President Bush, for his arbitrary suspension February 8, 2002, of the Geneva Conventions that protect prisoners and includes Vice President Cheney, top White House officials, Pentagon flag officers, CIA agents, and interrogators.

One very curious sentence leaps out of the new HRG report. It’s this: “Interviews with prisoners who have been released from secret CIA prisons indicate that low-level detainees have frequently been arrested far from any battlefield, and held in isolation for years without legal recourse or contact with their families or outside agencies.”

Put that together with the fact almost none of the captives at Guantanamo or in any of the other prisons have been brought to trial and it raises several questions: What if thousands of innocent men have been arrested to give the appearance of a vast “terrorist” conspiracy against America where none exists? What if, apart from Al-Qaida, the terrorists are just nationalists defending their turf when invaded? Otherwise, why hold these men in secret prisons? Is it to keep the public from hearing what they may say in open court?#

squatch said...

throo channel four news squatch communicates wid lower organazms...story all over yet they donno head up the ass maybe evan is reich soitanlee

Dispatches exposes a new phase in America's dirty war on al Qaeda: the rendition and detention of women and children. Last year, President Bush confirmed the existence of a CIA secret detention programme but he refused to give details and said it was over.

Kidnapped To Order
Dispatches exposes a new phase in America's dirty war on al Qaeda: the rendition and detention of women and children. Last year, President Bush confirmed the existence of a CIA secret detention programme but he refused to give details and said it was over.

Dispatches reveals new evidence confirming fiercely-denied reports that many of the CIA captives were held and interrogated in Europe. Those prisons may now be closed but the programme is by no means over, it's just changed. A new front has opened up in the Horn of Africa and America has outsourced its renditions to its allies.

Reporter Stephen Grey (author of Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Programme) investigates America's global sweep for prisoners - obtaining exclusive interviews with former detainees who claim they have been kidnapped and flown halfway across the world to face torture by America's allies.

The film opens with an examination of the most notorious rendition story to date - the kidnap of Egyptian cleric Abu Omar. This month in Italy the trial opens of twenty-five CIA officers accused of snatching Omar from the streets of Milan in broad daylight and flying him to Cairo four years ago. Grey travels to Egypt to secure an exclusive interview with Omar who defies the warnings of his interrogators not to speak publicly about his treatment. He details the torture that was inflicted upon him in his fourteen-month detention and the number of other 'ghost detainees' he encountered - people who are being held in secret, without charge.

The film then turns to Pakistan - one of America's most significant allies in the 'war on terror'. Since 9/11, the state's intelligence services have apprehended over a five hundred people as terror suspects. Grey investigates what happens to the 'disappeared' amid claims that America pays Pakistan a bounty for every suspect they capture.

Turning his attentions closer to home, Grey gains exclusive access to an official European investigation which has found evidence that CIA prisons housing al Qaeda suspects have also existed in Europe and reveals the interrogation techniques that have been used against such high-value prisoners. The Bush administration claim such techniques stop short of torture but Grey discovers that many in the CIA disagree and are concerned that using them may leave them open to criminal proceedings in the future and make the evidence gained inadmissible in a trial - preventing terrorists from being convicted in court.

Dispatches then examines the new battleground of America's war on terror - the Horn of Africa. Grey travels to Kenya, and Ethiopia to investigate allegations of mass renditions involving women and children - where prisoners thought to have al Qaeda connections have been illegally transferred from country to country for imprisonment and interrogation.

Grey uncovers evidence of secret rendition flights on which suspects were flown from Nairobi into war-torn Somalia - a state with no effective law or government. Amongst the suspects were women and children - he hears a first-hand account from one Briton who was on one of the flights who describes being beaten, interrogated and finding himself in a prison cell opposite a woman and a five-year-old boy. Another woman who was rendered to Somalia describes being flown on to Ethiopia with other women and children - where one pregnant woman gave birth to her child whilst in detention.

Dispatches questions the legality and effectiveness of America's rendition programme and asks whether the way detainees have been interrogated will undermine the legal process to bring real terrorists to trial and conviction.

Further links related to this article
Channel 4 News
Terror rendition prisons 'did exist'

External sites
Grey: CIA ran secret prisons for detainees in Europe

Larry the Fiddler said...

Bush's approval ratings hit all-time lows in two polls. At 28 percent,
Bush's approval rating is the "lowest score ever in a Quinnipiac University
national poll."

19:Percentage of Americans who think the country is on the right track in a
new NBC/WSJ poll out tonight, the lowest figure in 15 years. President
Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low of 29 percent.

A terrorist watch list compiled by the FBI has apparently swelled to include
more than half a million names.

squatch said...

goodgwine Larrythefiddler...lookee we run all the dumb little wingbats offen they own blog...looks like we took over...Sayet's set us up gooood here we needa thankim

Larry the Fiddler said...

hahahahahaha have you seen his act? He couldn't make a 10 year old laff...he knows if you're no good and you still want to be a "success" you need to do it as a kkkonservative...look at the moron they got for president...he wouldn't make a ward heeler for the democrats even as bad as they are now.

Anonymous said...


**Snort!** "Huh?"

Oh, just some dickless idiots.


Anonymous said...

Farmer John,

Do you want to handle this one, or should I?

Anonymous said...

America arrests a detains a known terrorist, Abu Omar, and then releases him after fourteen months of detention.

al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya simply kill thousands of innocents, who never to return to their families. They take power drills to their victims head during interrogations. They break their victims knees with hammers. Then they lop off their heads.

Poor Abu Omar. The world is a nasty place. So sad for him.

Anonymous said...

Evidence of innocent women and children being tortured in US custody. Zero. Propaganda, pure and simple. Pregnant women giving birth...what tripe.

Anonymous said...

In Cuba, definitely. In China, every day. In North Korea, yep.

In the west? Get real. With all the idiot whistleblowers like you around??? Don't make me laugh.

Anonymous said...

you said "650,000 killed, chaos reigns."

that is not true. it is more like 70,000 according to powell.

now that you know the truth will you help sread the word?

Anonymous said...

Here's a news flash for the New York Times pg 52 under a Greenpeace advertisement. Quick somebody alert the Geneva Convention. Somebody convene the World Court. Somebody alert the UN peacekeepers. Somebody...

I guess the US is somebody.

Somebody did something. Now they whine about it.

Anonymous said...

Lamp, Squatch, Jibber etc.,
Note how the liberal posts with documentation and fact reason and evidence while the modern conservative reacts with name calling and denial. All of these events have been well documented and they are not even in dispute in the reality based community, but here where the last holdout dregs of the defeated conservative movement hide, they're still in denial. You just wonder what the poor, lesser beings get from it...obviously they're just to weak and ashamed to admit what they've done and what has happened to them...yes, America truly does hate them...and who can be surprised?

jibber said...

Yes, anon, same sad stuff wherever you look in the once thriving if insane consevative movement...a bunch of sad, defeated people telling themselves the same sad, self defeating lies. The more they refuse to face reality, the weaker they can't deal with things unless you face facts. This is a good thing since they'll never rebound with that mindset.

lamp said...

From the WSJ/Pinko rag

Republicans' Outlook Dims for '08
Majority in Poll
Prefers Democrats;
Thompson Gains
Wall Street Journal
June 14, 2007; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- The race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination has become wide open, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. But the value of winning it has fallen sharply.

The survey shows that without formally entering the race, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has risen to second place in the Republican field. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to leak support, but leads the pack with 29% to Mr. Thompson's 20%, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has pulled even with Sen. John McCain at 14%.


1 • Graphic: Bush's approval ratings across multiple polls2

• See poll results3 (Adobe Acrobat required)

• Candidate Scorecard: A week-by-week look at the campaigns4

Of greater concern for Republicans generally, however, is the party's weak state heading into the 2008 election. By 52% to 31%, Americans say they want Democrats to win the presidency next year.

Americans give the Republican Party their most negative assessment in the two-decade history of the Journal/NBC survey, and by 49% to 36% they say the Democratic Party more closely shares their values and positions on the issues.

"The political environment for Republicans continues to erode," says Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC survey with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. A long-term worry for the party: Republican gains among the Hispanic constituency, long a target for President Bush, have vanished at a time when Washington is enmeshed in a debate over immigration policy.

The party's woes can be partly traced to the political decline of President Bush. His approval rating in the Journal/NBC survey has fallen to its lowest ever, 29%, while 66% of Americans disapprove of his performance. The telephone survey of 1,008 adults, conducted June 8-11, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

Mr. Bush's decline from 35% approval in April reflects diminished support from his core constituency: Among Republicans, approval of the president's job performance has dropped to 62% from 75%. It also reflects bleak assessments of his new strategy in Iraq: By 54% to 10%, Americans say the situation there has gotten worse rather than better in recent months.

The poll hardly brings reassurance for the Democrats, who control both the House and Senate. Amid political gridlock on domestic issues and inconclusive debates over Iraq, the approval rating for Congress stands lower than Mr. Bush's, at 23%. Just 41% of Americans say their representative in Congress deserves re-election, comparable to levels before Democrats swept Republicans out of power in November.

Yet the Democrats' overall strategic posture as 2008 approaches remains far stronger. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who has strengthened her lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, leads Mr. Giuliani by 48% to 43% in a potential general-election matchup after trailing by a similar margin three months ago. Despite Mr. Thompson's rise among Republican contenders, he trails the second-place Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, by 50% to 31% in a hypothetical November 2008 contest.

Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton draws 39% of the vote, up from 36% in April, while Mr. Obama receives 25%, down from 31%. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, receives 15%, with Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware lagging behind at 4%.

Mrs. Clinton's standing in the Democratic race follows her performances in televised debates and an attempt to downplay differences with Mr. Obama over Iraq. Though her leading rival courts Democratic voters by noting that he opposed from the start a war she voted to authorize, she enjoys a wider lead among Democrats backing an immediate troop withdrawal than among those who oppose one.

Moreover, on both of the rank and file's top two characteristics for their party's nominee -- capacity to bring about change and experience for the presidency -- Mrs. Clinton holds an edge. Fully 71% of Democrats rate the former first lady highly for being "knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency," while 30% rate the first-term Sen. Obama highly on that dimension.

"Her competence campaign is working," Mr. Newhouse said.

Yet the same dynamic hasn't succeeded in stemming the decline of Sen. McCain, who was once viewed as the 2008 Republican front-runner on the strength of his 2000 campaign. Rank-and-file Republicans rate knowledge and experience their top priority in a 2008 nominee, and 62% rate the longtime Arizona senator highly on that score. Yet Mr. McCain receives comparatively low marks for being an "inspirational and exciting" candidate, and for sharing the party's positions on the issues.

Among those profiting at Mr. McCain's expense is Mr. Thompson. The actor and former lawmaker is recognized by seven in 10 Republicans, and he stands as the early favorite among the one-third of Republicans who call themselves "very conservative." Notes Mr. Newhouse: "Republican voters have gotten their first look at Fred Thompson, and he looks pretty good."

GlassHalfFull said...

Does it suck being a liberal? I just don't think I could live with such a bleak outlook on life. You have so much hate in you that you can't enjoy are to busy trying to make everyone else miserable.

jibber said...

Vicious crime party goes after judge... Judge Threatened After Sentencing Libby to Prison in CIA Leak Case
By Matt Apuzzo
The Associated Press

Thursday 14 June 2007

Washington - The U.S. judge who oversaw the CIA leak trial of a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday that he received threatening letters and phone calls after sentencing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to prison.

"I received a number of angry, harassing mean-spirited phone calls and letters," District Judge Reggie B. Walton said. "Some of those were wishing bad things on me and my family."

Walton made the remarks as he opened a hearing into whether to delay Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence. He said he was holding the letters in case something happened but said they would have no effect on Thursday's decision.

squatch said...

hahahar...brainhafull sez it sux to inflict reality...GOPiggy gets mizbul when he suck reality...po piggy ...libzhavmofun

why beat a dead horse? said...

If we are so scared and are hiding out on evan's site then why are you libs still on the offense? surely we do not require such effort on your parts. why not just let us die off?

my thought is that you, just like AQ, are stepping up your offensive in hopes of casting a losing light on couragious americans.

Dr. Phil said...

Sasquatch, libzhavmofun? Were you drinking your goverment check away and then typing on blogs again? Squash for brains also said "GOPiggy gets mizbul when he suck reality." Let me know when you are back from your (probable)drug induced fantasy so you can actually see REALITY.

Anonymous said...

Notice how liberals spend their time posting old newspaper articles supporting their positions and then brag about how well thought out their positions are. Notice how they couldn't actually defend one of their positions even if their own life depended on it.

"Our enemies are dead," they say. "Our enemies are stupid," they say. Then they laugh.


lamp said...

Here's some good comedy material for Sayet...conservative America...Freak show for the planet: reporter explains Bush's excellent Albanian adventure, comparing the prime minister to Borat, and Dubya to Michael Jackson. This guy really gets it! 6/15

jibber said...

Dead horse says...
"my thought is that you, just like AQ, are stepping up your offensive in hopes of casting a losing light on couragious americans."

No, we're keeping the light on contagious Americans. The polls, the last election and many of your own pundits do a great job of telling us what a pack of losers you've been. How about that Noonan article? Poor dumb struck wingos don't seem to have anything to say about that. Actually, we're surveying the dying sub-culture of the nasty freak show we've all just been through...pretty boring and predictable so far. The question that remains is how much more damage can you do before you're totally swept aside in the next election. Obviously, many conservatives have finally seen what a tawdry set of lies they were sold, but none of those would be left on these sites. Oh, tell the very boring, one act, zzzz guy those aren't old articles...they're new ones and posted as evidence and food for discussion...something none of you seem to have the capacity for. Obviously we can defend any issue we hold. Just as obviously you can't...which is why you've been dismissed by the nation. Liberals love America; America hates neocons.

Anonymous said...

I love how jibber speaks for america. I am an american and I strongly dislike jibber. I do not hate jibber as he would like but i do not like him/her because they are REALLY ANNOYING. america strongly dislikes socialist/abortionist/cowards like jibber but we do not hate him/her.

sorry jibber but your attempt to drag us down in your hate is pointless because we know that evil is powerless when the good are unaffriad.

One question for Jibber:

If everything that you advocate was proven wrong would you come over to our side or would you continue to stand in the way of progress?

Let us all open our arms and love jibber. he is so upset that he lashes out at people that he does not even know.

how can one target something that they do not see?

Anonymous said...

Here's some food for discussion.

Do your articles actually provide any food for thought or discussion, or is it just trash dumped on Sayet's blog to discourage people from reading the comments and put me them sleep?

Methinks it's the latter. You know-nothing, post-everything trolls are the worst.


Anonymous said...

This thread already has a topic. Either stick with it or leave.

jibber said...

If everything that you advocate was proven wrong would you come over to our side or would you continue to stand in the way of progress?

Well, I definitely would not come over to your side, because all of that has been proven wrong...look at the past six years. However, I would definitely change my beliefs and try to find a new party or group to join. I am disgusted with my own party as it is...because they're far too weak in standing for the principles of the Democratic party. Most of us who are activist, or even informed, are looking for more populist candidates to vote for. That's why congress' polls so poorly. We are fed up with their weakness. You people, on the other hand, just mindlessly stand behind the worst and most insane excesses anyone has seen in either party in history. Half your officials are on their way to going to jail and the other half should be. BTW, this is the weakest, deadest blog we're currently visiting. Not one person on here seems to be capable of laying out a coherent thought or defense, and the general tenor is one of passive weakness. Does your guru, Sayet, inspire this kind of listlessness, or are some of your finally, secretly realizing what an insane and corrupt sham your party is?

lamp said...

Chavez' obsessed wingbat says...
"Heres some food for discussion.

Do your articles actually provide any food for thought or discussion, or is it just trash dumped on Sayet's blog to discourage people from reading the comments and put me them sleep?"

hahaha...this little wingbat's mind's so weak he can't read the comments if there's an article posted next to it...did you read the Noonan article, wingie...she's one of yours...only she has retained the capacity for critical thought...why don't you get some...let's hear what you think of you could think

Anonymous said...

Hey, here's another one of those OLD minutes're whining about. INVESTIGATED BY HIS OWN DEPARTMENT...ASTONISHING. Even you boys should be able to see the importance of this. I're all sticking the heads a little further into that sand box in your shorts and no one will have anything to say but make excuses.

The US justice department is reportedly INVESTIGATING ITS OWN CHIEF, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to see if he tried to skew testimony over the firings of nine federal prosecutors.

Citing a justice department letter released by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Post said the department was looking to see whether Gonzales improperly sought to influence the testimony to the committee of his former aide Monica Goodling.

Goodling, questioned by the committee last month over her role in the allegedly politically motivated sacking of the nine prosecutors, testified that Gonzales's remarks in a March discussion with her on the issue left her feeling "a little uncomfortable."

In the discussion Gonzales recounted his recollection of the events surrounding the firings before seeking Goodling's own interpretation, she said.

"IT'S REMARKABLE THAT HE'S UNDER INVESTIGATION AND THAT HE'S STILL ATTORNEY GENERAL," New York University law professor Stephen Gillers told the Post.

Goodling and two other top Justice Department officials have RESIGNED in the scandal.

LIB spammers ruined this site said...

as much as i love evan's ideas i am done with his blog. the trolls (probably the same hired gun) have destroyed any sensible debate.

i can only imagine that their increased vigor is only out of fear of the truth.

i tried to engage jibber in a conversation about the war in iraq but he avoided it. i guess al they can do is perry and throw blind punches.

thanks evan but no thanks.

ps: the list of democrat fuck ups is so long it would need its on website.

Anonymous said...

sandy burger vs. scooter libby?

who is worse?

Anonymous said...

Well, Scooter is in jail so on the surface it would appear that he is worse but when you look at what Sandy did you know for sure that he is definitely worse.

I guess it is a question b/w purjury and stealing classified documents.

Anonymous said...

No , this is the Left's much vaunted "summer offensive to end the war".

The trolls are on the march. And as we can all see, a pretty sorry bunch of trolls they are.

I think the last "debate" they participated in outside their mommie's backyard was at the school playground and of the..."I know you are, but what am I?" variety.

They couldn't stay on a thread topic if their lives depended on it. The only thing they've got is "be rude" and "disrupt"

squatch said...

RECENT articles in the noooze:

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on June 10, host Tim Russert asked Powell
why his prediction of a troop drawdown by early 2007 hadn’t come to pass.
“A different choice was made by the President,” Powell answered. “The President received advice
from his military advisers last fall that said, do not send more troops.

“Gen. [John] Abizaid went before the Congress, the commander of Central Command,
and said he had consulted with all his division commanders in Iraq and
all of the senior commanders, and none of them wanted to send additional troops.

“They thought the strategy at that point should be to put the burden on the Iraqis to resolve what I call a civil war.”

In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, by 52% to 31%, Americans say they want Democrats to win the presidency next year.; Hurry up, 2008. 6/15

"Even Rats Learn" --so what's the GOP's excuse? 6/14

Anonymous said...

Fortunately, they bore easily.


Anonymous said...

i by wasting time on an all conservative site when they could be on more moderate sites these trolls are a blessing disguise.

one day we will wake up and they will be gone. no worries.

lamp said...

anon says: sandy burger vs. scooter libby?

who is worse?

Who's the numbers,'ve got dozens going up river...eleven from the Abramoff think alone and that's just started...endless others going down or under investigation...also just the beginning..DeLay thrown, Halliburton etcetcetc all too numerous to mention but hey you can go back to Chappaquiddick...who's the guy says he tried to debate Iraq...telling us Saddam bad, seeds sewn is not debate...just silly assertions

Anonymous said...

obviously you care when you say that reps have worse leadership than dims. i was only offering a simple rebuttal. sorry if it makes you upset.

BTW, how old are you? when you call someone "stoopid" (stupid is spelled with a "u" rather than two "o"'s) it really makes you look immature.

what about cold cash jefferson? i heard he has more indictments than any other congressman in the history of the U.S.

lamp unto nations said...

obviously you care when you say that reps have worse leadership than dims. i was only offering a simple rebuttal. sorry if it makes you upset.

Oh I be upset awrite...that was no rebuttal...just more silliness.

BTW, how old are you? when you call someone "stoopid" (stupid is spelled with a "u" rather than two "o"'s) it really makes you look immature.

I am 94 years of, you're some kimd of stoopid really spelled with a ewe?

what about cold cash jefferson? i heard he has more indictments than any other congressman in the history of the U.S.

What about him? Throw his ass in jail...where he can play pinochle with two dozen's the numbers, st-ewe-pid...Now, what about NOONAN?

Anonymous said...

so you agree that dims are equally as devious as some reps?

what is you real problem? is it our traditional ways that frighten you? you are al over the place. I'm just trying to get you to focus on why you hate republicans so much.

yes there are some bad reps but you must admit that there are some bad dims, right?

lamp unto wingbats oh they don't like the light said...

so you agree that dims are equally as devious as some reps?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...Jeezus what is your the it's the numbers thing too complex for you?...we've got the usual number of corrupt ones...odd one here and there...half your party is corrupt...and the other half enables, I don't want to get personal, but I'm starting to think you may be a little simple. You're the MOST CORRUPT PARTY IN that difficult?...there are always a few crooks...the dems have a couple... but you guys have dozens...that is waaaaaaaaay different...and that's just the beginning of the insane GOP's problems...they've got nothing left but idiots, and idiots are going out of style...GW saw to that

squatch said...

harharhardeharhar lamp sez gw seen twit...damgood lamp Konz Kant standelite...whuddabout mizpiggy newenan KKKonz??????????...NOONER Sez jumpmeIgottano...libzhavmofun

lamp of Diogenes said...

yeah your trad ways frighten the hell out of me...your trad is to let everything go to hell while rich people get richer...that's the only tradition you have...did your read Noonan...she says you're anything but the traditional GOP...I're GOP but more GOP...all the usual evil stuff but more so with no disquise...Hooverville to Katrina...war mongering or more mongering... first the niggers den de Mex...bigotry division hatred war profit those are your traditions...yeah I hate the's destroying the country and the planet

Anonymous said...

The fast hearted gypsy slides remotely down the grove of the slithering goatman, whom smiles like an impotent dog. The last time the gypsy compulated with the goatman, she was giving birth to a legion of angry penguins. Half of the penguins came out still born, and the other half ate their dead siblings. The goatman is sly and resilient; he knows the tricks of the gypsy and smacks her in her bosom accordingly. The evaluation of the goatman’s psyche is a very hard task to describe, as it takes hours of hot jelly lubricant and flower scented bathes to consume any information from his goat horned head. The gypsy licks her fingers as the goatman smiles into oblivion. Small fish enter the goatman’s mouth like small eggrolls on slippery noodles. The gypsy riddles her way out of the goatman’s clever traps by offering him eternal satisfaction with pornography and lice. But the gypsy doesn’t seem to grasp that the the mangoat is far above her intelligence quota. he simply goes along with her simple-minded folly because he knows how to get what he wants.

evan said...

To whomever wrote about the latest polls saying something about more people want the Dems to be president next time and not the Republicans, a couple of thoughts (as opposed to, uh, feelings)...

1) Goodness, truth and right are not determined by counting the number of people who agree with you. This is the reason that Democrats adore the corrupt and evil United Nations and Republicans don't.

2) More people say they want a Democrat...until you actually put names in there. This is because the leftist schools and media have sold the notion that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil. Wonderful in theory but when you actually get into the practice of things and put real names with real policies in place, the Democrats lose again.

3) Your hateful comparison of your fellow Americans for not voting Democrat -- that is, your comparison to those who fail to toe the leftist line their entire lives to rats -- is telling. After all, a good many Republicans are former Democrats while virtually no Democrats were ever Republicans. This is because, when you're locked in the leftist schools being taught lies you are a Democrat, when you grow up and enter the real world and learn truths rather than self-serving "theories" you either become a Republican or tend to stay in professions where you can be a child forever (such as guitar players and people who play a part in a movie or college professors who never leave the school grounds.)

Anonymous said...

bravo evan!

Anonymous said...

Where'd they all go? They must not "work" on weekends.

Anonymous said...

Doin't worry, Huge-0. I'm sure they'll come back once they've smoked all their crack.

lamp said...

Evan says...not much it appears. Is this your guru making an appearance on this dead blog? If so, it's no wonder the intellectual tenor is so low...this guy does nothing but make silly assertions like his lackeys...devoid of fact and evidence. Let's have a little laugh.

1) Goodness, truth and right are not determined by counting the number of people who agree with you.

Obviously, but in this case their opinions are based on six disastrous years of incompetence, lying, unparalleled corruption, and relentless catastrophes...real world experience that you can't get anywhere else...and they don't like what they see.

2) More people say they want a Democrat...until you actually put names in there.

Dems win in either case.

This is because the leftist schools and media have sold the notion that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil.

Too childish!

Wonderful in theory but when you actually get into the practice of things and put real names with real policies in place, the Democrats lose again.

As I said...the polls -- on almost every specific issue -- and the last election show precisely the opposite.

3) Your hateful comparison of your fellow Americans for not voting Democrat

Oooh, now he's pouting.

After all, a good many Republicans are former Democrats while virtually no Democrats were ever Republicans.

Hahahahahahaha...this is the most childish of that why your "majority" grows so relentlessly? Most intelligent young guys turn liberal as soon as they're out of the house, get an actual education, and discover what a tawdry, narrow, backward thing Republicanism is...which is why you people hate intellectuals, hate colleges and hate intelligence in general...some old guys do go conservative's known as senility, hardening of the arteries or curmudgeonry...take your pick.

when you grow up and enter the real world and learn truths rather than self-serving "theories" you either become a Republican or tend to stay in professions where you can be a child forever (such as guitar players and people who play a part in a movie or college professors who never leave the school grounds.)

More jokes? We've all had too much "real life experience" with you monsters and we've had enough...America hates you and they want you GONE...I like that child profession thing...did you mean like a COMEDIAN...and one who can't make it except pandering to the most witless baboons in the country...the vile neocons of today.

Light on the CockRoaches said...

WHOA! General "Pace says he refused to quit voluntarily" Bush Pushes Aside Generals Until He Finds Ones That Agree With Him and Then He Says It is Unpatriotic to Disagree with the Generals He has Picked Because They are "Yes" Men to Him and Cheney.

FEMA may have authorized flood insurance overbilling after Katrina billing 6/17

Seymour Hersh: How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties. Long, informative piece, as usual for Hersh. 6/17

Yale Club of New York Gets "Borked" by the Bilious and Hypocritically Litigious Supreme Court Reject, Robert Bork -- The BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week. Cap That Frivolous Lawsuit!

Robert Gates concedes that "progress" in Iraq is lagging. Good for him 6/16

"The fact that the security situation in Iraq is so risky makes it difficult to effectively oversee contracting, said Army Auditor General Patrick Fitzgerald, who was joining the senators as they meet with more than a half dozen military inspectors general responsible for auditing services and logistics contracts." 6/17

A fifth senior Justice Department official announced his resignation yesterday in the wake of the controversy over the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year. Michael J. Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, will leave the department at the end of next week 6/16

American consumer prices sprint on gas surge. Big oil gets the windfall profits; we get the shaft. 6/18

Prime Minister Tony Blair committed British troops to Iraq even though he despaired at the failure of the United States to plan adequately for the aftermath of the invasion, a newspaper reported Sunday. 6/17

"U.S. says 60pc of Baghdad not controlled." So At LEAST Half That to Get Nearer the Truth, and that Means 80% of Baghdad is Still Open Territory -- and They're Probably Tossing in the Green Zone as 10% of the 20%.

New Orleans turns to international aid: City has received only half of promised funds 6/17

The thunderous sounds of Arctic warming 6/17

Robo-Tripping at Abu Ghraib: Soldiers' videos and photos show how obscene games and simulated violent acts became part of everyday life and led to a culture of abuse in Iraq's detention facilities. 6/16

Sen. Brownback to rape victims: No abortions 6/17

Cheney aides press for military strikes on Iran: report

Taguba: Pentagon knew of Abu Gharib
Investigator documents how he circulated dozens of ignored reports.

Anonymous said...

If one examines the above Lyotardist narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject subcultural desituationism or conclude that the task of the observer is deconstruction, given that Bataille’s essay on Marxism is invalid. It could be said that the premise of Sartreist existentialism holds that reality must come from the collective unconscious.

Sontag uses the term ’subcultural desituationism’ to denote a mythopoetical totality. But Lacan suggests the use of Sartreist existentialism to modify and analyse class.

The subject is contextualised into a Sartreist absurdity that includes language as a reality. It could be said that the primary theme of the works of Spelling is the role of the reader as writer.

If subcultural desituationism holds, we have to choose between Sartreist existentialism and capitalist socialism. Therefore, the characteristic theme of Geoffrey’s critique of subcultural desituationism is the defining characteristic, and some would say the fatal flaw, of dialectic art.

squatch said...

if wun examines the above horseshit he find therein a bogus intellectual poseur who substitutes plagiarized swaydo intellekchool twaddle for his tiny outputtputt

Anonymous said...

The main theme of squatch's post on the dialectic paradigm of reality is not, in fact, narrative, but neonarrative. It could be said that Derrida uses the term ‘precultural Marxism’ to denote the role of the artist as writer. The subject is contextualised into a modernist capitalism that includes art as a totality.

In a sense, any number of theories concerning neocultural modern theory exist. The characteristic theme of the works of jibber is the collapse of subdialectic sexual identity.

But precultural Marxism suggests that language is part of the failure of consciousness. Lacan promotes the use of Baudrillardist simulacra to deconstruct class divisions.

Therefore, lamp unto nations implies that we have to choose between neocultural modern theory and neotextual constructive theory. Bataille uses the term ‘precultural Marxism’ to denote the role of the poet as artist.

“Society is fundamentally meaningless,” says Lacan. Thus, the primary theme of Wilson’s critique of neocultural modern theory is the dialectic, and some would say the meaninglessness, of subtextual society. The subject is interpolated into a precultural Marxism that includes reality as a paradox.

“Sexual identity is part of the genre of sexuality,” says Lyotard; however, according to la Tournie, it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the genre of sexuality, but rather the defining characteristic, and eventually the paradigm, of sexual identity. In a sense, the premise of neocultural modern theory states that the media is capable of truth. Baudrillard uses the term ‘the dialectic paradigm of reality’ to denote not narrative per se, but postnarrative.

But the subject is contextualised into a neocultural modern theory that includes truth as a reality. If subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between precultural Marxism and textual Marxism.

In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a postconceptual structuralism that includes sexuality as a paradox. Von Ludwig holds that we have to choose between neocultural modern theory and capitalist narrative. Our boys have obviously chosen the former.

Anonymous said...

Why can't we get a bootleg copy of this film? Usually you can get on limewire within a week of a release date and pirate new movies.

Is it this dangerous to the lib movement that it is not even floating around cyberspace somewhere?

squatwrack said...

Seeds of DEMONOCRACY Planted...who was the simpleton who said "seeds of democracy planted?" siiiiiiiiiilly little guy

Monday, June 18, 2007

The man who led the initial American effort to reconstruct Iraq after the war believes the country is on the brink of a genocidal civil war and its government will fall apart unless the US changes course and allows a three-way federal structure. He has also urged talks with Iran and other regional players.

Send in the Clowns! No, They are Already in the White House: "Iraq has emerged as the world's second most unstable country, behind Sudan, more than four years after President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, according to a survey released on Monday." Would One of Those Blonde Bimbo Right Wing Shills Give Bush a Blow Job Already, So We Can Finally Impeach Him and Save America -- and Iraq?

Walt Uhler: The Bush/Cheney Holocaust in Iraq: Criminality, Immorality, Incompetence and Desperation 6/18

We will leave Iraq with all our dreams in pieces, and it will be left to Iraqis themselves - men like Daoud Mousa, carrying the grief of his son's death with him for ever - to create a new country out of the pain and sorrow we leave behind for them. 6/18


Meshackedtoo said...

anonymous sez:
Is it this dangerous to the lib movement that it is not even floating around cyberspace somewhere?

hahaha...oh, yeah we're aquakin...dat lib power structure is keepin under wraps...hahaha...if you simpletons keep pretending to know what you're talking about, somewhere, sometime, some jejeune, little, latent wingbat will say...uh, jeebus them guys is smart i wanna fake it like that...and you'll have another the meantime, everone else is registering DEMOCRAT...oh dasrite your fool gooroo sez nobody goes Dem

Anonymous said...

dear squatwrack,

you make it seem like the instability in iraq is a rare thing. actually, the point you are taking is simular to saying that the side effect of hair loss when under going chemo is so bad that we should let cancer thrive in order to avoid the momentary discomfort.

the seeds of democracy have been planted (iraqi election) and will continue to grow no matter how much you wine and cry.

Anonymous said...

if "islam vs. islamist" is so great then where is it? if PBS will not air it then it must not fit there agenda, right?

how else does one explain this other than assuming that it is much to dangerous to the lib agenda.

Anonymous said...

Extra-extra read all about it... in 1536, the majority of people didn't believe in Copernicus' heliocentric system and were registering "Catholic" like crazy...

Anonymous said...

i really wanna see what PBS is affraid of. you know it must be good if they won't air it.

Abadnegro said...

Extra-extra read all about it... in 1536, the majority of people didn't believe in Copernicus' heliocentric system and were registering "Catholic" like crazy... do you get this dumb?...those people would have been known as conservatives. The think of it is that everybody is goink Dem after six years of seeing first hand what Republicanism means...grasp it and stroke it Fido Castrati.

squatch said...

Seedsodmemoncracy d-ewe-d be back eh...simple lil feller ainee? We set up an election itsafarce but this is democracy whooza moron sez Iwreck had chaos before U.S.? Total wimmin's rites in mideast...good education theezboyzkooduzit... killyerselvescleanupthepoollibzhavmofun

Lester said...

The Mythical Lincoln
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Every February 12 Americans think they are celebrating Lincoln’s birthday. But what they are really celebrating is the birth of the Leviathan state that Lincoln, more than anyone else, is responsible for bringing about. No wonder federal politicos have made his birth date a national holiday, engraved his face is on Mount Rushmore, built a Venus-like statue of him in Washington, D.C., and put his mugshot on the five dollar bill.
More than 130 years of government propaganda has hidden this fact from the American people by creating a Mythical Lincoln that never existed. Take, for instance, the fact that everyone supposedly knows – that Lincoln was an abolitionist. This would be a surprise to the preeminent Lincoln scholar, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, who in his 1961 book, Lincoln Reconsidered, wrote that "Lincoln was not an abolitionist." And he wasn’t. He was glad to accept on behalf of the Republican Party any votes from abolitionists, but real abolitionists despised him. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."
Garrison knew Lincoln well. He knew that Lincoln stated over and over again for his entire adult life that he did not believe in social or political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriage, supported the Illinois constitution’s prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, once defended in court a slaveowner seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended a runaway, and that he was a lifelong advocate of colonization – of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America – anywhere but in the U.S.
Garrison and other abolitionists were also keenly aware that the January 1863 Emancipation Proclamation freed no one since it specifically exempted all the areas that at the time were occupied by federal armies. That is, all areas where slaves could actually have been freed.
Historians have portrayed the Mythical Lincoln as a man who brooded for decades over how he could someday free the slaves. Nothing could be more absurd. According to Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln’s Collected Works, Lincoln never even mentioned slavery in a speech until 1854, and even then, says Basler, he was not sincere.
When Lincoln first entered state politics in 1832 he announced that he was doing so for three reasons: To help enact the Whig Party agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare subsidies for railroad and canal-building corporations ("internal improvements"), and a government monopolization of the nation’s money supply. "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance," he declared: "I am in favor of a national bank . . . the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff." He was a devoted mercantilist, and remained so for his entire political life. He was single-mindedly devoted to Henry Clay and his political agenda (mentioned above), which Clay called "The American System."
Lincoln once announced that his career ambition was not to free the slaves but to become "the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois." DeWitt Clinton was the governor of New York in the early nineteenth century who is credited with having introduced the spoils system to America and supervising the building of the Erie Canal (which became defunct in a mere ten years because of the invention of the railroad).
Moreover, Lincoln destroyed the most important principle of the Declaration – the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Southerners no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C. in 1860, and Lincoln put an end to that idea by having his armies slaughter 300,000 of them, including one out of every four white males between 20 and 40. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be the equivalent of around 3 million American deaths, or roughly 60 times the number of Americans who died in Vietnam.
As H.L. Mencken said of the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln absurdly claimed that Northern soldiers were fighting for the cause of self determination ("that government of the people . . . should not perish . . .": "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. The Confederates went into the battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision of the rest of the country."
Another Lincoln myth was that he "saved the Constitution." But this claim is an outrage considering that Lincoln acted like a dictator for the duration of his administration and showed nothing but bitter contempt for the Constitution. Even Lincoln’s idolaters, like historian Clinton Rossiter, author of the book, Constitutional Dictatorship, referred to him as a "great dictator" who had an "amazing disregard for the Constitution . . . that was considered by nobody as legal."
The Dictator Lincoln invaded the South without the consent of Congress, as called for in the Constitution; declared martial law; blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war, as required by the Constitution; illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; imprisoned without trial thousands of Northern anti-war protesters, including hundreds of newspaper editors and owners; censored all newspaper and telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Party’s electoral vote; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure Republican Party victories; deported Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham for opposing his domestic policies (especially protectionist tariffs and income taxation) on the floor of the House of Representatives; confiscated private property, including firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well.
As Dean Sprague correctly pointed out in Freedom Under Lincoln, all of these dictatorial acts were bad enough, but their real, long-term effect was to "lay the groundwork" for such unprecedented acts of coercion as military conscription and income taxation.
Hundreds of books have been written about Lincoln the humanitarian, a soft and gentle man. But from the very beginning of his administration he intentionally waged a cruel and unbelievably bloody war on civilians as well as soldiers. As early as 1861, Federal soldiers looted, pillaged, raped and plundered their way through Virginia and other Southern states, completely burning to the ground the towns of Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, Randolph, Tennessee, and others. Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel estimates that some 50,000 Southern civilians were killed during the war, and this number, even if it is exaggerated by a multiple of two, most likely includes thousands of slaves. In his March to the Sea, General William Tecumseh Sherman boasted of having destroyed $100 million in private property and that his "soldiers" carried home another $20 million worth.
In his memoirs Sherman wrote that when he met with Lincoln after his March to the Sea was completed, Lincoln was eager to hear the stories of how thousands of Southern civilians, mostly women, children, and old men, were plundered, sometimes murdered, and rendered homeless. Lincoln, according to Sherman, laughed almost uncontrollably at the stories. Even Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who writes very favorably of the general, concluded that had the Confederates won the war, they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."
Henry Clay’s American System had been vetoed as unconstitutional by virtually every president beginning with James Madison. But as soon as Lincoln took office, with the Southern Democrats absent from Congress, it was finally put into place, literally at gunpoint. In 1857 the average tariff rate was 15 percent, according to Frank Taussig’s classic, A Tariff History of the United States. The Morrill Tariff more than tripled that rate to 47 percent and it remained at that level for decades.
The National Currency Acts nationalized the banking system, finally, and lavish subsidies to railroad-building corporations generated the corruption and scandals of the Grant administrations, just as Southern statesmen had predicted for decades. Income taxation was introduced for the first time, along with an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size. All of these policies put a great centralizing force into motion and were the genesis of the centralized, despotic state that Americans labor under today.
The biggest cost of the Lincoln’s war was the death of federalism and states’ rights, the value of which was expressed by John C. Calhoun several decades earlier when he said: "The great conservative principle of our system is in the people of the States, as parties to the Constitutional compact, and our opponents that it is in the supreme court . . . . Without a full practical recognition of the rights and sovereignty of the States, our union and liberty must perish." And they did.
February 12, 2002
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. His latest book is The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, March 2002).
Copyright 2002
Thomas DiLorenzo Archives

jibber said...

America Hates You...You Hate You

Faithful Hate Bush, too


Could it possibly get any worse for George Bush? Could he possibly be any less popular?
Yes, if diehard Republicans start to abandon him. And that is what is now happening.
Bush's approval rating fell to 29 percent in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
That's a drop of six points since April.

Where's the trouble? Republicans.
Bush has lost 13% more Republicans, from 75% to 63%, since April.

Anonymous said...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%.

Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion of Reid while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views.

Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.

And 63% of Americans say that the new Democratic Congress is governing in a "business as usual" manner, rather than working to bring the fundamental change that party leaders promised after November's midterm election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the first woman to hold that position, has also failed to impress many Americans. Only 36% approve of the way she is handling the job, the poll found.

In contrast, 46% of Americans in the current poll said they approved of the way Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia handled the job after he led the GOP into the majority in 1994.

A third of liberal Democrats, who constitute the party's base, approve of the job Congress is doing; 58% disapprove, the poll found.

That's a dramatic change from January, when a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that 43% of liberal Democrats approved of the job Congress was doing and 36% disapproved.

Yep, change is in the wind. The People want Newt.

Anonymous said...

bush smush! shut up jibber. bush is all you and your ragtag group of activist got.

jibber, why don't you propose an idea of what we should do starting .....NOW.

squatwrack said...

"seeds of democracy" hahahawhaddasimp...

Study: Iraq World's No. 2 Failed State
Monday June 18, 2007 11:31 PM


AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq is now the second most unstable country in the world, a private survey finds, its standing deteriorating from last year's fourth place on a list of the 10 nations most vulnerable to violent internal conflict and worsening conditions.

In the third annual ``failed state'' index, analysts for Foreign Policy magazine and the not-for-profit Fund for Peace said that Iraq and Afghanistan, which ranked eighth, show that billions of dollars in development and security aid may be futile without a functioning government, trustworthy leaders and realistic plans to keep the peace and develop the economy.

Preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state is a key part of the Bush administration's argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. The administration says the troops are needed to keep Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for international terrorists.

The ratings are based on 12 social, economic, political and military indicators.

Sudan, which topped the list, and seven other sub-Saharan African countries are among the top 10. Violence in the Darfur region was the main contributing cause to Sudan's top position.

As evidence that troubles in failing states often cross borders, the report cited violence spilling from Darfur into the Central African Republic and Chad.

The five other African nations found most vulnerable were Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of Congo and Guinea.

Another African country, Liberia, was credited as the most improved, partly because an election in 2005 brought stability after more than a decade of civil war.

Liberia's economy is growing at 7 percent a year and it has disbanded its militia. Still, it ranked as 27th most failing state.

The growth of China's economy and a lull in violence in Chechnya helped China and Russia, respectively, to move out of the category of the 60 worst states.

Lebanon experienced the biggest slide, winding up in 28th place. War in the Middle Eastern country reversed much of the progress made since the end of its 15-year-long civil war in 1990.

Israeli air strikes last summer drove 700,000 Lebanese from their homes and caused an estimated $3.8 billion (euro2.85 billion) in damage to the country.

Usually, long-serving strongmen preside over a nation's collapse, the report said. For instance, it said, three of the five worst performing states - Chad, Sudan and Zimbabwe - have leaders who have been in power for more than 15 years.

On the other hand, effective leadership can pull a nation from the brink of failure, the report said. It cited Indonesia's first directly elected president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as helping to steer the Southeast Asian country to stability after corruption and the devastation of the 2004 tsunami.

Pauline H. Baker, president of the Fund for Peace, said 12,000 sources were used to compile the ratings.

In an interview, she said foreign aid remained necessary even though spending alone will not prevent failure.

``You just cannot turn your eyes away from mass atrocities, which often accompany failing states,'' she said.

As examples of long-range impact of failure, Baker cited the effect turmoil in Sudan, an oil-producing state, could have on world oil supplies and mentioned the massive migration from Somalia, predominantly across Africa.

``The world's weakest states aren't just a danger to themselves,'' the report said. ``They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away.''

jib said...

jibber, why don't you propose an idea of what we should do starting .....NOW.

First, get rid of Bush and all the neocons by impeachment, then hanging at the Hague, apologize to the muslim world for the murder and theft of the last hundred years, address global warming as strongly as possible, readjust the tax structure to make it FAIR, enact the strongest environmental laws, deport you backward apes to the moon.

lamp said...

Farmer John said...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%.

I splane all dat to you dumb parrots before...see, the difference is that this is a case of the Democrats holding their own to account...something you mindless, inferior, little fools don't do. When LBJ waged a criminal war, it was his own party that reined him in. When GW does it, the empty, little sheep just follow him over the cliff. Man, our survey of the poor, dying Konblogs shows some pretty pathetic stuff going on, but this place is the weakest...absolute dregs...

Anonymous said...


this why no one takes you serious. you cannot even answer a serious question. put down the comic book and get real.

i only wanted you to state what you would do if given the responsibility of iraq. PUT DOWN THE COMIC BOOKS! this is a real issue so stop with the lib fantasies of hanging bush. that is not gonna happen.

how would you handle iraq?

you are a joke and only make your party look bad. i know that you have no solution to what bothers you (iraq). if you did have a solution then it would be the driving force behind reid/pelosi and crew...which is why they are a complete failure.

Anonymous said...

An official Gallup survey polled over 1000 women with the question: Would you sleep with Bill Clinton?
1% said, "No"
2% said, "Yes"
97% said, "Never Again"


Bill Clinton, George Bush, a spectacular looking blonde woman and an enormously large woman with an unfriendly scowl are in a train car. The train passes through a tunnel, and in the darkness the unmistakable sound of a slap is heard. As the train pulls out of the tunnel, the daylight reveals a big red slap mark on Clinton's cheek.

The blonde thinks: "That rascal Clinton wanted to touch me and by mistake, he must have put his hand on the fat lady, who must have slapped his face"

The fat lady thinks: "That dirty old Bill Clinton touched the blonde and she smacked him."

Bill Clinton thinks: "George put his hand on that blonde and by mistake she slapped me."

George Bush thinks: "I hope there's another tunnel soon so I can smack Clinton again."

jibbermax said...

Anon would you handle Iwreck now that GW has fukt it up past all redemption? he wants me to come up with a plan to fix the's you weasels no one takes seriously -- except as pests...we had a plan to start out with...stay the Hell out of there...Geo Bush the slightly less dopey had a plan to start out with ...stay the Hell out of there ... do you remember? Now, there are various plans to make it slightly less a disaster but that's about all you can do at this point and probably not even that...the Brzezinski pzlan is the best I've read yet...check it out yourself if you're actually interested in anything but making excuses for that might happen. Hey I like them Clinton jokes...he was awarded Le Medallion d'Virilite' by L'Academie Francaise, you know...very coveted...wunner myself one year...of course that was many decades ago when I was as young but not as stupid as you boys are

Anonymous said...

You sure pegged that jib, anon.

Anonymous said...

konservatives are like so stewpyd! they r lyque totallee dumb and stuph. i wish they wood just stop trying 2 B all responsybul. thay R making us luk bad. who kares about morality anyway?


lamp said...

Did one of these little simpletons tell us this is serious...why didn't he tell his retard fuhrer that at the beginning...LIKE WE DID?

At least 111 killed, found dead across Iraq

Associated Press - June 18, 2007 5:13 PM ET

BAGHDAD (AP) - After a brief period of relative peace, authorities say at least 111 people have been killed or found dead across Iraq today.

More than 30 tortured bodies were found in Baghdad alone.

The deaths were reported as US and Iraqi forces launched attacks on areas north and south of Baghdad to clear out Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida fighters and Shiite militiamen who had fled the capital and Anbar province during a four-month-old security operation.

The US military has issued a statement saying that at least 20 people were killed in clashes with coalition forces, without disclosing their nationality.

Well to the south, Iraqi officials say as many as 36 people were killed in fierce overnight fighting as British and Iraqi forces conducted house-to-house searches.

extra extra, people die in war! said...

good job lamp! you are starting to realize that war sucks. bravo! you are so asute. did you graduate high school or something? wow!

what i'm still trying to figure out is why al queda killed all those innocent people.

AQ is ruthless. why do they continue to torture people?

Lamp unto MO-ronz said...

extra extra, people die in war! said...

Duh...the point is that that is why you should not start one UNNECESARILY...BASED ON LIES...WHEN YOU ARE UNPREPARED to FOLLOW THROUGH...gottit you sociopathic moron?

what i'm still trying to figure out is why al queda killed all those innocent people.

Because we opened the door for them,in a country they were not in before... GOTTIT, YOU CRIMINAL FOOL?

AQ is ruthless. why do they continue to torture people?


agent of the VRWC said...


are you saying there were no terrorist in iraq prior to our arrival? if so then you are truley retarded.

so that AQ torture book we discovered with all the nifty illustrations was an example of the kinds torture utilized at abu ahraib? do you know if our soldiers get there power drills (for the kneecaps of course) at home depot or lowes?

oh yeah, what does being sociopath have to do with not agreeing with you?

once again evan pegs these libs perfectly (heritage foundation lecture). i am a sociopath because i do not agree with lamp because he is never wrong and is liberal and tolerant and mature.

yeah right.

Lamp unto Sociopaths said...

Agent of the Dying Right Wing Conspiracy shows us why it's almost DEAD...

Still trying to sell us the terrorist connection...puuuuuuuuh-thetic

Moron says torture's alright because uh...gee...other people do it so why can't we sink to the lowest possible levels, too? See, moron...that's why you're a sociopath. As someone said recently...our image in the world was The Statue of Liberty and the highest standards of mankind...a way forward and upward...we were the good guys. Now our image is Guantanamo, torture, wars of aggression, and the nation that seeks to drag standards back to barbarism...those are the standards of the right...they side with evil each time, every time...and this country has rejected it...America hates you. Live with it and shut up.

Anonymous said...

Bush to veto stem cell bill.

Promises kept by the Democratic Congress - Zero.


Anonymous said...

I wonder why our image is so tarnished? Gee how could that be?

Probably because people like you (anti-american, propaganda spewing spammer (why else would you be on this site anyway)) live to demonize, as is obviously apparent, what your very own party voted for.

Thank Jimmy Carter for your spaz attack because if we're gonna start pointing fingers at who is responsible for any of the mess we're in today it's that man.

I grow tired of your weak close minded logic.

You are a douche-bag and will always be a douche-bag.

Anonymous said...

George W. Bush still has a year and a half to veto everything Pelosi & Reid do. Of course, I'm sure they'll pass plenty of non-binding resolutions against the war in that time. LOL!

squawtrack said...

Thank Jimmy Carter for your spaz attack because if we're gonna start pointing fingers at who is responsible for any of the mess we're in today it's that man.

Hahahahhahahaha...or are you sure it wasn't the first GW...George Washington, who dunnit...weak minded, buck passing, little fool. No wonder America's got no use for you...step up, take responsibility, admit you elected a bunch of sickos, rembuild your party...or whine and blame others for your mistakes...and stay in the hole forever...I'm hoping you make the last choice....looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooozer...

Meshack said...

Fido Castrati sez GW veto everything Americans that makes congress wrong...wingbat logic is loser logic...they expect and want him to veto makes AMERICA HATE HIM...they get the legislation ready...the chimp vetos it and then they pass it in '09...double duty for each bill ...gittit mo-rawn?

Hey, good hit, Squawman...Jeemy Carter, he deed eet, he made GW stupid thirty years ago...WEAKLINGS...I thought it was Bubba dunnit...hahahahaha

Anonymous said...

It is laughable hearing you speak of responsibility.

You talk so much shit (I'm sure your mom would agree) that your breath reeks.

Piss off son.

Anonymous said...

Dem's more popular... I love you guys. Keep pushing Left!

"We're going to end the war in Iraq and finally bring home the troops," Hillary said as a number of Code Pink protesters stood up in the audience. When she declared, "The American military has done its job," boos began to be heard around the room. As the boos increased, Sen. Clinton raised her voice. "The American military has succeeded," she said, to more boos. "It is the Iraqi government that has failed to make the tough decisions." Still more boos.

Mainstream American's love you Lefties! They HATE the troops and the thought of American Victory.

Skeeewat on the reich said...

Fido, squeaks:

Mainstream American's love you Lefties! They HATE the troops and the thought of American Victory.

You mean they hate GW and the thought of being around while the moron is the first pres to lose two wars at once...try REALITY sometime,'ll killya.

Evan Sayet said...

The Democrats give our military secrets to the terrorists via the New York Times, they undermine our troops morale with their slanderous and treasonous attacks with Dick Durbin calling our troops Nazis. They embolden the enemy by broadcasting the promise of imminent surrender and then say that "Bush lost the war" even as it's still being fought.

The Democrats WANT the terrorists to win just as they worked to keep the Soviets around and Jimmy Carter helped create the Islamic terror state of Iran today and now works on behalf of the terrorists in Gaza.

Democrats will ALWAYS side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Always.

jibber said...

Just a casual survey of current GOPig crimes and stupidities...
twice as many more out there...

New Bush nominee for development has race-baiting past

McCain supports teaching intelligent design... Developing...

Air Raid Kills 21 Civilians in Afghanistan

US Commander Apologizes for Massacre
A US Army brigade commander in Afghanistan yesterday told the families of 69 civilians who were killed or wounded by members of an elite Marine Special Forces unit in March that he is "deeply, deeply ashamed" about the incident, describing the series of shootings along a civilian thoroughfare as a "terrible, terrible mistake."

Thomas d'Evry | Phantom Army
Thomas d'Evry's investigative piece on Blackwater includes some familiar incidents, as well as some of the company's less well-known current plans and activities.


Another Republican Congressman in a financial scandal: The most recent member is Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) who helped secure several earmarks in the 2005 transportation bill that would benefit projects of his business partner, Lewis Operating, according to House sources and an analysis of the bill's earmarks and San Bernardino County, Calif., land records. 5/4

The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper...GW Bush

Penalty for investigating Jerry Lewis, then-Republican chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee: Debra Wong Yang's resignation? We need to know a lot more. 5/5

Domestic Spying

Waxman: State Department Gags Analyst Who Warned Of Niger Forgery; A State Department analyst named Simon Dodge had determined three months before Bush's speech that the evidence for the uranium claim was likely fraudulent. 5/5

RFK Jr. says that US Attorney replacement Timothy Griffin, Rove's former assistant, is under investigation for election fraud. 5/5


Republican Corruption Watch: One current and two former Alaska legislators pleaded not guilty Friday to extortion — one man sought a plum job in the Barbados, prosecutors claim — and taking bribes to support legislation benefiting an oil services company. 5/5


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign, Rep. Adam Putnam, the third most powerful Republican in the House says 5/5


The infamous Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert, the gay escort turned conservative blogger, is now the spokesman for the International Bible Reading Association. As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it: 'Let us pray for the power to understand how Gannon made his way from to the International Bible Reading Association.' Amen. 5/5

Signing Statements

U.S. attorneys are poltical appointees and can be fired for any reason. Career DOJ prosecutors are not, and it would be illegal to consider their politics in the hiring process. Guess what the DOJ is being investigated for now? 5/5

Kenny Boy, Halliburton, Blackwater, No bid contracts

Feds Indict Alaska GOPers
By Paul Kiel - May 4, 2007, 6:06 PM
I tell you, corruption doesn't get any uglier than Alaskan corruption.

The investigation surrounding VECO, an Alaskan oil company, has finally borne fruit. Two Republican members of the state legislature were indicted today, one of them the former speaker of the house. There's still no word on the fate of former state Sen. Ben Stevens, son of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), who is also under investigation.

Oh, and it's ugly. Pete Kott and Bruce Weyhrauch are on the hook for trading votes for cash and sweet jobs, plain and simple. From The Anchorage Daily News:

The indictment says Kott asked executives of the unnamed company for money and a job after he left the Legislature. Weyhrauch, an attorney, asked for a job and legal work, the indictment says.
On about Sept. 26, 2005, the indictment says, Kott called an unnamed company vice president and said, “I need a job.”

The vice president replied, “You’ve got a job; get us a pipeline,” the indictment says....

In a meeting on April 18, 2006, Kott told the company executives, “You’ll get your pipeline, the governor gets his bill, and I’ll get my job in Barbados.”...

Kott met with the company executives in their hotel suite on May 7, the indictment says, and told them he had tried to defeat an amendment to the oil tax the company didn’t like.

“I had to cheat, steal, beg, borrow and lie,” Kott said, according to the indictment.

The company’s chief executive responded, “I own your ass,” the indictment says.

These two are among the same group of legislators who took a shine to calling themselves the "Corrupt Bastards Caucus." No wonder


There is yet another United States attorney whose abrupt departure from office is raising questions: Debra Wong Yang of Los Angeles, who was investigating GOP appropriations chairman 5/7

Corrupt Doolittle upset that wife's iPod was seized in agent raid on his house 5/7

"No Child Left Behind"

Whistleblower's story opens window on how Bush Administration resisted calls to clean up the $85 billion student loan industry 5/7

Busheviks Award Taxpayer Money to "Abstinence Only Programs" that Require Staff to "possess an authentic relationship with Jesus Christ."

Walter Reed

NYT Sunday: "It is long past time for President Bush to fire Mr. Gonzales. But Congress, especially the Republicans who have dared confront the White House on this issue, should not be satisfied with that. There are strong indications that the purge was ordered out of the White House, involving at the very least the former counsel, Harriet Miers, and Karl Rove." 5/7


DOJ Hired Lawyers Based on Political Affiliations
Congressional investigators are beginning to focus on accusations that a top civil rights official at the Justice Department illegally hired lawyers based on their political affiliations, especially for sensitive voting rights jobs.

Abu Ghraib

World Bank Panel Finds Wolfowitz at Fault; Aide Resigns
A committee of World Bank directors has formally notified Paul D. Wolfowitz that they found him to be guilty of a conflict of interest in arranging for a pay raise and promotion for Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, in 2005. The findings stepped up the pressure on Mr. Wolfowitz to resign.

Global Warming

Nina Easton | Attacks on Corporate Greed Gaining Political Traction
Nina Easton writes: "The deep unpopularity of the Bush White House has given new life to a populist sentiment that seemed moribund during the high-flying dot-com economy of the Clinton '90s. 'For the first time in a long time, we have a tail wind behind us,'" said liberal think-tanker Robert Kuttner.


McClatchy reporting: Bush uses criminal justice system to affect election outcomes; Time for the handcuffs. 5/9


A new report shows that in the years since 1990, Iraq has seen its child mortality rate soar by 125 per cent, the highest increase of any country in the world. Its rate of deaths of children under five now matches that of Mauritania. 5/8

"Scooter" Libby..."GoCart" Guckert

New Orleans' Rebuilt Levees 'Riddled With Flaws,' according to National Geographic Magazine, even though almost a year ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declared New Orleans' levees and floodwalls were at pre-Hurricane Katrina strength. 5/8


Consumers Lose Out to Drug Company Profiteering In GOP "Poison Pill" Amendment to Senate Bill 5/8

Gingrich To Conservatives: Don’t Talk About Iraq, Katrina, Walter Reed, Attorneys, Or Bush: When Host Bob Schieffer suggested that Gingrich seemed to advocating steering clear of President Bush, Gingrich responded, "Well, I think that’s clear." 5/8

Tax Cuts for the Richest

A new disaster grows out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: A parasitic disease rarely seen in United States but common in the Middle East has infected an estimated 2,500 U.S.troops because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, military officials said. 5/8

Environmental Degradation

Monica Goodling, former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, was responsible for draping over the ample bosoms of the Art Deco statues in the Justice Department's Great Hall during the reign of the prim John Ashcroft 5/8


Worst job creation record since Hoover Administration -- not a surprise for the Busheviks, but see how bad it is. 5/8

"Blue Skies"

Replacement U.S. attorney Schlozman chased "voter fraud" -- he and the phony charges are becoming focal point in firing scandal 5/7


May 02, 2007 — By the Center for Biological Diversity

WASHINGTON, D.C. — According to the Endangered Species and Wetlands Report, a high-level Bush administration appointee has resigned in the aftermath of a devastating Inspector General investigation, just days before a House congressional oversight committee will hold a public hearing on her violations of the Endangered Species Act, censorship of science, and brutalizing of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff.

Julie MacDonald tendered her resignation on April 30, 2007. She was the Department of Interior's Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, a position that oversees the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species program. As revealed in numerous media exposés and a recent Department of Interior Inspector General investigation, MacDonald used her position to aggressively squelch protection of endangered species. She rewrote scientific reports, browbeat U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees, and colluded with industry lawyers to generate lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service.

MacDonald's specialty was blocking agency efforts to place imperiled species on the endangered species list, stripping tens of millions of acres from agency proposals to designated "critical habitat" areas and working with industry groups to remove species from the endangered list and thus from federal protection.

"Julie MacDonald's reign of terror over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is finally over," said Kieran Suckling, policy director with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Endangered species and scientists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief. But MacDonald was the administration's attack dog, not its general. The contempt for science and law that she came to symbolize goes much deeper than a single Department of Interior employee."

MacDonald's recently hired counterpart, Todd Willens, is equally dedicated to undermining endangered species conservation. Willens spearheaded Richard Pombo's (R-CA) anti-endangered species agenda as lead staffer of the House Resources Committee, then was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks on October 19, 2006. He has since been directly involved in developing sweeping anti-endangered species regulations and efforts to remove the Florida manatee and West Virginia northern flying squirrel from the endangered species list.

MacDonald's firing comes days before a May 9th congressional oversight hearing into the Bush administration's rampant violations of the Endangered Species Act and censorship of endangered species science. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) recently threatened to hold up confirmation of another Interior official until the Department addressed MacDonald's ethical violations.

The Bush administration has listed fewer species under the Endangered Species Act than any other administration since the law was enacted in 1973, to date only listing 57 species compared to 512 under the Clinton administration and 234 under the first Bush administration. The Bush government has listed so few species in part because it has been denying species protection at record rates - in many cases with the direct involvement of MacDonald.

Of all the endangered species listing decisions made under the Bush administration, 52 percent denied protection as compared to only 13 percent during the last six years of the Clinton Administration. Meanwhile, 279 species languish on the candidate list without protection.

No, seriously, nobody wants to work at this White House: Four senior officials have left in the last 10 days, and an insider says it's hard to recruit replacements. At the White House! 5/9

Nat Hentoff: This is America? Amnesty International report on "cruel isolation" conditions at Guantanamo Bay cites just one exception: one man was allowed to phone his mother after five years. 5/9

Newsweek Interviews Democratic Governor of Kansas on How Bush Has Depleted the National Guard: NEWSWEEK: You and other governors have been warning for the past couple of years that your National Guard troops are stretched too thin. Was this tragedy in Greensburg your nightmare come true? 5/10

Another Day, Another Scandal in the Bush Administration: The College Loan Fiasco -- A BuzzFlash News Alert

In new ads, military leadership takes on Bush for first time in commercials: “You did not listen, Mr. President. You continue to pursue the failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps.” 5/9

Forgery? Lawmakers say they are probing whether a former U.S. attorney in Kansas City was forced out of his job because he refused to endorse a lawsuit alleging voter fraud in Missouri a year before the 2006 election. 5/9

Kansas will step back from failed abstinence-only sex education 5/9

Folly marches right on into 2008: Commanders see a long, long "surge" 5/9

UK Independent's correspondent man in Iraq describes a small war to damage a superpower: "The nightmare for Washington was to find that it had conquered Iraq only to install black-turbaned clerics in power in Baghdad, as they already were in Tehran." 5/9

It's as if Randall Tobias never existed, but we have the 'massages' to prove it; State Dept. erases all references to Tobias, who quit over being on DC Madam list. 5/10

Trying to fix the damage done by conservatives in Kansas: Kansas Board of Education erases conservative sex ed policies, including the stressing of abstinence until marriage 5/10

Bush in the Bunker, Leaving America Vulnerable: "Top Security Chiefs Leaving in Droves"

David Sirota: GOP Front Group Exposes Its Own Corruption & the Right's Fraying Coalition 5/10

Two former U.S. attorneys said today they believe ongoing investigations into the dismissals last year of eight federal prosecutors could result in criminal charges against senior Justice Department officials. McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general. "His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.'

Bush Gives No-Bid Contracts to His GOP Cronies and Our GIs Get Trapped in Their Humvees 5/10

ProsecutorGate Update: The former United States attorney in Kansas City, Mo., said Wednesday that he was pushed to resign last year after disagreements with the Justice Department over politically sensitive cases. That would make him the ninth federal prosecutor forced out by department officials in Washington. 5/10

Rudy G. the Homewrecker 5/10

Strong Explosion In Baghdad Thought To Be Near Green Zone 5/10
Conservatives Replace Scandal-Plagued Doolittle With Scandal-Plagued Calvert 5/11

The Attorney corruption scandal in a nutshell: "I don’t know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring our Assistant United States Attorneys for political reasons. I don’t know that there’s any window you can go to to get the department’s reputation back if that kind of stuff is going on." 5/12

Lamp exposes GW's pet parrot said...

Blogger squawks:

say that "Bush lost the war" even as it's still being fought

What a weak, little you want a list of all the GOPiggies who've said the war can't be won...starting with Henry Kissinger and getting longer every day? Nooooooooooo, I didn't think so. "even as it's STILL being fought" Yeah, reicho, STILL would be the longer than WWII...methinx that's a new record for incompetent, bloody stupidity.

Anonymous said...

Congress poll update:

Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

abadnegro said...

Hate Spreading KKKons...

a.. In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the
>top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk
>radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.
> b.. Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are
>broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk - 10
>times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
> c.. 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets
>is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

And Bush is still at 28%! Try as they might but they can't fool all the
people all the time.But, there are always a few retarded sheep who like being fleeced.

squatwrack doin some patriotic reecroooting said...

Hey, when are you chickenchickens going to enlist in the great fight against terrorism...what's that yellow fraud blogger of yours doing stateside?

Documentary: Law Gives Military Access to Student Data
By David Goldstein
McClatchy Newspapers

Wednesday 20 June 2007

Washington - It began as a class assignment for Alexia Welch and Sarah Ybarra: Make a five-minute video news story about advertising in public schools.

But the Lawrence, Kan., teenagers' project snowballed into a 25-minute documentary on how the federal No Child Left Behind law to improve education promotes military recruitment, infringes on students' privacy and encourages school officials to look the other way.

The movie's fans include a Democratic California congressman who's been trying to change the law for two years and award-winning liberal filmmaker Robert Greenwald, who viewed some early rushes and offered the pair his lawyer's services, just in case.

Their film, "No Child Left Unrecruited," premiered in April at an arts center in Lawrence, the home of the University of Kansas. A short trailer on YouTube has gotten 630 hits in the past month, and the film made its Washington debut Tuesday.

"We found out this wasn't a school assignment anymore," said 17-year-old Ybarra, who'll be a senior next fall at Lawrence High School. "This was going to go beyond the walls of the district."

So there they were Tuesday, the two teenage auteurs from Jeff Kuhr's broadcast media class, at a screening in the basement of the Capitol, hosted by their congressional patron, Rep. Michael Honda.

"You get an A plus," said Honda, who was a schoolteacher and principal before he came to Washington.

Eighteen-year-old Welch, who just graduated, said she and Ybarra just wanted to answer questions about the rules surrounding military-recruiting policies. They didn't anticipate the fuss.

"All this other stuff blew us away," she said. "I don't think we ever thought about a Washington screening."

The idea came to Welch last summer when a contract Army recruiter wrote and offered her $100 if she'd enlist. She wondered how he'd obtained her name, address and telephone number.

They discovered that a little-known provision of No Child Left Behind, which President Bush signed in 2002, requires schools to give the military personal information about their students. Otherwise, the schools' federal aid could be at risk.

Welch and Ybarra found that their high school published all that information and more — age, gender, date of birth and parents' work phone numbers — in the high school directory, which anyone can buy for $2.

Students could opt out of the directory, they learned, but few knew that they could. And the consequences of that would be not seeing their names listed in the yearbook or school newspaper or on the honor rolls.

The film follows Welch and Ybarra's odyssey "down the rabbit hole" as they question school officials about the ease with which the military can breach student privacy, and the roadblocks that face parents who seek to keep the data out of reach.

Welch and Ybarra contacted Honda after an Internet search showed that he's been trying to amend No Child Left Behind so that military recruiters couldn't get access to the information without parental consent.

The law is up for renewal this year. Honda's bill has 57 co-sponsors.

Welch and Ybarra said their film wasn't about the military's right to recruit students — which Welch said she had no problem with — but more about "making sure no question is left unanswered," Ybarra said.

Welch said she'd probably enroll at the University of Kansas next fall and might study journalism. Ybarra has another year of high school but has become passionate about documentaries.

For now, everyone involved is just enjoying the ride.

"This has been an amazing opportunity for all of us," said Kuhr, who accompanied the pair to Washington. "I mean, we're in the basement of the Capitol. Pretty cool."

On the Web

A movie trailer for the documentary can be seen at

Anonymous said...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) yesterday reaffirmed her commitment to end the war in Iraq, but her words were greeted with skepticism and some boos by anti-war liberal activists.

Addressing the liberal pressure group Campaign for America’s Future, Pelosi called the war in Iraq a “tragedy” and a “grotesque mistake,” but her words elicited catcalls for her to do more.

The Democratic-led Congress has taken a pounding in recent opinion polls, with many Democratic voters unhappy that lawmakers have not been able to change President Bush’s policies in Iraq. Noting that Bush vetoed legislation setting a timeline for withdrawal last month, Pelosi explained to the audience why the Democrats cannot enact stringent benchmarks or set a date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

“We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate or the president’s signature … those are facts and obstacles,” Pelosi said.

Even Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading anti-war Democrat and close Pelosi ally, did not escape the taunting as he introduced Pelosi.

“She’s worked tirelessly to end” this war, Murtha said.

“No she hasn’t,” shouted a woman in the crowd.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged the same political landscape last week.

“We raised the bar too high. [The public] thought we could continue to send the bill back to the president — with 49 [guaranteed] votes, we couldn’t do that,” he said.

Speaking before Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) troubles with the anti-war left were also on display, as her Iraq talking points were met with boos for the second year in a row.

Despite boasting of her vote against the most recent Iraq supplemental spending bill, Clinton was still hit by anti-war groups, including the persistent members of Code Pink.

Shouts of “Get us out” and “Stop the war” were audible throughout Clinton’s remarks, but the part of her speech devoted to the war sparked widespread boos that eventually yielded to an outbreak of cheers and support from Clinton’s supporters in the room.

Anonymous said...

The only thing Democrats know how to cook is chicken!

Anonymous said...

Evan we need a new tread. Maybe the issue of journalist giving Dem prez candidates campaign donations over Reps 9 to 1 or how Palestine is screwing up big time.

Keep up the great work!

Anonymous said...

So long as (R)'s keep supporting the immigration bill, they won't get a penny.

Anonymous said...

Some good news on the election front.

squatwrack said...

any munkikons worth answering today?...nope...whaddasooprise...what do you dopes hang around here haven for mediocrities? Oh dasit.

Brown John said...

Back to the plantation DNC SAMBO!

Anonymous said...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will not be permitted to use State Department funds to travel to nations that are known to have sponsored terrorism if a Republican amendment to appropriations legislation passes the House on Thursday.

The amendment to the $34 billion State and Foreign Operations bill, offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), prohibits funds to be used to travel to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter released earlier today, King said Pelosi had overstepped her constitutional role as Speaker when she traveled to Syria in April.

“Taking her cue from the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation that the U.S. enter into talks with Syria to forge a new way forward in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi decided to ignore the requests of the President that she refrain from traveling to the terrorist state,” the letter said.

King told The Hill that he believed Pelosi was in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law signed by President John Adams that prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from interfering with relations between the United States and foreign governments.


So much for the DNC's Alternative Foreign Policy.

Lamp unto Goofballs said...

Lizard says:
King told The Hill that he believed Pelosi was in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law signed by President John Adams that prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from interfering with relations between the United States and foreign governments.

Now we need an act to keep chimp, neo-con morons from meddling in foreign affairs -- or any other kind of affairs. That will be called election 2008.

So much for the DNC's Alternative Foreign Policy.

Hahaha...this moron still thinks the current foreign policy is going great. That's why America hates him.

Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON -- In the heat of their successful campaign last year to retake the House and Senate, Democrats made voters promise after promise.

They promised to end the war in Iraq. They promised to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. They promised to lower prescription drug prices for seniors and raise the minimum wage.

But six months after taking over Congress, Democrats have accomplished little of their agenda. Perhaps not coincidentally, Congress' job approval rating has reached a dramatic low, tumbling 13 points since February to 24 percent, according to the Gallup Poll.

Republicans, damaged by a faltering war in Iraq, corruption scandals and a politically weakened President Bush, happily cite such figures to argue that the Democrats are incapable of governing. "The American people are smart enough to know when they've been had," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which seeks to elect Republicans to the House.

Democrats are scrambling to explain to voters, and themselves, why they have accomplished just one of their heralded objectives -- raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. The high-profile failure to reach agreement on immigration reform has added to the public's discontent, and on Thursday the Senate was struggling to rescue a much-touted energy bill.

If they can't reverse the trend, some Democrats worry, their majority could be short-lived. This week, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) reviewed the grim polling data for his Democratic colleagues during a senators-only lunch. Similarly, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) shared his view of the polls in a closed-door meeting with Democratic House members.


Anonymous said...

It just goes to prove, you can try and do the world a whole lot of good, but in the end it only takes 41 assh*les in the Senate to lose a war and get over 3,500 American soldiers killed.

And for what? A hike in the minimum wage.

jibber said...

And all the little brown shirts cheer him's why America Hates them:

Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to Him
By Justin Rood
ABC News

Thursday 21 June 2007

Vice President Dick Cheney has asserted his office is not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, and therefore not bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information by government agencies, according to a new letter from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to Cheney.

Bill Leonard, head of the government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), told Waxman's staff that Cheney's office has refused to provide his staff with details regarding classified documents or submit to a routine inspection as required by presidential order, according to Waxman.

In pointed letters released today by Waxman, ISOO's Leonard twice questioned Cheney's office on its assertion it was exempt from the rules. He received no reply, but the vice president later tried to get rid of Leonard's office entirely, according to Waxman.

Leonard did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a statement e-mailed to the Blotter on, Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn said, "We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law."

As director of the tiny, 25-person Information Security Oversight Office, Leonard is responsible for keeping track of the nation's secrets and making sure they are properly protected.

For the first two years of the George W. Bush administration, Cheney's office complied with a presidential order that requires officials to report statistics on the number of documents it classifies and declassifies.

Since 2003, however, Cheney's office has refused to submit the data to ISOO. And when ISOO inspectors tried in 2004 to schedule a routine inspection of the vice president's offices, they were rebuffed, Waxman's letter claims.

Other White House offices, including the National Security Council, did not object to similar inspections, according to Waxman.

"Serious questions can be raised about both the legality and advisability of exempting your office from the rules that apply to all other executive branch officials," Waxman said in his letter to the vice president, and asked him to explain why he felt the rules didn't apply to him and his staff and how he was protecting classified information in his office.

Former Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was recently convicted on several counts of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from the leak of the identity of former covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Waxman noted, and in 2006, former Cheney aide Leandro Aragoncillo pleaded guilty to sharing classified U.S. documents with foreign nationals. Aragoncillo also worked under former Democratic Vice President Al Gore, who complied with ISOO's requests.

Lamp for the chimps said...

Fido says: It just goes to prove, you can try and do the world a whole lot of good, but in the end it only takes 41 assh*les in the Senate to lose a war and get over 3,500 American soldiers killed.

Hahahaha...whining little puppies blaming GW's incompetence on a congress that came in five years after he screwed it up...they can't take responsibility for's why America Hates them. We all know the GOPigs can't govern even when they control EVERYTHING...they're the Walter Reed administration. Democrats want a more leftist congress...that's what they'll get. NOBODY wants to return control to the morons who have failed at EVERYTHING for the last seven years. Bush will veto everything worthwhile and the Dems will shove it down his monkey throat in '08.

squatwrack said...

hey werner, kkkarl, vooolfgank, ewa...howzda hitler youth zummerkkkamp goink this year...yall enjoying yourselves
we got more nazi cells to take over seeya chumps

Anonymous said...

I'm just glad that we were not stuck with Gore and then, God forbid, Kerry. Whoo! That was a close one!

Meshack said...

Fidodamutt yaps:

In the heat of their successful campaign last year to retake the House and Senate, Democrats made voters promise after promise...woofwoofpissonaleg...

No, see what they said was they'd pass this legislation in Congress. There's another branch, known as The Executive, weirdly now occupied by a simpchimp, which has to sign or veto this legislation...the simpchimp is a corrupt little ape and too stupid to know whats good for the YEWESSAY and can veto it...and let his party pay for it in'08...readaboudit its in all the history and gummint books...evil birdbrains who want to stop stem cell research yeah that's what America wants...the modrun KKKonsoivative sides with eeevil each time everytime...war, lies, corruption, venality, powergrabs, undermining the "goddamn piece of paper" Walter and Katrina Reed society of incompetence...evil every time...sewer rats and scumbags...25% of America's lowest most brainwashable little moron trailer trash

Scrod said...

Onanimus bleats:
Anonymous said...
I'm just glad that we were not stuck with Gore and then, God forbid, Kerry. Whoo! That was a close one!

Stooooooooooopid little weezil...we'll get Gore next time...killyerself

modern djavascript:void(0)ems make me sad said...

why are democrats so venomous? i mean, they actually seek out diversity and trash it. it makes me wonder if they are truley the tolerant ones that we are lead to believe. one day their hate for alternative philosophies will destroy them.

Anonymous said...

get ready. here comes the insults.

squatwrack said...

Crybaby says:
one day their hate for alternative philosophies will destroy them.


party of wedges division hate radio stinktanks wars corruption secrecy money homophobia islamaphobia mexiphobia nigraphobiakillgreedbigotry sez hate destroys ainee right tho we're seeing them destroyed right now

Anonymous said...

Anarchist bloggers should have their fingers amputated. It's pretty obvious they've nothing to contribute. Too much "critical theory". The only tool in the toolbox is a hammer.

Anonymous said...

name calling 101 right here...except it is not very creative.

the only reason they are here is because sayet is getting more popular.

scrod said...

Onanimus says:

the only reason they are here is because sayet is getting more popular.

Did you mean in wood I guess when we leave that means he's back to being a parrot cipher? We're covering over a dozen reichsblogs right now...this one takes less time than any ofem....deeeeeeeeeeeeeadEST I'm your night watchman maytag repairman fer the day lemme innerduce mysef...I'm Scrod hahahahaha and your scrood har gitcher brain tanned expose it to REALITEEEEEE

scrod said...

Here's something to get a reaction from you comatose clones:

What Every American Should Know About Iraq
by David Michael Green

Some people think that anyone who disagrees with the American invasion and
occupation of Iraq is either a bleeding-heart liberal appeaser, a George W.
Bush hater, a blame America firster, an underminer of the troops, a traitor,
or a geopolitical naif.

To those who see opponents of the war as fitting into one, several, or all
of these categories, I say read this page. I will make no arguments herein,
nor even commentary. I will twist no data nor spin any tales. I will even
include some of the comments and arguments made by the administration and
its supporters.

Instead of arguing against the war, I will try to offer a fairly complete
account of the relevant facts one might wish to consider when evaluating
America's policy in Iraq. Especially for those who continually claim that
they, more than others, have the best interests of the troops at heart - but
actually for all citizens in a democracy - it is incumbent upon us to
educate ourselves about this most important of national policies.

Those troops are being maimed and are dying on our behalf every day. The
very least we can do is spend a brief amount of our time learning about this
question so that we can decide whether their continued sacrifices are

So, in that spirit - and as the Founders themselves said - "let Facts be
submitted to a candid world".

* Mesopotamia has long been a playground for great powers. The British
invaded the area in 1917, causing a widespread revolt of the Iraqi people.
Britain later ruled under a League of Nations mandate that produced the
artificial creation of the country Iraq (and Kuwait), and continued to
control oil production in the region. Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour said
at the time, "I do not care under what system we keep this oil, but I am
quite clear it is all-important for us that this oil should be available".

* Saddam Hussein started his career as a political thug, on the payroll of
the CIA during the 1950s and 1960s, torturing and murdering Iraqi leftists
whose names were provided by American intelligence, and participating in an
armed coup against the Iraqi government.

* In 1972, the United States conspired with Iran and Israel to support a
revolt of the Kurdish people within Iraq against their government.

* In 1980, the United States provided encouragement, weapons, intelligence,
satellite data and funding for Saddam's Iraq to invade Iran, launching an
eight year war - the longest and probably the bloodiest of the post-WWII

* During this war, Ronald Reagan dispatched Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to
improve relations with Saddam. The United States then restored full
diplomatic relations with Iraq, despite the administration's clear awareness
that Saddam was using chemical weapons at the time.

* The Reagan administration also knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons
against Iraqi Kurds rising up again against Baghdad (this was the incident
George W. Bush would later repeatedly invoke, saying of Saddam, "He gassed
his own people"), but nevertheless authorized expanded sales to Iraq of
highly sophisticated equipment that could be used to manufacture weapons,
only two months after the Halabja incident.

* George H. W. Bush equated Saddam to Hitler. But, in the wake of the
1990-91 Gulf War, after the elder Bush had encouraged Kurds and Shiites to
rise up against the regime, he abandoned them, leaving them to be
slaughtered by Saddam's military, in many cases right before the eyes of US
forces who were ordered not to intervene.

* The senior Bush had a chance after that war to occupy Iraq and topple
Saddam. He chose not to because, in his own words and those of his National
Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending
the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . would have incurred incalculable
human and political costs. . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad
and, in effect, rule Iraq. .furthermore, we had been self‑consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post‑cold war
world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to
aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S.
could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It
would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."

* The younger Bush, George W., never asked his father for advice on Iraq.
Instead, he said: "You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of
strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." Bush has also stated,
"I'm driven with a mission from God. .God would tell me, 'George, go and end
the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did."

* George W. Bush gave twenty interviews in 1999 to Mickey Herskowitz, a
friend of the Bush family contracted at the time to ghostwrite his
autobiography. Bush was thinking about invading Iraq at that time, saying
"'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a
commander‑in‑chief. My father had all this political capital
built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have
a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.
I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going
to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush's beliefs on
Iraq were shaped by Dick Cheney's ideas, based on the power and glory
Margaret Thatcher earned from her Falklands War: "Start a small war. Pick a
country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."
Herskowitz also reports this interesting note from his interviews with Bush:
"He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake. That was one
of the keys to being a leader."

* During the presidential campaign of 2000, candidate Bush said very little
about Iraq, and certainly never suggested the need for urgent action.
Somehow, though, in just two years time - during which, if anything, Iraq
actually got weaker, not stronger - Saddam and his country became a perilous
and imminent threat that had to be addressed immediately.

* Former members of his own cabinet have revealed that Bush planned to
invade Iraq from the very beginning of his administration, well before 9/11.
All discussions were about the how of doing it, never about the why, the
justification, the costs or the wisdom.

* Bush claims he is fighting a war on terror in response to 9/11. But in the
first eight months of his administration, his own top terrorism advisor,
Richard Clarke, could not get a meeting of cabinet-level security officials
to discuss terrorism. They finally met, one week before 9/11, and then the
meeting was 'hijacked' into discussing Iraq instead. In 2004, Clarke said
"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for
re‑election on the grounds that he's done such great things about
terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we
could have done something to stop 9/11." Clarke is a Republican who voted
for Bush in 2000, and also served in the administrations of Bush's father,
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

* Right after 9/11, according to Clarke, "The president dragged me into a
room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to
find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire
conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to
come back with a report that said Iraq did this. I said, 'Mr. President.
We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with
an open mind. There's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq!
Saddam! Find out if there's a connection'. And in a very intimidating way. I
mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report. It was a
serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We
wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said,
'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up
to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or
Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. . Do it again'."

* Iraq was not in league with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, whom the
administration blamed for the 9/11 attacks. As Richard Clarke put it,
"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever".
Indeed, the opposite is true. Al Qaeda is a Muslim fundamentalist
organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the secular regimes
ruling Islamic countries, precisely what Saddam Hussein's Iraq was. Indeed,
even the highly religious Saudi Arabia (from which 15 of the 19 alleged
hijackers came, none of them being Iraqis) is under violent pressure from al
Qaeda for not being theocratic enough.

* Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even George Bush has now admitted this.
However, over the last six years, and still to this day, Bush constantly
conflates the two in almost every speech he gives, to the point where in
2003 sixty-nine percent of Americans came to believe that Saddam had been
behind the 9/11 attacks. There can be little doubt that the administration
used 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq, though they had nothing
whatsoever to do with each other.

* According to the internal top secret documents later leaked as the Downing
Street Memos, we know that the administration itself realized that "the case
was thin" for war against Iraq, because "Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea
or Iran."

* Nevertheless, the administration made an internal decision that the war
would be marketed around the supposed WMD threat, despite knowing it was
false. The allusions to mushroom clouds, centrifuge tubes and all the rest
were gross exaggerations and outright lies, and were known to be at the time
by the people making them. As the Downing Street Memos reveal, a decision
for war had already been made, and the public case for it was fabricated
afterwards: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

* The president claimed in a state of the union speech that Saddam had gone
to Africa to get uranium, seriously alarming the American public. Before the
speech, the CIA had told the White House to remove that comment because it
was transparently false, based as it was on a crude forged letter.
Ultimately, the 'mistake' of including this lie was blamed on Deputy
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, who was later punished for this
grave 'error' by being promoted to National Security Advisor. His former
boss, Condoleeza Rice, was punished by being promoted to Secretary of State.

* When Joseph Wilson came home from a trip to Niger and told the truth about
the forged letter, the administration revealed the identity of his wife,
undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, thus potentially jeopardizing the lives
of all her contacts overseas. Eight witnesses recalled nine conversations
with Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, in which Libby
blew Plame's cover - an act of treason - in order to punish a political
'enemy' for telling the truth. Libby claimed not to remember these nine
conversations. Both the jury and the judge in the case thought Libby was
unquestionably lying and convicted him of obstructing justice, with jurors
commenting that they felt sorry for him because he was obviously taking a
fall for Cheney.

* The case regarding Saddam's chemical weapons capability was similarly
trumped up. It was based on the rantings of a single source, code-named
"Curveball", whose handlers in the German intelligence service had
repeatedly warned the administration that he was a drunk and a liar.

* The administration continually relied upon Iraqi exiles, many of whom had
not set foot in the country for decades, as sources for information about
Iraq and as mouthpieces to justify the invasion. But it is unclear who was
using whom. Ahmad Chalabi, the most prominent of these, intended to use the
US military as a vehicle to become leader of Iraq. Despite being wanted for
massive bank fraud in Jordan, Chalabi convinced neoconservatives that he was
the "George Washington of Iraq". His Iraqi National Congress was the primary
source for Bush administration claims that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction and ties to al Qaeda, neither of which was true. Chalabi gloated
about how his influence led the Bush administration to war, and the Pentagon
immediately flew him into Iraq following the invasion. The army of followers
that he had promised would rally around him never materialized, and his
party won zero parliamentary seats in the December 2005 elections.
Ultimately, the United States accused him of providing intelligence secrets
to the Iranian government and raided his offices.

* Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council sealed the deal for
most Americans regarding the case for war. It later became apparent that
almost everything Powell said that day was false, and he has described this
episode as the low point in his career.

* The Downing Street Memos reveal that the purpose of authorizing UN weapons
inspectors to go to Iraq was never actually to assess the threat and destroy
any weapons found. Instead, the purpose was to "wrongfoot" Saddam by getting
him to reject the inspectors, thus giving the American and British
governments a pretext for war. Tony Blair said "It would make a big
difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN
inspectors. If the political context were right, people would support regime

* To this day Bush claims that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. That had
been true five years previously, but not before the war. Hans Blix, the head
of the 2002-03 weapons inspection team reported that they were getting good
cooperation from the Iraqis, despite the fact that - as revealed by one of
the former team members - the US had inserted American spies into prior
international weapons inspection teams in Iraq.

* At the time of the invasion in 2003, the weapons inspectors were nearly
done with their work, and only asked for a month or two more to finish. The
Bush administration claimed that the threat of Saddam and his WMD was too
grave and too urgent to wait. Bush's claim that Saddam kicked out the
inspectors is not only false, but masks the actual truth, which is that the
administration told the inspectors to leave because of the looming attack,
before they could finish their work and by so doing remove the rationale for
that attack.

* As war loomed, Iraq made broad overtures to the United States to prevent
an invasion, offering to allow full, on-the-ground, American weapons
inspections, anti-terrorism cooperation, oil concessions, and even backing
for the US position in an Israeli/Palestinian peace plan. The only thing
Saddam balked at was regime change, but even then he offered to hold
elections within two years' time. The Americans were also informed by the
Iraqis at the time that there were no existing WMD. The Iraqi
representatives "could not understand why the Americans were focused on Iraq
rather than on countries, like Iran, that have long supported terrorists".
The Bush administration rejected their offer, despite that it met every
demand that Bush was publicly making.

* Saddam had never attacked the United States, nor even threatened to do so.

* In March of 2003, when the invasion was launched, Iraq was a gravely
weakened military and economic power which could not seriously threaten its
neighbors, let alone the United States. International sanctions had
seriously damaged its economy and killed vast numbers of its citizens,
including about 500,000 children. It had no serious weapons capability. It
had lost control over two-thirds of its own airspace to American and British

* In November of 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution
1441, requiring that Iraq declare its WMD, disarm, and allow inspections to
verify that this has occurred. One week later Iraq announced that it would
accept the resolution, and the weapons inspectors were simultaneously

* Iraq submitted a report to the UN, as required, indicating that it
possessed no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration
immediately and definitively asserted that Saddam was lying. In fact, since
Iraq had no WMD, and since Bush claimed that Saddam was unquestionably lying
in saying so, it was Bush who lied, not Saddam.

* Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said of the supposed Iraqi WMD, "We know
where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east,
west, south and north somewhat". But the United States government had never
informed the UN weapons inspectors - a team that Bush had demanded be sent -
of where to find those weapons.

* Two subsequent reports from teams sent to Iraq by the Bush administration
itself revealed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
though some people continue to this day to say there were some found there.
Moreover, these teams scientifically confirmed that such weapons are neither
missing nor hidden nor deported, but never existed after the mandated
weapons destruction which followed the Gulf War.

* At one point Bush claimed that two small trailers found in the desert were
mobile "biological laboratories" and thus declared, "We have found the
weapons of mass destruction", seemingly vindicating his decision to go to
war. But even before he spoke, it was known by the Pentagon that these
trailers had nothing to do with WMD production, and that fact was reported
to Washington two days before the president's statement. Bush and other
administration officials continued to make the claim for nearly a year,
despite an unequivocal report filed from the field stating that the trailers
were not, and could not be, weapons labs. Scientists and engineers on the
investigating team referred to the trailers as ""the biggest sand toilets in
the world".

* Added all together, what emerges from the above-listed facts is that all
the carnage and destruction that has ensued was based on the case that Iraq
was so imminent a threat - despite in fact being a very weak military power
- that America could not wait four to six more weeks for the weapons
inspectors to finish their work and reveal that it was no threat whatsoever.

* All the world, including the Bush administration, clearly understood that
Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize an invasion of Iraq.
Thus, in March 2003, the US drafted a second resolution which would
explicitly do so. It needed nine out of fifteen votes, with no permanent
member vetoes, to pass. In a press conference, Bush was asked whether he
would call for a vote regardless of anticipated outcome. He responded, "No
matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see
people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the
utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time
for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when
it comes to Saddam." But after extensive American pressure, lobbying and
even spying on Security Council members, only four countries were prepared
to vote in favor of the resolution, with three of the five permanent members
opposing. The president quietly withdrew the resolution he had promised "no
matter what".

* To this day Bush says in his speeches that Saddam did not comply with the
UN, that Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, and that Bush had
Security Council authorization to invade. None of those statements are true.

* In 2004, after saying that the Iraqi threat of WMD was urgent, Bush was
asked by a reporter whether he had concerns about North Korea's nuclear
weapons development program, which - unlike Iraq's - was quite real. In
response, the president just opened his palms and shrugged. North Korea has
since actually tested a nuclear warhead. Yet there is little expressed
concern, the president almost never mentions it, there is no invasion being
planned and no war drums being beaten.

* For that matter, there never was when the Soviet Union had more than
20,000 nuclear warheads mounted on ballistic missiles targeted on the US and
set to a hair trigger. Bush never explained why nuclear deterrence worked
against the Soviets with all their weapons for forty years, but couldn't
have had the same effect against Iraq today.

* Bush also never explained why Iraq had to be invaded, even though more
than thirty countries had greater WMD capability at the time.

* When the WMD and al Qaeda link rationales for the war were exploded, the
administration began arguing that its central purpose in invading Iraq was
to bring democracy to the country and to the Middle East. At the same time,
however, it has done next to nothing about Darfur, where more than 200,000
people have been murdered in a clear case of ongoing genocide. Since the
first requisite for being able to vote is to be alive, it is unclear how
invading Iraq in the name of democracy could be so urgent, yet saving lives
in Darfur of little concern and no action.

* The administration was told in advance by American intelligence agencies
that there was a very high danger that Iraq could explode into ethnic chaos
following an invasion. It chose to attack anyhow.

* According to former US diplomat Peter Galbraith, Bush was startled to
learn - in January 2003 - that there was a difference between Sunni and
Shiite Muslims. Responding to the three Iraqi exiles whom he had invited as
guests to the Super Bowl, Bush looked at them and said, "You mean.they're
not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?" As Bush
often likes to brag, he governs based on gut feelings, not on intelligence
or analysis. Those who know him state that he doesn't read books, and he
himself admitted he doesn't read newspapers.

* Before the war, General Eric Shinseki testified to Congress that several
hundred thousand troops would be needed to govern this country of 25 million
people during a post-war occupation. But since the administration was
insisting that the war could be handled with far fewer troops and at far
less expense, General Shinseki and at least one other general who made the
same argument were publicly humiliated and had their long and prestigious
military careers terminated for political reasons. Four years later, Bush is
now 'surging' in Iraq by adding troops to the 140,000 or so that were
already there, in addition to the 80,000 or so highly expensive mercenaries
the taxpayers are funding. With the total now nearing 250,000 soldiers
occupying the country, it is still transparently not enough to keep the

* To say that there was never a plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq is
technically incorrect. There was an extensive plan which the State
Department had put together, working with experts and Iraqi exiles. But
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn't want the State Department to
have the credit and control for the occupation, so he and Bush threw State's
document in the garbage. Then there was no plan.

* Most of the Americans sent to staff the Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA) had no technical or professional training or experience in the work to
which they were assigned. Rather, they were chosen because they were
Republican Party loyalists.

* One of the most significant blunders the United States committed during
the occupation was to dismiss the entire Iraqi Army, sending them home
unemployed and armed, along with anyone associated with the Ba'ath Party,
despite the fact that everyone who wanted to work at a professional level
anywhere in Iraqi society had been forced under Saddam to join the Party.
The first Chief Executive of the CPA, General Jay Garner, refused to purge
all Ba'athists from Iraqi governing institutions, and instead sought to
maximize Iraqi control of the post-war government as much as possible. He
was quickly fired.

* As a result of this war, over 3,500 Americans are dead, and perhaps 20,000
or so are gravely wounded. Americans have not been allowed to see the
caskets returning to Dover Air Force Base.

* The best, most scientific, and least politicized estimate of Iraqi dead
suggests that probably close to one million have now perished in the
country's post-war chaos, out of a population of 25 million.

* Nearly four million Iraqis have been forced to leave their homes as
refugees from the violence, flooding Jordan and Syria, especially. The
United States allowed all of 202 refugees - many thousands of whom have been
targeted for death for having cooperated with the US occupation - to settle
in America in 2006. America's major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, is
building a wall to keep them out.

* The United States has spent half a trillion dollars on the war, so far.
Estimates suggest that the number could rise to two trillion dollars before
the war is over and the continuing costs of medical care and economic
displacement are fully accounted for.

* America's army has been described by Colin Powell as "broken". Almost all
our land forces are deployed in Iraq - a war of choice - leaving none for
use in a real foreign crisis.

* Similarly, our National Guard and Reserve troops have been used in ways
that were never intended to fight this war - along with about 80,000 highly
expensive mercenaries - so that the president could avoid an unpopular
draft. This means that Guard and Reserve troops and their equipment are
unavailable for use in national emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina.

* As a result of the war, America is far more hated today throughout much of
the world, especially the Mid-East, and is seen as a imperialist power. The
Iraq invasion thus played directly into the hands of Islamic radicals like
Osama bin Laden.

* America's own intelligence agencies concede that Iraq has become a giant
factory for the minting of new terrorists, where almost none existed prior
to the invasion.

* Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold since, and largely
because of, the invasion of Iraq.

* Iran, a country whose government truly does despise the United States, has
been an enormous beneficiary of the war. Prior to 2003, Iran was a natural
check on Iraq among Middle East powers, and vice versa. Now Iran is
enormously influential in Iraq and throughout the region, its growth in
power alarming its neighbors.

* A very real possibility exists that the civil war now raging within Iraq
will become a regional war, perhaps drawing in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Jordan, Syria, Israel and others.

* Gas prices have doubled since the war began. The potential also exists for
a global depression should further conflict limit the flow of oil to
industrialized countries, just as these economies were damaged by OPEC doing
the same thing in the 1970s.

* To this day, American troops in Iraq do not have sufficient body or
vehicle armor, leading to hundreds of unnecessary deaths. Communities across
America have literally held bake sales to raise funds for purchasing armor
for their own kids. When confronted by a soldier about this, then-Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied, "You go to war with the Army you have.
They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time".

* Companies like Halliburton, meanwhile, in which the Vice President still
maintains financial interests, have received multi-billion dollar contracts
for work in Iraq, without having to competitively bid for them, and with the
internal influence of Cheney's office in winning the assignments. Numerous
scandals have emerged from these contracts, including billing for work never
completed. Eight billion dollars in cash, entrusted to the Coalition
Provisional Authority, has gone missing in one incident alone.

* Before the war, when they were marketing it to the public and Congress,
administration officials hinted that it would be quick, easy and cheap.
After the invasion, George Bush declared, under a "Mission accomplished"
banner, that fighting had ceased before the war had really even begun. It
has now lasted longer than America's involvement in World War Two, and the
administration has begun to talk about Iraq using the Korean model of a
fifty-year occupation.

* The invasion of Iraq was supposedly part of an American 'war on
terrorism'. But, today, the United States is protecting Luis Posada from
extradition to Venezuela or Cuba, despite that Posada has bragged about
blowing up an airliner and killing seventy-three people on board, as well as
a string of other bombings of Cuban hotels and nightclubs. The government
claims that Posada cannot be extradited to Venezuela because he might be
tortured, even though Venezuela has no such reputation - but after
Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and the Attorney General's renouncing of the Geneva
Conventions, the United States now does.

* None of the principals who decided to go to war in Iraq had ever seen
combat themselves. George W. Bush used his father's influence to avoid
service in Vietnam. John Ashcroft got seven draft deferments. Dick Cheney
got five deferments, and later said "I had better things to do in the
Sixties than fight in Vietnam". Neither Paul Wolfowitz nor Richard Perle nor
Condoleeza Rice ever served, and Donald Rumsfeld never fought in a war. The
only senior member of the administration who had was Colin Powell. Powell
advised Bush to be cautious about invading Iraq, and was thus sidelined from
discussions leading up to the war. George Bush's Secretary of State was not
informed of the decision to invade Iraq until after Prince Bandar, the Saudi
ambassador, had been told by the president.

While many can imagine political leaders making mistakes, most Americans
find it inconceivable that an American president could actually put personal
or political interests ahead of the national interest or the welfare of the
troops, especially on so grave an issue as war and peace.

But such individuals would do well to remember that there is a long history
of this sort of behavior, and that it is an unfortunate part of human
nature. The Europeans used to have an expression for this, which was all too
well earned from their own experiences. They noted that "War is the sport of

This is precisely why America's Founders so feared the concentration of
political power that they created a system devoted to spreading that power
out, through checks and balances, through federalism, and through guaranteed
civil liberties. Often those institutional obstacles have been successful at
preventing presidents from acting like kings, but sometimes not. During the
George W. Bush presidency, Congress has been a side-show, and many of
America's Bill of Rights-provided civil liberties have been shredded.

Some Americans may believe that, while Europeans have been unfortunate
enough to have suffered under warring governments, that could never happen
here. The truth, alas, is that it already has, many times. We know today
that the stories we were told by our government to justify US involvement in
the Mexican war, the Spanish-American War and the Vietnam War, for instance,
were complete and knowing fabrications, as the secret internal history of
the latter war - the Pentagon Papers - definitively proved in that case.

Today, Americans will have to decide for themselves whether George Bush's
invasion of Iraq to protect the United States from the threat of terrorism
was legitimate, or yet another example of a president sporting like a king,
at the expense of the American people, the troops, the Iraqis, and the

Personally, I think the evidence above does exactly what I had intended it
would do in assembling it for this article. On the question of the
motivation and justification for George Bush's invasion of Iraq, it speaks
for itself.

Jibber and Lamp said...

JUST ONE DAY's Headline on GOPig Gummint! ONE DAY!!!!! Imagine that...

Health Insurance Industry, Big Pharmaceuticals Launch Michael Moore Smear Campaign

Alaska GOP Senator Ted Stevens's son seems to have greased $750K for himself for consulting services, and his dad helped him get access to the money 6/23

Abu Ghraib Cover-up About To Explode: At some point Gen. Taguba will be called to testify publicly and will prove one of the most explosive witnesses in six years. 6/23

A US air strike in southern Afghanistan has killed up to 25 civilians 6/23

Why is Glenn Beck still on CNN? Guest Of CNN’s Beck: Watching someone murder the Clintons would be 'Great' 6/22

PBS to use "noted pollster" Luntz for presidential forum, despite GOP ties and reported reprimands 6/22

SiCKO is Michael Moore’s masterpiece -- rave review. 6/23

It's OK to kill millions in Iraq, Saddam did it too - Bush's spokesman 6/22

Progressive Daily Beacon: Republicans Begin to Cannibalize Their Own 6/22

To Avoid Complying with Congressional Demands for Information About Partisan Restructuring of the DOJ Into a GOP Strategic Division, Number Three at DOJ Abruptly Resigns. Leahy says it's to avoid answering more questions under oath. 6/23

An ever-present aide to Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney took a leave of absence Friday after he became the subject of investigations in two states for allegedly impersonating a law enforcement officer. 6/23

Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency—making him the least popular president since Nixon—in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.

How not to handle prisoners: Army officer says at Guantanamo, they 'relied on vague and incomplete intelligence and were pressured to declare detainees 'enemy combatants,' often without any specific evidence.' 6/23

Federal agencies responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita awarded more than $2.4 billion in contracts using a controversial form of pricing that critics say offers no incentive for cost savings. 6/24

Only 29% Say U.S. Winning War on Terrorism -- Lowest Number Since 9/11
GOP Congressman's immigration solution for Mexicans? Send condoms to the border! Does it get any crazier than that?

Wish we were making this up. Bush to black musicians playing on the South Lawn, 'Proud you're here. Thanks for coming. You all enjoy yourself. Make sure you pick up all the trash after it's over.' Embarrassment to us all. 6/23

Rising sea levels could divide and conquer Antarctic ice 6/24

So much for the success of vouchers: 'Students who participated in the first year of the District of Columbia’s federally financed school voucher program did not show significantly higher math or reading achievement', according to an Education Department study. Also, the students weren't more satisfied or safer than did students attending public schools. 6/23

The era of cheap food is coming to and end, and the developing world will pay first 6/23

A new congressional study has revealed the Environmental Protection Agency misled Lower Manhattan residents about levels of indoor air contamination after 9/11. The report was released during a Senate hearing Wednesday on the EPA's response after the collapse of the World Trade Center.6/23

A counterinsurgency guidance memo released last week by Army Lt. Gen Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day military operations, urges Iraqi and American troops to "get out and walk." Vehicles too dangerous to ride in. 6/23

Senator James Inhofe made a lot of noise today by claiming he overheard Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer saying that they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio. One problem: He's now told two versions of the story, and let's just say that they're strikingly, even comically, at odds with one another. 6/23

Federal officials are looking into hundreds of racist threats recently made by phone and e-mail to Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. 6/22

scrod said...

Griles Traded Many Favors With Abramoff
By Emma Schwartz
Legal Times

Monday 25 June 2007 Issue

Jack Abramoff had a problem. It was September 2003, and a film crew was shooting "National Treasure" at the Navy Memorial, located next to what was then Abramoff's restaurant, Signatures.

The crew's trailers and equipment were lined up near the building, and Abramoff, at his zenith as a big-time lobbyist with Greenberg Traurig, was concerned that they were blocking his valet parking area. This could be bad for business, but the crew, which had a permit from the National Park Service, refused to budge.

So Abramoff called J. Steven Griles, and within hours the deputy secretary for the Interior Department had the park service tell the film crew to move. "I have already chatted with Griles and am all over their asses," Abramoff e-mailed a colleague that night.

It wasn't the only time Abramoff asked Griles for help, prosecutors say, which is why they are pushing for prison time when Judge Ellen Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sentences Griles on June 26.

Griles, 59, pleaded guilty in March to lying to the Senate about his ties to Abramoff, who is now serving time in a federal prison in Maryland for his illegal lobbying activities. Under the sentencing guidelines, Griles faces 10 to 16 months in prison, but the Justice Department is asking for the lower end of the range, with the time split between prison and home confinement. That isn't low enough for Griles. His lawyers are asking for probation, three months' home confinement, 500 hours of community service, and a fine.

The restaurant incident is among several instances of influence-peddling between Abramoff and Griles detailed by prosecutors in recent court filings. The examples, prosecutors claim, show that Griles' lie was not a simple slip. His relationship with Abramoff spanned several years. Not only did Griles try to help Abramoff's clients win favorable decisions from the Interior Department, but Griles turned to Abramoff for legal services and what he hoped would be a lucrative job offer once he left the government. "Griles was not shy about asking Abramoff for return favors for the benefit of others close to him," prosecutors wrote.

But when Griles was called in 2005 before a Senate panel investigating Abramoff's lobbying activities, he testified that although Abramoff "apparently has claimed to have special access to my office on behalf of his Indian gaming clients, that is outrageous, and it is not true."

According to prosecutors, this claim, which was the basis for his guilty plea, hampered Senate investigators, who wrote in their final September 2006 report on the Abramoff lobbying scandal that they "cannot definitively conclude what, if anything, Griles did to assist Abramoff's clients on matters then pending at the Interior."

Griles' attorneys, Barry Hartman and Brian Stolarz of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, contend that their client's "life should not be measured by his one truly aberrational act that related to the unfortunate intersection between one's personal life and public service, but by his otherwise distinguished and proud history and character."

Indeed, prosecutors admit that they have "uncovered no evidence that defendant Griles personally accepted any money or gifts from Abramoff" - action that would have led to more criminal liability.

But the examples of access and aid that Abramoff and his clients received from Griles detailed in the government's filing show the limitations of prosecuting public corruption cases and illustrate how such favors remain perfectly legal inside the Beltway.

"There is a lot of stuff that goes on in Washington that is sleazy and looks bad that doesn't rise to the level of a crime," says Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at American University.

Back Scratchers

Abramoff and Griles met over breakfast at the Hay-Adams hotel in March 2001, just a week before Griles' Senate confirmation hearing for Interior's No. 2 slot - a position requiring oversight of the country's natural resources, parks, and forests, as well as American Indian communities. Their connection was Italia Federici, Griles' on-and-off girlfriend, whom he'd helped move to Washington, D.C., from Colorado. (Federici has now pleaded guilty in connection with the probe.)

From the start, their relationship was all business. After the breakfast, Griles asked Abramoff to raise $100,000 in funds for Federici's nonprofit advocacy group, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. Abramoff agreed, giving $500,000 - both personally and through his clients - over the next two years. Prosecutors say he "did so in an effort to maintain his access to defendant Griles."

Abramoff also had some ideas, and he sent Griles a note with names of people he recommended to fill senior department positions. E-mails show that one was Mark Zachares, a staffer for Rep. Donald Young (R-Alaska). Zachares was never tapped for a post and eventually pleaded guilty in connection with the scandal.

Over the next few years, Griles played an integral role in helping Abramoff gain access to other high-level Interior officials. During a September 2001 fund-raising dinner for CREA, Griles made sure that Abramoff and his tribal clients were on the list. "Even the seating chart - which placed the DOI Secretary and the DOI Solicitor at the same table as Abramoff and one of his clients - was cleared through Griles' office," prosecutors wrote.

It paid off. During the dinner, the legal counsel of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana spoke with Griles about the department's refusal to release $1.3 million in funds earmarked for a settlement between the federal government and the tribe over a land dispute.

Shortly afterward, Abramoff sent Griles a white paper advocating this position. Griles passed it on to the deputy assistant secretary for Indian affairs, along with a handwritten note: "Please provide me a report on why the distribution of the $1.3 million to the tribe has not occurred?" But Griles seemed to hide his relationship with Abramoff, too, writing that the white paper had come from the tribe - not Abramoff.

Abramoff also asked Griles for another favor: his help in "ensuring that the President does NOT endorse anyone in the race" for governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands - particularly the "liberal 'Republican' " candidate. Griles followed through with this promise and sent a letter to the White House with an almost verbatim request. And Griles made sure Abramoff knew he followed through. He sent Abramoff a blind copy of this letter, prosecutors wrote. In the end, Abramoff got his wish: no administration endorsement.

Griles continued to give Abramoff, through Federici, extraordinary access and help on a number of other client matters. When Abramoff's clients opposed the opening of two casinos by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians and the Gun Lake Tribe of Michigan, Griles tried to block the casinos. He also aided the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe in its bid for an education subsidy.

Fair-Weather Friend

At times, Griles asked for favors of his own. In early 2003, for instance, Griles and a friend wanted to create an education trust fund to benefit children of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Looking for legal support, Griles turned to Abramoff, who agreed to set them up with an attorney and even offered to help with funding. But soon after, banking company MBNA announced a similar project, and the three decided to call off their endeavor.

Griles also pushed résumés to Abramoff of potential hires at Greenberg Traurig, including those of a former Senate staffer and another friend who was a private lawyer in West Virginia. And he followed up to ensure his friends got attention.

Meanwhile, Griles was negotiating to get a job for himself at Abramoff's firm. After a September 2003 lunch with Abramoff, Griles asked Abramoff for a list of clients so that he could recuse himself from decisions at the department in the meantime. "I expect he will be with us in 90-120 days," Abramoff wrote his lobbying team after the lunch.

The process took a bit longer - too long, in fact. The deal had not yet been sealed by the time the first press report of possible improper lobbying by Abramoff surfaced in spring 2004. After that, the two ceased contact.

Lester said...

True conservatives standing up to Bush
By Ed Tant
Created Jun 23 2007 - 11:25am
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross," vowed Nobel Prize-winning novelist Sinclair Lewis more than 70 years ago. Today's America, more and more misled by George W. Bush and his Bible-brandishing base of faux conservative followers, is indeed becoming more and more like some sort of high-tech fascist state, as the president thumbs his nose at the U.S. Constitution while the courts and the legislative branch usually show little resistance to the dictatorial mindset of the Bush/Cheney White House crew.

Writer Lewis knew what he was talking about when he spoke of fascism coming to a nation that claims to be the land of the free. When Hitler came to power in Germany, the satirical and iconoclastic novels by Lewis were thrown into the flames during book burnings there. Lewis rightly considered it a high compliment that he was disliked by fascists, and as Hitler and his henchmen consolidated their power in Germany in the 1930s, the writer penned a powerful novel of an America under the iron heel of a dictator.

Titled "It Can't Happen Here," the 1935 novel tells the tale of an America ruled by a homegrown Hitler, President Buzz Windrip, a smiling, glad-handing politico in the mold of Sen. Huey Long of Louisiana. In real life, Lewis was the target of spying by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, along with other American writers like Ernest Hemingway, Upton Sinclair and John Steinbeck. One doesn't have to look too far to see that a police state can indeed happen here, if we let it happen.

While police-state trends have long been the norm in America under both Republican and Democratic White House regimes, the Bush/Cheney administration has cynically used the 9/11 tragedy to push an agenda of authoritarianism in this nation. For too long, not-so-liberal Democrats have rubber-stamped the Republicans' reactionary rule while so-called conservative Republicans have forsaken what are supposed to be the basic tenets of conservatism - fiscal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government.

Cooler heads may yet prevail, and American conservatives may yet learn to pay more than mere lip service to their professed ideals. In March, a group of conservatives formed a group called the American Freedom Agenda, which has issued a clarion call for the Republican Party to return to its roots rather than being simple and sycophantic cheerleaders for the Bush League.

On its Web site,, the group says, "Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence."

The conservatives of the American Freedom Agenda call for a campaign of restoration of American liberty that should enjoy support from liberals who still have spines - a rare breed on Capitol Hill these days.

Showing what conservative icon Barry Goldwater called "The Conscience of a Conservative," the AFA calls for the restoration of the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus that is the underpinning of our legal system. The group also takes a firm stand against government spying on Americans "on the President's say-so in violation of federal law." It issues a strong challenge against "signing statements" that allow the White House to ignore duly-passed laws, and aims to prohibit the Bush administration "from kidnapping, detaining and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments."

The American Freedom Agenda is led by such conservatives as Bruce Fein, who served in the Reagan Justice Department; David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail king of grassroots right-wingers, and former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, the gimlet-eyed enforcer of the Bill Clinton impeachment drive.

One can only hope Bob Barr will be as enthusiastic about impeaching Bush as he was about impeaching Clinton. Until Americans of every political philosophy rise up to challenge and curtail the corruption and chicanery of the Bush/Cheney regime, the words of Sinclair Lewis ring true: "I love America, but I don't like it."

Evan Sayet said...

Funny, conservatives criticize the President and the mindless leftists use that as proof that the Republicans walk in lockstep with the President.

Meanwhile, FBI files are found under Hillary's bed yet she remains the darling of the radical leftists, Barak Hussein Obama has absolutely nothing going for him other than the fact that his name sounds so anti-American that he's a serious contender for the the ironically named position of Democrat Party 'standard-bearer' (doesn't one have to have standards to bear them?)

The fact that no one ever walked in lockstep with this President -- we supported him when he was right, made clear our opposition when he was wrong -- but truth and facts never get in the way of what I identify in my talks as the Mindless Foot Soldier who hates George Bush not on policy but because he loves America.

Anonymous said...

Notice how none of these Leftists can tout any accomplishments of the progressives that have been in office for six months now...

That's pretty sad, if you ask me.

Whining. That's all they're capable of doing.

scrod said...

Any weak crackpots worth answering today?...noooooooooo...just blurts too silly to bother with...well, on to the next blog...nothing but pathetic weasels left on the right...if it wasn't for hate radio filling up 96% of airtime, we wouldnt' have even this tiny, brainwashed pack of fools left.

jibber said...

Wait, Scrod...don't you think this one would be fun to kick around before we leave the lonely little undtermensch behind?

"Funny, conservatives criticize the President and the mindless leftists use that as proof that the Republicans walk in lockstep with the President."

duuuuh...nooo, we use it as proof that while fool monkeys like you continue to walk in lockstep with the "president", REAL conservatives know what a bad little piggy he's been. Why don't you go back to the Noonan article you've all been ignoring so studiously and address that? Poor little wuv America, America hates you.

Anonymous said...

when i see goofus and goofus on here i laugh. i don't even bother to read their silly little rants. i hope they realize they are wasting their time.

y'all know it is the same person, right?

Anonymous said...

I love their brand of tragedy, though.

America hates us... and THEY hate America.

Talk about an unrequited love.

Lamp said...

General Chimp at work:
Afghan civilians reportedly killed more by U.S., NATO than insurgents
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S.-led coalition and NATO forces fighting
insurgents in Afghanistan have killed at least 203 civilians so far this
year - surpassing the 178 civilians killed in militant attacks, according to
an Associated Press tally.

Insurgency attacks and military operations have surged in recent weeks, and
in the past 10 days, more than 90 civilians have been killed by airstrikes
and artillery fire targeting Taliban insurgents, said President Hamid

Lamp said...

Wowzus Locksteppers/Silly Goosesteppers, lookee GOPig crime and scandal for just ONE day!!!!

FBI agent says Padilla doesn't use jihad code on tapes

Missing U.S. Soldier's Wife May Be Deported

Army Considers Longer Combat Tours.Again;_ylt=AjL2Gmo_CUcbiuY5dIjUkUus0NUE

Laura Bush Falsely Claims That 'Many' Iraqi Refugees Have Been Welcomed Into
The U.S.

Snow On Stem Cell Veto: 'This Is The President Putting Science Before

Guiliani's SC Campaign Chairman Indicted

A Rare Look at a Civilian Casualty In Iraq

The Mother of All Scandals

More troops, more troubles,1,5227115.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Troops' 1-month breaks blocked

Snow Responds To Potentially Illegal Use Of RNC Accounts: Clinton Did It Too

US Agencies Disobey 6 Laws that President Challenged

9/11 widows demand release of CIA's Inspector General report

Investigation Uncovers 'Extensive Destruction' Of RNC Emails, Violations Of
Records Act

NYC firefighters slam Giuliani.

Abu Ghraib Investigator Details Pentagon Cover-Up: 'I Thought I Was In The

Petraeus: Escalation Not Done By September, 50-Year Iraq Presence A
'Realistic Assessment'

Military mental health disorders spike.

FEMA may have authorized flood insurance overbilling

While Promoting Escalation In Iraq, U.S.-Backed Chalabi Blocks U.S.-Led
Political Reforms

O'Fleck said...

Sorry girls...liberal values dominate...low, self serving greed and warmongering conservatism repudiated...modern conservatives side with evil each time every time , you know.

Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007
Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats

Released: March 22, 2007

Navigate this report
Summary of Findings
Topline Questionnaire

Summary of Findings

View the complete report in pdf format

Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway.

At the same time, many of the key trends that nurtured the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s have moderated, according to Pew's longitudinal measures of the public's basic political, social and economic values. The proportion of Americans who support traditional social values has edged downward since 1994, while the proportion of Americans expressing strong personal religious commitment also has declined modestly.

Even more striking than the changes in some core political and social values is the dramatic shift in party identification that has occurred during the past five years. In 2002, the country was equally divided along partisan lines: 43% identified with the Republican Party or leaned to the GOP, while an identical proportion said they were Democrats. Today, half of the public (50%) either identifies as a Democrat or says they lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 35% who align with the GOP.

Yet the Democrats' growing advantage in party identification is tempered by the fact that the Democratic Party's overall standing with the public is no better than it was when President Bush was first inaugurated in 2001. Instead, it is the Republican Party that has rapidly lost public support, particularly among political independents. Faced with an unpopular president who is waging an increasingly unpopular war, the proportion of Americans who hold a favorable view of the Republican Party stands at 41%, down 15 points since January 2001. But during that same period, the proportion expressing a positive view of Democrats has declined by six points, to 54%.

The study of the public's political values and attitudes by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press – the most recent in a series of such reports dating back to 1987 – finds a pattern of rising support since the mid-1990s for government action to help disadvantaged Americans. More Americans believe that the government has a responsibility to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves, and that it should help more needy people even if it means going deeper into debt.

These attitudes have undergone a major change since 1994, when the Republicans won control of Congress. In particular, 54% say the government should help more needy people, even if it adds to the nation's debt, up from just 41% in 1994. All party groups are now more supportive of government aid to the poor, though Republicans remain much less supportive than Democrats or independents if it means adding to the deficit.

Despite these favorable shifts in support for more government help for the poor, 69% agree that "poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs." Still, the number in agreement has been declining over the past decade.

More broadly, the poll finds that money worries are rising. More than four-in-ten (44%) say they "don't have enough money to make ends meet," up from 35% in 2002. While a majority continues to say they are "pretty well satisfied" with their personal financial situation, that number is lower than it has been in more than a decade.

In addition, an increasing number of Americans subscribe to the sentiment "today it's really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer." Currently, 73% concur with that sentiment, up from 65% five years ago. Growing concerns about income inequality are most apparent among affluent Americans; large percentages of lower-income people have long held this opinion.

The new survey also shows that the deep partisan fissure in values and core attitudes revealed in Pew's previous survey in 2003 has narrowed slightly. But Republicans and Democrats remain far apart in their fundamental attitudes toward government, national security, social values, and even in evaluations of personal finances. Three-in-four (74%) Republicans with annual incomes of less than $50,000 say they are "pretty well satisfied" with their financial conditions compared with 40% of Democrats and 39% of independents with similar incomes.

Even as Americans express greater commitment to solving domestic problems, they voice more hesitancy about global engagement. They also are less disposed than five years ago to favor a strong military as the best way to ensure peace.

In 2002, less than a year after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, more than six-in-ten agreed with the statement, "The best way to ensure peace is through military strength." Today, about half express similar confidence in military power.

The latest values survey, conducted Dec. 12, 2006-Jan. 9, 2007, finds a reversal of increased religiosity observed in the mid-1990s. While most Americans remain religious in both belief and practice, the percentage expressing strong religious beliefs has edged down since the 1990s. And the survey finds an increase in the relatively small percentage of the public that can be categorized as secular.

In Pew surveys since the beginning of 2006, 12% identified themselves as unaffiliated with a religious tradition. That compares with 8% in the Pew values survey in 1987. This change appears to be generational in nature, with each new generation displaying lower levels of religious commitment than the preceding one.

In addition, political differences in levels of religious commitment are larger now than in years past. Republicans are at least as religious as they were 10 or 20 years ago, based on the numbers expressing belief in God, citing prayer as important, and other measures. By contrast, Democrats express lower levels of commitment than in the late 1980s and 1990s.

At the same time, the survey records further declines in traditional social attitudes. The poll finds greater public acceptance of homosexuality and less desire for women to play traditional roles in society. Both represent a continuation of trends that have been apparent over the past 20 years, and have occurred mostly among older people. The younger generations have changed the least, as they have consistently expressed more accepting points of view over the past 20 years.

Divides on some once-contentious issues also appear to be closing. In 1995, 58% said they favored affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better jobs. That percentage has risen steadily since, and stands at 70% in the current poll. Gains in support for affirmative action have occurred to almost the same extent among Republicans (+8), Democrats (+10), and Independents (+14).

Changes nationally in the beliefs of Americans on social, political and religious values tell a revealing but incomplete story. The proportion of voters who hold certain politically relevant core beliefs varies widely from state to state, further complicating an already complicated 2008 election campaign. For example, politically conservative, white evangelical Christians make up 10% of all Republicans and Republican leaners in New Hampshire – currently the first state to hold its presidential primaries in 2008 – but 39% of all GOP partisans in South Carolina where primary voters go to the polls several days later. On the Democratic side, the proportion of Democrats who say they are politically liberal ranges from 38% in California to 25% in South Carolina. (See pages 10-11 for a fuller ideological profiling of key primary states)

Among other key findings from the wide-ranging survey:

The public expresses highly favorable views of many leading corporations. Johnson & Johnson and Google have the most positive images of 23 corporations tested. At the bottom of the list: Halliburton, which is viewed favorably by fewer than half of those familiar enough with the company to give it a rating.

Views of many corporations vary significantly among Democrats along class lines. Two-thirds of working-class Democrats have a favorable view of Wal-Mart compared with 45% of professional-class Democrats.

Americans are worried more that businesses rather than government are snooping into their lives. About three-in-four (74%) say they are concerned that business corporations are collecting too much personal information while 58% express the same concern about the government.

The public is losing confidence in itself. A dwindling majority (57%) say they have a good deal of confidence in the wisdom of the American people when it comes to making political decisions. Similarly, the proportion who agrees that Americans "can always find a way to solve our problems" has dropped 16 points in the past five years.

Americans feel increasingly estranged from their government. Barely a third (34%) agree with the statement, "most elected officials care what people like me think," nearly matching the 20-year low of 33% recorded in 1994 and a 10-point drop since 2002.

Young people continue to hold a more favorable view of government than do other Americans. At the same time, young adults express the least interest in voting and other forms of political participation.

Interpersonal racial attitudes continue to moderate. More than eight-in-ten (83%) agree that "it's all right for blacks and whites to date," up six percentage points since 2003 and 13 points from a Pew survey conducted 10 years ago.

Republicans are increasingly divided over the cultural impact of immigrants. Nearly seven-in-ten (68%) conservative Republicans say immigrants threaten American customs, compared with 43% of GOP moderates and liberals. Democrats have long been divided along ideological lines, but the GOP previously had not been.

Roadmap to the Report

Section 1, which begins on p. 7, describes the striking shift in party identification over the past five years, the public's views of both parties, and the ideological profile of the early presidential primary states. Section 2, which details the public's views of the government safety net, success and empowerment, and personal finances, begins on p. 12. Section 3 (p. 19) covers public attitudes toward foreign policy and national security. Section 4 (p. 30) covers opinions about religion and social issues. Section 5 (p. 39) describes changing attitudes toward race and race relations. Section 6 (p. 45) discusses the public's complex views about government and political participation. Opinions about business, and ratings for individual corporations, are covered in Section 7, which begins on p. 52. Section 8 covers public views about civil liberties, the environment, and science.

Anonymous said...

it's easy to copy and paste an entire book.

O' said...

it's easy to copy and paste an entire book.

That's a small column, but still far too much for you to absorb. I know, as a veteran and long time kool aid addict, it took me a long time to finally allow in the truth that's been knocking loudly at the door for several years now. I'm not really about to vote Dem but I'm sure as hell done with my former party. They pay lip service to our values but that's the end of it...all just to get our votes which we give them like a bunch of suckers. Then what do we get...the messes we've seen the last few years and nothing but maybe a little movement on abortion. These people who run the party laugh at us "commoners" and take themoney and run.

Anonymous said...

I've got a feeling that if someone ever took away their soapbox, the progressive house of cards would crumble like a week old piece of fidge.

They can't make their case logically or rhetorically. They can only "spam".

2008 is going to be a GREAT year!

Pig Killer said...


Dana Simpson, a Republican, testified against Republicans in Alabama. Since then, her house was burned to the ground, and her car was driven off the road and totaled. Retaliation? 6/26

Bush Enables Increased Number of Junkies in the U.S.: "Afghanistan produced dramatically more opium in 2006, increasing its yield by nearly 50 percent from a year earlier and pushing global opium production to a new record high, a U.N. report said Tuesday."

The Iraq-gate Cover-up Continues: 'an unnoted success for George W. Bush was how the U.S. press corps has continued to avert its eyes from the role of Westerners, including Bush’s father, in aiding and abetting Hussein’s murderous regime.' 6/26


but one GOPiggy goes straight!...Oink, oink!!!

Key Republican Defection on Iraq: "Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said Monday that Bush's Iraq strategy was not working and that the United States should downsize the military's role. The unusually blunt assessment deals a political blow to Bush, who has relied heavily on GOP support to stave off anti-war legislation." 6/27

Sen. Lugar, GOP Veteran, Goes Where Editorials Fear to Tread: Calls for Start of Iraq Pullout; This is huge. 6/27

Senator Lugar the latest Republican to defect from Bush's disaster 6/26

Presidental hopeful Sam Brownback (R-unning on Fumes) promises to appoint a Supreme Court justice that will overturn Roe v. Wade 6/26

Former EPA head to come clean about her claims that the dirty air around Ground Zero was safe to breathe in the days after 9/11 6/26

High School Seniors Get in Bush's Face and Tell Him to Ban Torture.

By 5-4 decisions, Supreme Court completely contradicts itself on free speech; U.S. citizens, regardless of age or message, should have freedom of speech. 6/27

WAPO's Sally Says GOP Looking to Oust Cheney, Replaced with Fred Thompson 6/27

NYT Suggests Murdoch Bought Off Senator Lott To Bypass TV Station Ownership Rules

A massive expansion of the federal government, supported by big business, is on the way. Conservatives couldn’t be less prepared. 6/26

A GOP plan to oust Cheney is afoot! 6/26

Suicide bombings in Iraq kill 50 6/26

A former U.S. Army Reserve officer was sentenced to nearly two years in prison for helping steer millions of dollars in Iraq-reconstruction contracts in exchange for jewelry, computers, cigars and sexual favors. 6/26

CBS's 'Sicko' Spin; Americans Don't Want Single-Payer Health—Except They Do; Outright falsehoods and lies dominate the analysis. 6/26

Murdoch's News Corp. paid no federal taxes in 2 of last 4 yrs, yet pretax profits $9.4 BILLION 6/26

Suppressing the Vote: 'it is clear that the U.S. Attorney scandal -- as outrageous as it is on its own – is part of a much broader effort by the Bush Administration to use government institutions for partisan gain.' 6/26

Two retired Army generals toured New Hampshire in a campaign against the Iraq war. 'It's time for us to get the hell out of there' 6/26

PBS is using Frank Luntz, discredited GOP pollster, to provide analysis of Democratic Presidential forum; So much for it being a 'liberal' outlet. 6/26 The Sacramento Bee editor has to beg for pro-Bush letters to the editor 6/27

Fred Thompson is the Philip Morris candidate 6/26

Two more partisan Republican Supreme Court 5-4 decisions: 'The Supreme Court gave President Bush and Republican leaders two important victories today by clearing the way for corporate-funded broadcast ads before next year's election and by shielding the White House's "faith-based initiative" from challenge in the courts.' 6/26

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has confronted a spate of bad news in recent days, from the drug indictment of his South Carolina chairman to criticism for skipping meetings of the Iraq Study Group. It couldn't happen to a more arrogant, hypocritical, vain buffoon. 6/26

Ex-EPA chief Christie Whitman was bombarded by boos and a host of accusations Monday at a hearing into her assurances that it had been safe to breathe the air around the fallen World Trade Center. 6/26

Claire McCaskill, who has Harry Truman's old Senate seat, returns from Iraq with some blunt talk on the war and contracting abuse. 6/26

As the Vietnam War raged in the 1960s, Mitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon "minister of religion" for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years. 6/26

'Vote caging' allegations arise in probe of U.S. attorney firings; Issue also came up in Ohio in 2004 6/26

Romney campaign director investigated for impersonating a police officer; What kind of campaign ethics do they have? 6/26

Christine Todd Whitman, Of All People, Rats Out the Truth on Giuliani: "Former Environmental Protection Agency boss Christie Whitman says she urged Ground Zero workers to wear respirators, but then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani blocked her efforts. She also said city officials didn't want EPA workers wearing haz-mat suits because they "didn't want this image of a city falling apart." 6/26

Mormon church obtained Vietnam draft deferrals for Romney

Not lookin' good for ole Rep. John Doolittle (R-Final Act)

Oklahoma Set To Execute Terminally Ill Inmate With Just Six Months To Live 6/26


Anonymous said...

spamming is so childish. it reminds me of my kids trying to get me to buy them toys.

Anonymous said...

what gets me is that these trolls actually think that politics are supposed to be fair.

get over it already. stop acting like a little baby.

scrod the munki killer said...

Checking in on the Dead Zone for today...

Onanimus bleats incoherently...
what gets me is that these trolls actually think that politics are supposed to be fair.

get over it already. stop acting like a little baby.

hahahahah...what's that supposed to mean?...a little major corruption here and there, a few more indictments, another hundred killed for no reason, the "goddamned piece of paper" torn up a little more...all in a days work for the GOOPiggies...hahahahahawhadda simp

scrod said...

then the little weasel whines: Anonymous said...
spamming is so childish. it reminds me of my kids trying to get me to buy them toys.

I agreeze most egregiously...why would you post a simple minded truism like that? What's it got to do with anything? Hey, btw, have you noticed all those substantive articles containg FACT, REASON and EVIDENCE posted? Why haven't we seen some defense of the pathetic and dying right wing position regarding those? No answer just whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiining...

Anonymous said...

yeah right, facts....ha ha. you wouldn't know facts if it burst out of your tiny little vegan tummy.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to announce to all my fans that the most important decision of the 2008 presidential campaign has just been made.

Celine Dion will sing at my innaugural.

So, don't forget to vote!

Anonymous said...

...but, but, if you become president, I'll no longer be the most powerful woman in the free world! I'll just be treated by the media like an ugly step-sister.

Damn you, Hillary!

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, Nancy. The people want ME to run again. Support MY candidacy and I'll let you be Queen of the Daytime, and I'll become Queen of the Night!

Anonymous said...

Estamos buscando trabajo... "You get yob for us?" Vota para nosotros.

Anonymous said...

Si senor, that Juan Kerry. He good worker. You give yob? Trabajo muy bien. Te prometo!

Anonymous said...

Oui, Jacques Kerry c'est magnifique

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

don't forget Hussein Obama

Anonymous said...

So many great candidates! Now which should I vote for????

Anonymous said...

Me of course. I'll be anything you want me to be.

Anonymous said...

...but only I can sell enough carbon offsets to save the planet!

Vote for me!

Anonymous said...

Sooooo many GREAT choices! Now, even I'm confused....

Anonymous said...

Now THAT was just silly. Everyone knows that with me in charge, we don't even NEED a president!

Anonymous said...

don't forget about jimmy carter, murtha, john edwards wife, cold cash jefferson, mondale, jimmy carter, bubba, michael moore, rosie, glover, etc...

lamp said... this the silliest bunch of lightweight dinx on the internet? Why, yas, I believe it is.

scrod said...

The little onanist beats his tiny organ in public...yeah right, facts....ha ha. you wouldn't know facts if it burst out of your tiny little vegan tummy.

oooooh...listen to the frightened, defensive, little 26 percenter...he knows he can't deal in facts, reason and evidence and he pouts and whines like the modern conservative must's all he's got left. What are you morons doing on a pol site in the first place...there hasn't been ONE post in this wasteland of mediocrities that had one thing to say about politics...inane, witless, childish remarks by fools who don't have a's why America hates you just aren't ready to DO IT and you never will be...Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon, BOOOOOSH...everytime you get in it's another disaster.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to thank you all for voting Democratic. Since we've taken over the Congress, more earmarks for the purchase of military equipment have gone to MY district than ever before in the history of the planet. Keep it up!

Oink Oink said...

another slimey liberal bubbleing up from the depths to deliver it's drab

it must be tough having a lower % than our leader (your commander and chief). i think congress is at 24%, so sad.

Lamp for the mice said...

Hahaha...check this out, you poor, dumb, little're being left even further behind by the few Repubicans with a, they're being joined by the gutless ones who know they're following a looooozer. Lugar has broken the back of the vile neo-con's all over ...time for you little rats to start running.

More Republicans join Lugar in calling for withdrawal from Iraq

WASHINGTON - Some Senate Republicans are suddenly pushing the White House to begin withdrawing most U.S. troops from Iraq, apparently deciding that they can't wait for a September report to call for changing course.

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, bluntly declared that President Bush's Iraq plan isn't working and called for withdrawing most American forces, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he was writing Bush on Tuesday to urge him to embrace a Plan E (for exit).

Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Lugar's comments would carry weight with fellow Republicans.

Democratic leaders held up Lugar's speech as a political victory for their views. While most Democratic lawmakers have supported withdrawal, most Republicans have stood behind Bush - although many have indicated that they may break with him if U.S. military leaders report in September that the outlook isn't improving. The unpopular four-year-old war, its failure to achieve positive results and the nearness of 2008 elections are putting heavy pressure on Republicans to back away from Bush's war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that when historians look back, "I believe that Senator Lugar's words yesterday could be remembered as the turning point. But that will depend on whether more Republicans will take the courageous first step that Senator Lugar took last night."

In his speech, however, Lugar pointedly urged members of both parties to cool their partisan rhetoric and work with Bush to change Iraq policy.

Both Lugar and Voinovich said Bush's Iraq strategy is undermining America's larger national-security interests and that now is the time to devise a better one.

Lugar warned that time is short.

Bipartisan agreement on "a rational course adjustment" would be nearly impossible if the debate takes place during the 2008 election for control of the White House and Congress, he said.

"Three factors - the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military and the constraints of our own domestic political process - are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to engineer a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq in a reasonable time frame," Lugar said.

The veteran Indiana senator, who enjoys wide respect as a foreign-policy statesman who shuns partisan grandstanding, called on Bush to downsize the military's role in Iraq, moving some forces to Kuwait and other nearby countries. A smaller American force would remain in Iraq's Kurdish region or in defensible areas outside Iraqi cities. U.S. forces would continue to fight terrorists, train Iraqis and deliver economic aid, but would stop trying to end fighting among Iraqi factions.

Lugar also said the United States should support a gathering of regional countries to help solve Iraq's problems and take up broader concerns in the Middle East - including terrorism, Iran's rise and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

White House spokesman Tony Snow downplayed Lugar's comments, saying he already had been opposed to the surge.

"Obviously, Dick Lugar is giving what he thinks is his best advice, and we certainly appreciate it and take it seriously, but we also believe that it is very important to go ahead and let the surge, number one, finish getting put in place, and second, let's see what results it produces."

Snow said the White House didn't know about Lugar's speech in advance and that it got the White House's attention. "Dick Lugar is a serious guy, so obviously you take it seriously."

The White House called Lugar on Tuesday and planned to send an official over to talk with him later in the week.

Warner, an influential Republican on military affairs, called Lugar's speech "very helpful and constructive."

When the Senate starts to debate a defense policy bill soon after July 4th, "you'll be hearing a number of statements from other colleagues," said Warner, who opposed the surge but voted against a timeline for withdrawal.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who backs Bush's increase of forces in Iraq, said Lugar's conclusion was "premature."

"The enemy is still fighting. That doesn't mean we've failed. The troops have just gotten in place. I don't think it's quite fair to them," Graham said.

Still, Graham said Lugar was a "wonderful man" and so respected that his proposal would affect the debate. "I don't know how it will play out yet," he said.

For his part, Voinovich said he wants the Bush administration to emphasize diplomacy and aid rather than military power. His plan would leave some American forces in Iraq to train Iraqis and fight terrorists, but withdraw most others, and get other countries in the region involved in pressuring Iraqis to accept a decentralization plan and avoid a broader war.

"We're running out of time," he said. "If they are listening and they are moving forward with some of these initiatives, I think that we'll be patient. If they're not, I think many of us will talk about looking at legislation that will limit the number of troops that are there."

Voinovich rejected the Republican argument that Americans can't withdraw because al-Qaida would win.

"That's nonsense," he said. Iraq's Shiite majority would reject any Sunni al-Qaida effort to set up a religious government under a supreme leader, he said.

"All of us are frustrated," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. She supports decentralization for Iraq and opposes a congressionally mandated withdrawal.

Collins, who opposed the surge, said Lugar's ideas "will carry weight with a lot of us." She said she hoped Democrats would resist the temptation to seize on Lugar's comments and advocate a quick withdrawal and instead see his speech as an invitation to craft legislation that moderate Republicans could support.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, said on CNN that Lugar proposed what he and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., have been calling for: "You need a fundamental change in strategy. Get out of the civil war. Train the Iraqi forces. Prevent al-Qaida from occupying territory. Draw down troops immediately. You don't need 160,000 troops to do those missions. And move to bring the international community and the neighbors in."

Lugar's speech can be read on his Web site:

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 427   Newer› Newest»